One way to find out would be to ask them. Another I guess to have them paint something they’ve never painted before with their eyes closed.
I, an ape, can, though I can’t draw well, even with my eyes open. :rolleyes:
As I recall, there was a research chimp or gorilla who was fond of paging through Playgirl with an alcoholic drink in her hand, then laying the centerfold on the floor and rubbing her junk all over it.
What is the point of this question?
To determine whether animals have and to what extent imagination. I thought it easier to narrow it down without defining or getting into ‘there are all kinds of imagination.’"
I, another ape, have comparatively poor (probably defective) visualization abilities. I easily and immediately recognize pictures of my wife, but I have to look at them every time and can’t call them to mind independently. (Or at least not well.)
Or… Something. It’s difficult for me to try to define my apparent lack of something that I think others appear to have.
This Facebook post went viral a while back (it may have even been discussed here.)
Moderator Note
Let’s try to get some factual answers to this before giving joke or facetious answers. And for the purposes of this thread, let’s use the common definition of “ape” as referring to the Great Apes, and not including humans.
Colibri
General Questions Moderator
From what I glean, it has yet to be established that apes can produce representational art at all. Most paintings and drawings produced by apes are abstract. There have been claims made that the gorillas Koko and Michael have produced a few paintings that seem to represent things like a bird or a dog, but I don’t find them very convincing.
More here
The art method would be a quick indicator, but not if they don’t do that. (Whether they won’t or simply can’t seems academic - if they’re not going to try, then there’s nothing to measure.)
Can any apes look at a map and relate it to a territory?
Yes, the question of visualisation has been discussed here a few times, most interestingly in this 2005 thread
Considering that there’s no record of humans even understanding that different people visualise to different amounts until Francis Galton in the 19th century and that it still requires a whole lot of explanation in order to convince people that there is an actual mental difference between humans here, I’m not sure how you would even begin to investigate the ability or lack of ability in this area in apes - or how you would be able to generalise from one or more apes which are your test subjects, to all apes of their species. Since you certainly can’t generalise from one human’s ability in this area to another’s.
To the best of my knowledge, there’s no external test to separate out human visualisers from non-visualisers. From an observer’s point of view, both groups have the ability to do the same things - they just have different subjective experiences, which you can only find out about by asking them, in words.
So…maybe we can find this out after we’ve taught apes language? But if they can process a question this complex, I think the question of their sapience or otherwise would be pretty much settled.
Some academic concepts can be taught using both visual techniques and non-visual techniques. You could try teaching a person various lessons using both sorts of techniques, and measure how well the student retained the lesson using each sort of technique. Though it certainly wouldn’t be a quick or easy test.
Er, the quoted one, at least, was not a joke or facetious. This behavior is detailed in this Wiki page and more can be read about it in this out-of-print book.
Actually, you know, I misspoke - there is one test that I know about, which is Richard Feynman’s “timing a minute” experiment as alluded to here.
For those who don’t like clicking links, Feynman taught himself to count an accurate minute in his head, then tested out ways that he could disrupt this process. He found he could still do it while reading, but not while speaking out loud. Meanwhile a colleague could speak out loud perfectly well while timing an accurate minute - but not read. The difference was, his colleague was a visualiser and was timing his minute by visualising the numbers passing, whereas Feynman was verbalising them in his head. And IIRC Feynman couldn’t manage to teach himself the visual method, and so was probably a non-visualiser. Which, if you trust Galton, is apparently pretty common in scientists.
This method, however, does not seem very suitable for ape experiments either.
Yep, and to the best of our knowledge, they don’t.
I don’t know about maps, but some chimps seem to be able to understand scale models. I find that pretty impressive of our dear cousins!
Yes it was a joke. Regardless of whether it described a real case, the response didn’t really address the question in the OP*, and was clearly posted with the intent to be outrageous rather than give a serious answer to the question. (C’mon, “rubbing her junk”?:dubious:)
*The behavior indicates apes can recognize photos as being of people, not whether they can form pictures in their minds absent a model.
No, the story of Lucy’s masturbation was not intended as a joke, and I cannot imagine how you made that conceptual leap. The question “Can apes form pictures in their minds?” cannot be answered because we cannot yet communicate with them at such depth. What we have are observations of their behavior from which we can infer, in this case, that one ape recognized that a photo of a naked male human represented, in her mind, a real man and potential sex partner, which is why that story made such a stir in Anthropology circles.
On the other hand, dogs appear to act out parts of their lives when they are asleep, apparently forming pictures in their minds. But they are working from a “model,” which Colibri, but not the OP, seems to think negates its value as a creative act.
And I don’t do “outrageous.” :mad:
I wasn’t joking in the slightest with my post about my own problems visualizing, but I certainly accept that it was irrelevant, or less relevant than was wanted.
I have heard of what you descibed. I forget what it’s called. But it has to do with facial recognition, I think. Is that what you mean?
No, it didn’t actually address the question in the OP. And yes, and by the way you phrased you post, you very obviously were trying to be outrageous.
Prosopagnosia? I know what you mean, but my recognition is excellent - it’s my (lack of) ability to re-visualize what I’ve seen, that’s weird.
Oh, I see. That is strange. I am an artist so I rely on my visual recall a bunch. Of course there are ways to cheat if I need to. I use a Polaroid camera or my cel phone for some things. For lettering I have my own script that I have finessed over the years. You can practice recall by playing memory picture games.