黄色直播 the author: is a PhD student in the Department of Philosophy at 黄色直播.
It is often thought that humans are different from other animals in some fundamental way . These claims of human superiority are sometimes used to , in the home, the lab or the factory farm.
So, what is it that makes us so different from other animals? Many philosophers, both and , have pointed to our linguistic abilities. These philosophers argue that language not only allows us to communicate with each other, but also makes our mental lives more sophisticated than those that lack language. Some philosophers have gone so far as to argue that creatures that lack a language are not capable of , making , or even or .
Even if we are willing to accept these claims, what should we think of animals who are capable of speech? , most famously , are able to make noises that at least sound linguistic, and and have been taught to communicate using sign language. Do these vocalizations or communications indicate that, like humans, these animals are also capable of sophisticated mental processes?
The philosophy of animal language
Philosophers have generally answered this question by denying that talking parrots and signing gorillas are demonstrating anything more than clever mimicry. , a philosopher at the University of Pittsburgh, has argued that if a parrot says 鈥渞ed鈥� when shown red objects and 鈥渂lue鈥� when presented with blue ones, . According to Brandom 鈥� and 鈥� understanding the meaning of a word requires understanding both the meaning of many other words and the connections that exist between those words.
Read more:
Imagine that you bring your toddler niece to a petting zoo for the first time, and ask her if she is able to point to the rabbits. If she successfully does, this might seem like a good indication that she understands what a rabbit is. However, you now ask her to point to the animals. If she points to some rocks on the ground instead of pointing to the rabbits or the goats, does she actually understand what the word 鈥渞abbit鈥� means? Understanding 鈥渞abbit鈥� involves understanding 鈥渁nimal,鈥� as well as the connection between these two things.
So if a parrot is able to tell us the colour of different objects, that does not necessarily show that the parrot understands the meanings of those words. To do that, a parrot would need to demonstrate that it also understands that red and blue fall underneath the category of colour, or that if something is red all over, it cannot, at the same time, be blue all over.
What sort of behaviour would demonstrate that a parrot or a chimpanzee did understand the words it was using? As a philosopher who focuses on the study of animal cognition, I examine both empirical and theoretical work to answer these types of questions.
In recent research, I argue that . In order to see why, we need to take a brief detour through the philosophy of mathematics.
Counting animals
In the late 1800s, the German mathematician and philosopher tried to demonstrate that arithmetic is an objective science. Many philosophers and mathematicians at the time thought that arithmetic was merely an artifact of human psychology. Frege worried that such an understanding would make arithmetic entirely subjective, placing it on no firmer ground than the .
In , Frege begins by logically analyzing what sorts of things numbers are. He thinks that the key to this investigation is figuring out what it takes to answer the question 鈥渉ow many?鈥�
If I hand you a deck of cards and ask, 鈥淗ow many?鈥� without specifying what I want counted, it would be difficult to even figure out what sort of answer I am looking for. Am I asking you how many decks of cards, how many cards all together, how many suits or any of the other number of ways of dividing up the deck? If I ask, 鈥淗ow many suits?鈥� and you respond 鈥渇our,鈥� you are demonstrating not just that you can count, but that you understand what suits are.
Frege thought that the application of number labels depends on being able to grasp the connection between what is being counted and how many of them there are. Replying 鈥渇our鈥� to the question 鈥淗ow many?鈥� might seem like a disconnected act, like parrots merely calling red objects 鈥渞ed.鈥� However, it is more like your niece pointing to the rabbits while also understanding that rabbits are animals. So, if animals are able to reliably respond correctly to the question 鈥淗ow many?鈥� this demonstrates that they understand the connection between the numerical amount and the objects they are being asked about.
Animal mathematical literacy
One example of non-human animals demonstrating a wide range of arithmetical capabilities is the that did with , most famously her subjects Alex and Griffin.
In order to test , Pepperberg would show him a set of objects on a tray, and would ask, 鈥淗ow many?鈥� for each of the objects. For example, she would show him a tray with differently shaped objects on it and ask, 鈥淗ow many four-corner?鈥� (Alex鈥檚 word for squares.) Alex was able to reliably provide the answer for amounts up to six.
Alex was also able to provide the name for the object if asked to look for a number of those objects. For example, if a tray had different quantities of coloured objects on it including five red objects, and Alex was asked, 鈥淲hat colour is five?鈥� Alex was able to correctly respond by saying 鈥渞ed.鈥�
Pepperberg鈥檚 investigations into provide examples that show that Alex was able to do more than simply mimic human sounds. Providing the right word when asked, 鈥淗ow many?鈥� required him to understand the connections between the numerical amount and the objects being asked about.
Animal mathematical skills
While Pepperberg鈥檚 results are impressive, they are far from unique. Numerical abilities have been identified in , most prominently . Some of these capabilities demonstrate that the animals understand the underlying connections between different words and labels. They are therefore doing something more than just mimicking the sounds and actions of the humans around them.
Animals that can do basic arithmetic show us that some really are capable of understanding the terms they use and the connections between them. However, it is still an open question whether their understanding of these connections is a result of learning linguistic expressions, or if their linguistic expressions simply help demonstrate underlying capabilities.
Either way, claims that humans are uniquely able to understand the meanings of words are a bit worse for wear.
which features includes relevant and informed articles written by researchers and academics in their areas of expertise and edited by experienced journalists.
黄色直播 is a founding partner of The Conversation Canada, an online media outlet providing independent, high-quality explanatory journalism. Originally established in Australia in 2011, it has had more than 85 commissioning editors and 30,000-plus academics register as contributors. A full list of articles written by 黄色直播 academics can be found on聽