Use of Tools by Non Human Animals

QUESTION 1. What has been learned from the various studies of non-human animal tool use, both in the laboratory and the natural environment?

Introduction

The use of tools by non-human animals is an occurrence in which an animal uses various tools to achieve its objectives like acquiring water and food, deference, grooming, communication, construction, and recreation. Originally, the use of tools was thought to be human skills since humans were thought to possess a sophisticated level of cognition. However, research indicated that non-human animals such as birds, mammals, fish, insects, and cephalopods use tools (Biro et al., 2013). The study also reveals that there are four phyla; Mollusca, Chordata, Echinodermata, and Arthropoda, and other species such as crabs, snails, octopi, sea urchins, fish, birds, insects, spiders, and mammals which have been proved to use tools. According to Visalberghi et al. (2017), chimpanzees use complex and multi-step process tools to gather insects and termites. This study has helped illuminate chimpanzees' capacity for pro-social and behavior, which has played a great role in the evolution of human cultural abilities. Non-human animal learn to use tools by watching and experimenting independently (Visalberghi et al., 2017). Similarly, Lockman and Kahrs (2017) state that a crow in New Caledonia was observed holding a twig with its beak and inserting the twig into a crevice of a tree to probe for beetle larvae. Likewise, a chimpanzee in Bossou, Guinea, was observed to grasps a stone to crack nuts. Similarly, wild and captive elephants often create tools using their trunks and feet to swat flies, scratch themselves, plugging up waterholes to reduce water evaporation, and reach food that is out of reach. In the sea, a group of dolphins in Shark Bay utilizes sea sponges to cover their beaks while foraging. The study of animal use of tools has revealed culture, adaptation to fit in the environment, and cognitive abilities.

Studies of non-human animal tool use indicate that animals have various cultures just like a human. According to Musgrave et al. (2020), non-human animals such as chimpanzees have been proven to be exceptional tool users. The study showed that various types of chimpanzees use various forms of tools. The use of the tool by various chimpanzee groups is discovered to be learned from one generation to another, and the learning is customized to promote these skills. Musgrave et al. (2020) also examined that tool transfer between chimpanzees when gathering termites among chimpanzee populations in Goualougo Triangle, DRC, and Gombe in Tanzania. Insects and termites are critical sources of proteins and fats in the diet of chimpanzees. The termites often create complex nest structures that include a network of below-ground chambers and, at times, are characterized by a towering and freestanding mound, sometimes reaching few meters high. Musgrave et al. (2020) discovered that the chimpanzees in both areas utilize the fishing-probe style tools to get termites. However, it was discovered that the population of a chimpanzee at Goualougo uses multiple tools sequentially. Also, these animals made tools from specific plants, specific plant species, and modified fishing probes to enhance their efficiency. Moreover, it was also observed that the tools used at Goualougo, DRC were more complex, and the rate of tool transfer was multiple times higher than the population in Tanzania. Moreover, the Goualougo mothers were more efficient and faster in transferring tools and skills to young ones in response to a request. Likewise, the Goualougo mothers mostly gave tools to their offspring to experiment. Such skill and tool transfer were never seen in Gombe, where mothers limited and often denied offspring use of tools, thus limiting skills transfer. Therefore, the researchers concluded that mothers at DRC were willing to offer tools to offspring. Besides, Goualougo chimpanzees were suggested to use multiple tool types from selected plant species, thus increasing tool efficiency. On the other hand, the study observed that the mother at Gombe did not offer offspring tools; thus, the researchers suspected differences in how these skills are acquired. Therefore, this study discovered that animals have a different culture based on region regardless of being of similar species.

Moreover study of various non-human tools indicates that animals are highly adaptive to their environment. Biro et al. (2013) state that tools are a critical component of human behavior. However, the study of tools among non-human animals has broadened how we perceive the natural world over the years. Biro et al. (2013) discovered that tool use is not a unitary occurrence. Besides, tools have been discovered to be critical components of existence and creating control over the environment. For example, a chimpanzee in the Goualougo Triangle in the Republic of Congo has been observed to use complex and diverse tools that enable them to assess seasonal variability. The tool used by these animals were discovered to compensate for the scarcity and minimized availability and accessibility of food in the environment. Additionally, the tools are used in foraging and created opportunities for observational learning. However, among the chimpanzees, the scarcity of popular fruits did not result in increased tool use; rather, it highlights the significance of the available tools (Biro et al., 2013). Moreover, the gathering of termites and other insects reduced when the fruits were available. Similarly, the study revealed that dolphins in Shark Bay, Australia use sponges during foraging as protective aids for their rostra. However, this behavior is not well understood; it is evident that non-human animals are using tools to become fit for their environment.

