复旦大学：《心灵哲学 Philosophy of Mind》课程教学资源（PPT课件讲稿）Lecture 10 Animal Cognition

Lecture -- ANIMAL COGNTTLO小 第十一讲动物认知

Lecture 11 ANIMAL COGNITION 第十一讲 动物认知

at is Animal Cognition? Animal cognition is the study of the processes used to generate adaptive or flexible behavior in animal species. In the context of anima cognition research, cognition usually refers to the cognitive mechanisms involved in learning memory perception and decision-making. As a part of cognitive science, research in animal cognition aims to uncover the different cognitive mechanisms at play across species with the purpose of understanding the varieties of cognition, the similarities between humans and other species, and the evolution and function of cognitive processes

What is Animal Cognition?  Animal cognition is the study of the processes used to generate adaptive or flexible behavior in animal species. In the context of animal cognition research, cognition usually refers to the cognitive mechanisms involved in learning, memory, perception, and decision-making. As a part of cognitive science, research in animal cognition aims to uncover the different cognitive mechanisms at play across species, with the purpose of understanding the varieties of cognition, the similarities between humans and other species, and the evolution and function of cognitive processes

The background assumption for much animal cognition research The computational theory of mind, Is cognition a general purpose computational system? Or is cognition modular?(cognition must be thought of as a bundle of special- purpose computational modules rather than one general purpose processor)

The background assumption for much animal cognition research  The computational theory of mind.  Is cognition a general purpose computational system?  Or is cognition modular? (cognition must be thought of as a bundle of special￾purpose computational modules rather than one general purpose processor)

小 ina minds from the historica」 perspective Aristotle: defined human"as the rational animal thus rejecting the possibility that any other species is rational Aquinas: believed that animals are irrational because they are not free Descartes: defended a distinction between humans and animals based on the belief that language is a necessary condition for mind on his view animals are soulless machines Kant: concluded that since they cannot think about themselves animals are not rational agents and hence they only have instrumental value

Animal Minds from the historical perspective :  Aristotle: defined “human” as “the rational animal”, thus rejecting the possibility that any other species is rational.  Aquinas: believed that animals are irrational because they are not free.  Descartes: defended a distinction between humans and animals based on the belief that language is a necessary condition for mind; on his view animals are soulless machines.  Kant: concluded that since they cannot think about themselves, animals are not rational agents and hence they only have instrumental value

Animal minds fron the historical perspective Voltaire: criticized descartes view that humans but not animals have souls and hence minds, by suggesting that there is no evidence for the claim Hume: was downright dismissive of the animal mind skeptics when he wrote Next to the ridicule of denying an evident truth, is that of taking much pains to defend it and no truth appears to me more evident than that beasts are endowed with thought and reason as well as man The arguments are in this case so obvious, that they never escape the most stupid and ignorant

Animal Minds from the historical perspective :  Voltaire: criticized Descartes' view that humans but not animals have souls and hence minds, by suggesting that there is no evidence for the claim.  Hume: was downright dismissive of the animal mind skeptics when he wrote “Next to the ridicule of denying an evident truth, is that of taking much pains to defend it; and no truth appears to me more evident than that beasts are endowed with thought and reason as well as man. The arguments are in this case so obvious, that they never escape the most stupid and ignorant

Why do animals have ninds? The argument from analogy for animal minds 1. All animals i already know to have a mind (i.e humans) have property X 2. Individuals of species y have property x 3. Therefore, individual of species y probably have a mind The reference property(x) could refer to any number of things such as a general capacity( e. g roblem solving) a specific ability (e. g. language, theory of mind tool-use), a behavior, or even brain activity(see Farah 2008 for an example of this last approach)

Why do animals have minds?  The argument from analogy for animal minds :  1.All animals I already know to have a mind (i.e., humans) have property x.  2.Individuals of species y have property x.  3. Therefore, individual of species y probably have a mind.  The reference property (x) could refer to any number of things, such as a general capacity (e.g. problem solving), a specific ability (e.g. language, theory of mind, tool-use), a behavior, or even brain activity (see Farah 2008 for an example of this last approach)

Why do animals have minds? The inference to the best explanation argument 1. Individuals of species x engage in behaviors y. 2. The best scientific explanation for an individual engaging in behaviors y is that it has a mind 3. Therefore it is likely that individuals of species x have minds. The inference to the best explanation argument justifies the attribution of mental states to animals based on the robust predictive and explanatory power that is gained from such attributions. As the argument goes, without such attributions we would be unable to make sense of animal behavior. this argument relies on ordinary scientific reasoning; of two hypotheses the one that better accounts for the phenomenon is the one to be preferred

Why do animals have minds?  The inference to the best explanation argument:  1.Individuals of species x engage in behaviors y.  2.The best scientific explanation for an individual engaging in behaviors y is that it has a mind.  3.Therefore, it is likely that individuals of species x have minds.  The inference to the best explanation argument justifies the attribution of mental states to animals based on the robust predictive and explanatory power that is gained from such attributions. As the argument goes, without such attributions we would be unable to make sense of animal behavior. This argument relies on ordinary scientific reasoning; of two hypotheses, the one that better accounts for the phenomenon is the one to be preferred

he charge of anthropomorphism (拟以人论之反驳) The term anthropomorphism"has a number of different connotations but most generally refers to the act of attributing human traits to other animals The charge of anthropomorphism is a charge that the attributor is making a"category mistake". That is to say human traits are conceptually distinct from animal traits so to attribute the former to animals is conceptually wrong

The charge of anthropomorphism (拟人论之反驳)  The term “anthropomorphism” has a number of different connotations, but most generally refers to the act of attributing human traits to other animals.  The charge of anthropomorphism is a charge that the attributor is making a “category mistake”. That is to say, human traits are conceptually distinct from animal traits, so to attribute the former to animals is conceptually wrong

小 royer日 Some argue that anthropomorphism is a human tendency that must be overcome in order to do good science, because it relies an unjustified generalization from linguistic humans to nonlinguistic animals. These critics suggest that animals who lack language may not even have concepts, and without language scientists are not in a position to attribute content. Since we are barred from making attributions, scientific psychology ought not engage with questions about animal mentality

Moreover:  Some argue that anthropomorphism is a human tendency that must be overcome in order to do good science, because it relies an unjustified generalization from linguistic humans to nonlinguistic animals. These critics suggest that animals who lack language may not even have concepts, and without language scientists are not in a position to attribute content. Since we are barred from making attributions, scientific psychology ought not engage with questions about animal mentality

ven if there is no categorical prohibition against attributing human properties to animals: Some researchers may be too quick to conclude that an animal is using some higher-order"process in a particular instance. One concern is that researchers may have a failure of imagination when it comes to hypothesis generation A false dichotomy: either animals are stimulus-response machines or they are agents with beliefs and desires; since animals are not stimulus-response machines they must be psychological agents The problem with this argument is that not all machines implement stimulus-response functions some machines are complex and indeterministic, and if animals were machines, they would be machines of that sort

Even if there is no categorical prohibition against attributing human properties to animals:  Some researchers may be too quick to conclude that an animal is using some “higher-order” process in a particular instance. One concern is that researchers may have a failure of imagination when it comes to hypothesis generation.  A false dichotomy: either animals are stimulus-response machines, or they are agents with beliefs and desires; since animals are not stimulus-response machines, they must be psychological agents.  The problem with this argument is that not all machines implement stimulus-response functions; some machines are complex and indeterministic, and if animals were machines, they would be machines of that sort