A Comparison of Primate and Dolphin Intelligence Essay

They are ready to call upon the “Clever Hans phenomenon” whenever an animal seems to be exhibiting intelligent behavior. Clever Hans taught psychology some important lessons, but the incident may also have madebehavioral scientists[5] too cautious about the mental abilities of animals. Animals that are easy to train may also be very intelligent. Some of the most trainable creatures, such as dolphins, are also the most likely candidates for genuine animal thinking. But finding ways to get at animals’ real mental capacity can be very difficult. Many pitfalls await the scientist trying to interpret animals’ behavior and make inferences about their intelligence. One is inconsistency An animal might breeze through what we consider a difficult learning task and then fail when presented with what seems obvious to us. When an animal can’t perform well, we don’t know if it really cannot solve the problems put to it or if it just doesn’t want to. Sometimes the difficulty lies in the perceptive abilities of the animals. The animal may have the mental ability and the desire to solve the problem but is unable to make the discriminations[6] being asked of it. For example, a researcher using colored objects to compare learning in a cebus monkey and in a rhesus monkey first found that the rhesus scored much better than the

Dolphins are able to plan their behavior to achieve a solution more efficiently, as well as create novel behaviors. Trained to move weights across a pool to receive a reward, each dolphin independently deduced that they could carry multiple weights at once to reduce the number of trips (Kuczaj et al., 2009). In another test they were able to plan the order of dropping weights in order to optimize the number of fish rewards they could receive (Kuczaj et al., 2009). These demonstrated their ability to analyze problems, plan an appropriate solution, and carry it out in an efficient order. Mirror self-recognition (MSR) has also been demonstrated in bottlenose dolphins, with the dolphins using the mirror to investigate a mark on their heads using a mirror, a level of self-awareness only shared by great apes (Marino, 2002). It is possible that the level of cortical connectivity is a significant factor in the emergence of complex cognitive capabilities such as self-recognition (Marino,

Goodall’s conceptualization of the chimpanzee mind can be used as a referential model for human ancestors because her connections between the human and chimpanzee mind show incredible similarities. If our thought processes and emotional capacity are as similar as our genetics, then there is compelling evidence stating that we are even more alike than only a possible genetic drift. This possibility supports the ancestral connection between humans and other primates. This includes other primates. For example, Koko the gorilla, as well as other members of the Gorilla Foundation, learned ASL and, much like Goodall’s chimpanzees, could form incredible complex thoughts, even creating their own words for objects that they did not know the name of (for example, Koko called a “ring” a “finger bracelet” when she never learned the sign for “ring”).

With the current arsenal of research on non-human primates and humans, our status as the only species able to comprehend and produce advanced language still seems to be intact. Yet, as we learn more about the best way to teach primates, this intellectual gap may decrease. It is unlikely to completely disappear due to the evolutionary differences between human and non-human primate brains. Although, non-human primates do seem to share a critical period relative to their development, where language acquisition is at it’s strongest. This similarity can and should be further explored to help us learn more about the way our own brains develop through puberty. The fact that we cannot completely communicate with these primates also leaves us ignorant to their intentions and thought process throughout studies, allowing us to possibly project our own thoughts onto the test subjects. One must be very diligent in designing a study that minimizes misattribution. It is unlikely that the debate between Nativism and Empiricism will ever reach a conclusion, but the research done to defend either side can help us understand a great deal about just how unique or similar we may be when compared to our closest

“The Brains of the Animal Kingdom” by Frans De Waal is the first essay I have chosen. In this paper, De Waal, a professor of primate behavior at Emory University, writes about how some primates are smarter at performing a select task compared to a human. De Waal continues his research by incorporating evidence of animal intelligence with an anecdote about Kandula, a young elephant who would move a box to retrieve high hanging fruit. He also adds in Kyoto, the chimpanzee that could “recall a random series of nine numbers, from one to nine, and then tap them in the right order, even though the numbers had been displayed for just a fraction of a second (De Waal 302).” The results were compared to a human, who had more time and had to keep track of less numbers, and still Kyoto surpassed the human. De Waal utilizes his past experience and adds compelling evidence that creates a sense of validity in his writing, therefore making his point that humans underestimate the extent of animal ability.

