# How can we test for sentience/cognition in animals? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [May 8, 2003, 9:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-can-we-test-for-sentience-cognition-in-animals/173867 "2003-05-08T09:32:25Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![InquisitiveIdiot](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/3ec8ea/32.png) [@InquisitiveIdiot](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/InquisitiveIdiot)\ **Post date:** [May 8, 2003, 8:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-can-we-test-for-sentience-cognition-in-animals/173867/21 "2003-05-08T20:17:01Z")
> [@](#): > > Fair enough – this does answer how infants can learn. Lemme ask you, though: is there a specific reason for tying sentience (or, more accurately, sapience) to language, or is it just an intuitive thing? > > Furthermore, how do you judge whether a being possesses a sufficiently complex language to be judged sapient? Must the language be one which is roughly analogous to English – i.e., composed of individual phonemes communicated through sound or sight? AFAIK, use of language shows that the being understands that the symbols used in language are abstract representations, not just a cause-effect type thing, and is capable of communicating to other beings using those symbols. Merely saying “I want food” when hungry does not count as language. That’s just uttering a certain combination of syllables to produce a certain desired effect. Learning that “broken toy” means a toy can no longer be used, and then referring to spoiled meat as “broken food” DOES count as language: the being is expressing an idea in a novel (i.e. untrained) way. It has clearly associated “food” with meat, and “broken” with useless. In short- language is defined by the association and expression of individual objects and actions with abstract representations of such. Many animals can communicate in a cause-and-effect type manner, but that cannot be considered language. Language has also been one of the largest steps in human evolution: it’s what’s enabled us to communicate, coordinate and survive, and was the platform that has fueled the rest of our intellectual development. Animals have shown no conclusive evidence of communication - see Cecil’s article, as I mentioned above. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [May 8, 2003, 9:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-can-we-test-for-sentience-cognition-in-animals/173867/22 "2003-05-08T21:51:51Z")
The mirror test is not designed to measure intelligence, per se, but to measure self-awareness. Chimps, orangs, and dolphins have “passed” the mirror test, to my knowledge. One would expect gorillas to pass, but I’ve never seen it documented. Put a mirror in front of a monkey (which is a pretty smart animal) and he’ll threat display in front of it forever. Put a mirror in front of a chimp and he’ll use it to examine the inside of his mouth (and a few other interesting body areas). It’s so unfortunate that we don’t have any of our more closer relatives around to give us a better view of the continuum of intelligence. What a different world it would be if there were still bands of _Homo erectus_ wandering around… ---
**Author:** ![Mangetout](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mangetout/32/19_2.png) [@Mangetout](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mangetout)\ **Post date:** [May 8, 2003, 10:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-can-we-test-for-sentience-cognition-in-animals/173867/23 "2003-05-08T22:37:48Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Ramanujan \* > \*\*i wonder what it is you mean by intelligent or sentient. > > first of all, the chinese room is a bogus argument against intelligence. > > i think in order to have a test, you have to decide at which point something goes from being “mechanistic” to “intelligent.”\*\* As I said, for the purposes of this particular test, I’m specifically looking for the ability to make logical deductions; displaying appropriate, reasoned responses to novel stimuli. **InquisitiveIdiot** hit the nail on the head with the ‘broken food’ example. ---
**Author:** ![Lissa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/85f322/32.png) [@Lissa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lissa)\ **Post date:** [May 9, 2003, 1:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-can-we-test-for-sentience-cognition-in-animals/173867/24 "2003-05-09T01:15:38Z")
I’ve heard that one of the standards for sentience used to be the ability to make a tool. When it was found that chimps use tools, it was changed to the ability to \* use \* a tool to \* make \* a tool. I’ve also read that sentience is the ability to see one’s self through others eyes, and alter your behavior to project the image you wish them to see. Until Jane Goodall’s studies, it was believed this was unique to humans. The more animal behavior is studied, the more surprised we are by the workings of their minds. Who knows? Where we once considered them furry robots (some even declared they were incapable of feeling pain) we’re now starting to see signs of self-awareness in a lot of different creatures. Maybe someday, we’ll find that dolphins are more sentient than we! ---