Lefebvre (2013) reveals that the use of tools by animals has proved that they are innovative and creative like human beings. The study observed that different animals had different problem-solving skills. However, primates were demonstrated to have a high level of innovation. The study reveals that even the most basic forms of tool depend on higher cognitive skills attributed to mental abilities. For example, mammals like elephants were observed to plug up waterholes to close them up again to reduce the rate of evaporation. Therefore, it is evident that animals have cognitive skills just like human beings.

Conclusion

Non-human animals have used tools for many years. Some of the ways in which these tools are used include acquiring water and food, deference, grooming, construction, and recreation. The non-human primates learn to use tools through practicing and watching others animals, especially with little help from mothers. Through studies of the use of the tool, it was discovered that various animals have a different culture which is passed from adult to offspring. For example, chimpanzees at Goualougo transferred tools and skills to young ones in response to a request. Additionally, tool use studies have revealed how animals are adaptive to their environment over the years. Lastly, the use of tools has proved that animals have cognitive abilities.

References

Biro, D., Haslam, M., & Rutz, C. (2013). Tool use as adaptation. Trans. R. Soc. B3682012040820120408. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2012.0408

Lefebvre, L. (2013). Brains, innovations, tools and cultural transmission in birds, non-human primates, and fossil hominins. Frontiers in human neuroscience, 7, 245. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2013.00245

Lockman, J. J., & Kahrs, B. A. (2017). New insights into the development of human tool use. Current directions in psychological science, 26(4), 330-334. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721417692035

Musgrave, S., Lonsdorf, E., Morgan, D., Prestipino, M., Bernstein-Kurtycz, L., Mundry, R., & Sanz, C. (2020). Teaching varies with task complexity in wild chimpanzees. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 117(2), 969-976. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1907476116

Visalberghi, E., Sabbatini, G., Taylor, A. H., & Hunt, G. R. (2017). Cognitive insights from tool use in nonhuman animals.

Question 1: drawing on psychological evidence and philosophical arguments, critically evaluate clerk and Chalmers (1998) extended mind hypothesis

Clark and Chalmers (1998) came up with the hypothesis of the extended mind. The hypothesis includes the claim that the cognitive processes that consist of the human mind can go beyond human body to the environment- physical and socio-cultural surroundings. However, this claim has generated various debates and critic. It is not clear whether the individual mind can think beyond their bodies. There is a common belief that the mind is internal to our bodies. However, various philosophers have changed this view and suggested that the mind extends out into the world. Moreover, the ideology further claims that it is prejudice to suggest that all cognition should take place in a confined place within an organism's skin and skull. According to Bernecker (2014), cognitive science suggests that the mind contains mental representations which are close to computer data structure and algorithms. One of the key critics of the idea of extended mind is the coupling-constitution fallacy which suggests that individuate cognitive systems rely on coupling relations between environmental resources and agents. Another critic is the lack of a cognition mark. Researchers revealed that extended cognition is a logical possibility, though not instantiated in the individual world (Bernecker, 2014). Therefore this essay will explore the extended mind hypothesis using psychological and philosophical knowledge.

According to Pearlberg and Schroeder (2016), the processes in the world like beliefs, desires, emotions, and beliefs are often perceived as individual though might be far beyond the mind. Moreover, according to Clark and Chalmers (1998), cognitive processes extended to the environment when solving problems. Moreover, Airoldi (2019) suggests internal representations, which are intrinsic to many cognitive tasks. This indicates that the thesis by Clark concerning the human mind being extended is supported. The study utilized two untrue participants to support their argument that cognition extent to the environment. One of the demonstrations included Otto and Inga, who had a great interest in art. Based on the experiment, Inga had normal brain functioning, while Otto has Alzheimer’s disorder. When they both hear of an exhibition, they decide to attend. However, Otto consults his notebook, which suggests that the exhibition museum is on 53rd street. On the other hand, Inga remembered that the exhibition museum was on 53rd street and walked to the museum. Therefore, clerk concluded that the notebook plays a critical role for Otto, just like Inga’s biological memory. Therefore they concluded that external objects execute this role, and cognitive processes transcend the boundaries of skull and skin. Besides, not all things in the world were part of the mind.