Ten years ago, brain researchers thought they understood the complex components of the human brain. They concluded that all mammalian brains were similarly made, and that the number of neurons within a given brain corresponded directly to brain size. These previously held ideas upset Suzana Herculano-Houzel because they were based upon little scientific evidence. She found both cow and primate brains to be relatively the same size, yet primates displayed a higher cognitive ability. Likewise, if brain size was an indication of cognitive ability, certain animals with larger brains should possess higher cognitive abilities than humans. However, previous neuroscientists dismissed these contradictions by referring to the human brain as “special.” Examples like these convinced Suzana Herculano-Houzel that all mammalian brains were not similarly made. She inquired to understand why the human brain was “special” and not bound by

While the orangutan is a hefty animal, its features are the characteristics that really set it apart. Uniquely, this ape grows reddish fur that becomes darker with age and slate-gray flesh with patches of pebbly skin on its chest. If the orangutan’s looks seem impressive, then one must ready themselves for the surprising intelligence of this primate. The orangutan shares 96.4% of our genes, and proves smart enough to craft tools out of sticks, such as probes, sponges, and umbrellas.

Ideas are built upon fundamental ideas. When the Aquatic Ape Hypothesis (AAH) was proposed over 70 years ago, it received criticism from the scientific community because of the multiple theories that had been established based on the Savanna Hypothesis; however, the Savanna Hypothesis was proven to be false. The foundation is essential to any hypothesis and theory. There is always space for exploration and accepting other methods and ideas – that is the heart of Science. The Aquatic Ape Hypothesis can be proven through the similarities drawn between humans and aquatic mammals in the areas of human physiology and brain biochemistry.

It is often thought that animals are emotionless and unable to express how they feel. However scientists and physiologists believe that animals actually have complex thought processes

Have you ever wondered how animals live without humans to help them? Scientist say that some animals are as smart, or smarter than some humans. African elephants are one of the most intelligent animals in the world. Even though elephants are smaller than whales, they are a lot smarter. The elephant’s brain is about fifty kg. big. That is probably why the elephant is so intelligent.

“We once viewed ourselves as the only creatures with emotions, morality, and culture. But the more we investigate the animal kingdom, the more we discover that is simply not true” (Hogenboom 15). The topic we are discussing today is “Humans are fundamentally different than other animals” and I negate it. I’m going to argue that apes share traits comparable to humans and that animals sleep and have emotions just like humans.

As claims the premise below, the ecological (e.g., temperature, humidity, altitude, and alimentation) and social (relationships with the environment and other organisms) factors could mould the perceptual and cognitive characteristic of a given species. It means that among nonhumans vertebrates they learn differently and have difference intelligence. Some authors, such as Clayton et al. (1998), supports this point of view. But this is not a universal thought within the scientific world. Mcphail and Bolhuis (2001), for example, do not see a relation between cognitive abilities and ecological factors. Moreover, Mcphail (1982, 1885), with his “null hypothesis,” claims that all vertebrates non-humans are of equal intelligence.

“And some animals have also in addition to these faculties that of locomotion, still others also the thinking faculty and intellect, such as man and any other creature there may be like him or superior to him.” (De Anima, II.3, 414b)

The capability of a chimpanzees is greater in their physical aspect rather than their cognitive. They seem to understand the information given to them up to a limit. Primatologist Povinelli conducted a research to view the chimpanzees cognitive range.

There are many aspects of our minds and our behavior that separates us in greater or lesser degree of species that are genetically closer to us as humans. However, science through observations, experiments and studies has shown that humans and primates share many similarities; both from the physical point of view and from an emotional perspective. Many biological traits, as well as emotions and some communicative behaviors are common and particularly relevant between humans and great apes, which, of all the members of the animal Kingdom, are our closest relatives, evolutionarily.