**Author:** ![blowero](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/41988e/32.png) [@blowero](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/blowero)\ **Post date:** [May 9, 2003, 7:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-can-we-test-for-sentience-cognition-in-animals/173867/25 "2003-05-09T07:52:16Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by InquisitiveIdiot \* > Merely saying “I want food” when hungry does not count as language. That’s just uttering a certain combination of syllables to produce a certain desired effect. Learning that “broken toy” means a toy can no longer be used, and then referring to spoiled meat as “broken food” DOES count as language: the being is expressing an idea in a novel (i.e. untrained) way. It has clearly associated “food” with meat, and “broken” with useless. Wasn’t that demonstrated in the 60’s with Washoe the chimp? [http://www.uapress.arizona.edu/samples/sam1011.htm](http://www.uapress.arizona.edu/samples/sam1011.htm) > [@](#): > > This creative adaptation of various signs can also be seen in the chimpanzees’ invention of novel name combinations of their own (p. 81). For instance, Washoe consistently referred to the refrigerator by signing “open food drink,” even though her human companions called it the “cold box.” Likewise, she referred to her toilet as “dirty good” instead of more conventional “potty chair.” Other examples of this sort of “poetic license” can be found in the chimpanzees use of “metal hot” for a cigarette lighter, “listen drink” for a glass of Alka-Seltzer, “water bird” for ducks, as well as “cry hurt food” and “candy drink” for previously unnamed radishes and watermelon, respectively. ---
**Author:** ![mooka](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/b5a626/32.png) [@mooka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mooka)\ **Post date:** [May 9, 2003, 11:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-can-we-test-for-sentience-cognition-in-animals/173867/26 "2003-05-09T11:36:02Z")
Thanks to Rickjay and John Mace - they’ve made me realise i have been using the word sentient all my life incorrectly. Apologies - the mirror test is of course a test for self awareness, not sentience. I thought they were the same thing! ---
**Author:** ![Darwins\_Finch](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/darwins_finch/32/20304_2.png) [@Darwins\_Finch](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Darwins_Finch)\ **Post date:** [May 9, 2003, 5:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-can-we-test-for-sentience-cognition-in-animals/173867/27 "2003-05-09T17:07:34Z")
This may be something of an aside, but I don’t see that the “mirror test” really demonstrates anything about self-awareness, either. We, as humans, are familiar with the concept of a mirrored reflection. I rather doubt most other animals would be, simply because encountering a reflection in the wild is going to be a rare event. Where they _are_ encountered, they tend to be in horizontal pools of water. So a vertical mirror is likely to simply be outside of the typical animal’s conceptual domain. Similalry, birds frequently fly into windows, not because they’re “stupid”, or blind, but because the concept of “transparent, but solid” probably falls outside their realm of understanding or experience. Again, one does not encounter windows in the wild, so it should not be surprising to anyone that birds would lack an understanding of such structures, and probably expect that that clear space up ahead is really empty space. As such, all I see the mirror test as demonstrating is familiarity with the concept of a mirror, not necessarily self-awareness. Having said that, my two pet cockatiels seem to know that a reflection is just that. One fears other people, and will not allow them anywhere near her (including my roommate, who has shared an apartment with me, and the birds, for the past three years. Thus, she certainly recognizes him, but still won’t let him get close). Yet, when I hold her in front of a mirror where she can clearly see my reflection, she does not fear the reflection, even when brought close. Nor does she hiss at her own reflection, as she does at my other cockatiel. This would indicate she understands that the “man in the mirror” is not someone else, and that the bird in the mirror is likewise not a different bird. The other one is just strange,and I have no idea what the hell goes through his mind… ---