Moreover, several studies support this claim of the extended mind. According to Kiverstein et al. (2013), the thesis draws on broad empirical studies in economics, robotics, developmental psychology, and artificial life to conclude. Similarly, the study also reveals how the thesis has its philosophical basis on Heidegger’s phenomenology, which highlights the existence of "They" or "Das Man." These aspects had the potential to shape the opportunity of Dasein to enact an authentic existence. Besides, it explains how Heidegger's ideology creates a solution to the frame problem when integrated with the extended mind thesis. Wilson and Clark 2009 also give critical taxonomy of extended mind along two dimensions. Among these dimensions is the durability of extended cognitive systems and the nature of the external resources recruited by cognizers. At the same time, Morar and Skorburg (2018) proved that individuals could execute actions mentally other than in the world. This is an indication that there is leakage in the world to mind and from mind to world. The study also argued that if a person can discover the world using a procedure, then the method used would lead to empirical discovery when undertaken in mind. For example, when an individual walks into a room and observes a completed jigsaw puzzle, and he leaves the room. Then the individual can mentally rotate one of the pieces to fit into the puzzle. This is a discovery where the piece fits in the jigsaw puzzle. Therefore, it is proved that our minds are extended to the world. In this case, one cannot be restricted to what is in their head. Therefore the head most includes things and people who are around.

However, regardless of proof that the mind is extended, there is also an objection to the thesis of mind extension. Among the objection is the idea of coupling. Piredda (2017) states that research has shown that when object X is coupled to object or process Y, X is not necessarily part of Y. for example, if Otto is coupled to his notebook, it does not mean that the notebook is part of his mind. Therefore, a device like a notebook owned by Otto lessens the demands on long-term memory, though it does not make up our minds. Besides, Piredda (2017) also points out that even when something is closely connected to another thing, the two do not form one system. For instance, the kidney filters impurities from the blood. However, it does not become part of the circulatory system it interacts with regardless of the connection. Therefore an individual can interact with the surroundings, and the interaction does not mean that process extends out into its surroundings. This thinking limits the extended mind thesis.

However, there are various critics of the coupling ideology. First, the extended mind ideology does not claim that an individual can create an entire cognizer out of Otto notebook style; besides, the clerk does not deny the role of the mind in the unfolding of cognitive strategies. Similarly, the coupling ideology states that it is unclear at what level of cognition each cognitive process must involve non-derived content. Therefore, the coupling ideology is ineffective against extended cognition, thus making it perfectly acceptable since it includes non-derived representations.

Conclusion

The extended mind idea was proposed by Clark and Chalmers (1998). The hypothesis asserts that the cognitive processes can extend beyond the individual body to the environment, including the physical and sociocultural environment. However, the ideology of the extension of the mind to the world is radical. There is increasing support for the idea that the mind is not only bound to the body. However, there is also a question as to whether the cognitive platforms are causally influenced by external objects or the external aspects are part of our cognition.

References

Airoldi, G. (2019). The extended mind hypothesis: an anti-metaphysical vaccine. Sofia, 8(1). https://philpapers.org/rec/AIRTEM

Bernecker, S. (2014). How to understand the extended mind. Philosophical Issues, 24(1), 1-23. https://doi.org/10.1111/phis.12023

Kiverstein, J., Farina, M., & Clark, A. (2013). The extended mind thesis. Oxford University Press. DOIs https://doi.org/10.1093/OBO/9780195396577-0099

Morar, N., & Skorburg, J. A. (2018). Bioethics and the hypothesis of extended health. Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal, 28(3), 341-376. 10.1353/ken.2018.0020

Pearlberg, D., & Schroeder, T. (2016). Reasons, causes, and the extended mind hypothesis. Erkenntnis, 81(1), 41-57. DOI https://doi.org/10.1007/s10670-015-9727-0

Piredda, G. (2017). The mark of the cognitive and the coupling-constitution fallacy: A defense of the extended mind hypothesis. Frontiers in psychology, 8, 2061. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.02061

Dig deeper into Unraveling the Rise of Narcissistic Personality Disorder with our selection of articles.