**Author:** ![Mangetout](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mangetout/32/19_2.png) [@Mangetout](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mangetout)\ **Post date:** [May 9, 2003, 9:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-can-we-test-for-sentience-cognition-in-animals/173867/28 "2003-05-09T21:44:17Z")
I was just thinking that it would probably be a sign of _understanding_ if we were able to put an object (say a tasty seed) _behind_ the bird in such a way that it was visible in the mirror, and the bird turned around to eat it… but it would ba almost impossible to engineer this because of the bird’s field of view. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [May 9, 2003, 9:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-can-we-test-for-sentience-cognition-in-animals/173867/29 "2003-05-09T21:54:43Z")
I would say the mirror test is a sufficient, but not necessary condition for determining self awareness. Part of the test is figuring out what a mirror is. Most animals seem unable to do that. The raven studies I mentioned above are very interesting. They seem to be able to “size up a problem” very much like a chimp does and not always just pounce on the problem with a “trial and error” approach. ---
**Author:** ![InquisitiveIdiot](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/3ec8ea/32.png) [@InquisitiveIdiot](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/InquisitiveIdiot)\ **Post date:** [May 9, 2003, 9:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-can-we-test-for-sentience-cognition-in-animals/173867/30 "2003-05-09T21:56:19Z")
Possibly do it with an owl? I agree with Darwin’s Finch though- as far as I can see the only thing the mirror test indicates is whether or not the animal knows how reflections function. As far as self-awareness goes, I don’t see it as being of imminent importance in determining intelligence. Since the idea that we have a “seat of conciousness” is disappearing, the idea that self-awareness comes with intelligence is also fading. Anything with a cortex can be considered self-aware, albeit to varying degrees of such. ---
**Author:** ![Lissa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/85f322/32.png) [@Lissa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lissa)\ **Post date:** [May 9, 2003, 10:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-can-we-test-for-sentience-cognition-in-animals/173867/31 "2003-05-09T22:12:38Z")
Chimps have also been shown to understand models as a representation of the “real thing,” something which children can’t comprehend until around age three or four. In one experiment, a model of a room was shown to a chimp. A food treat was shown hidden inside a tiny model barrel. When the chimp was let into the real room, he went directly to the barrel and looked underneath. The children who also participated in the study had lower success than did the chimps. In one mirror test experiment, brightly colored dots were painted on the chimps’ heads while they were sleeping. When they awoke and looked into the mirror, they immediately raised their hands to their heads and rubbed the dots. **Mangetout,** they did do a similar bird-mirror experiment to what you’re suggesting. [Here’s a link.](http://www.africanature.com/Orig%20Africa%20Nature/African%20Birds/mirrormirror.htm) > [@](#): > > An open-ended box was placed on the countertop, either parallel or at a 45 degree angle to the mirror at a distance of about twelve inches. The birds could only see the object within the box by using the mirror. > > Alo nearly always went toward and looked in the box, after viewing a positive stimulus (scores ranged from 18 of 20 to 20 of 20); and she moved away from the box in the presence of negative stimuli (score range: 16 of 20 to 19 of 20). It didn’t matter whether the box was parallel to the mirror or at an angle. She clearly used the mirror to guide her behavior. > > \ > > Experiment Number 3, Mirror-Mediated Spatial Locating, tests whether birds use mirrors to find items placed in hidden locations. The set-up for these tests used an open drawer beneath the countertop. The bottom surface of the counter that overhangs the rear portion of the partially opened drawer was divided into three, and sometimes four, sections with pieces of posterboard flushed against the counter’s underside. Then the mirror was put in the drawer so that it reflected the underside of the counter. Only by using the mirror could the birds view the object hidden in a section. They could only view one section at a time. > > For additional trials, Dr. Pepperberg placed mirrors on the wall above the counter that reflected the contents of eight compartments. These sections were behind a barrier so that, again, the birds could view the contents only by using the mirrors. > > Both Alo and Kyaaro used the mirrors to locate the hidden objects (all of which were positive items or else the birds would not have wanted to find them). They failed to search in trials in which the mirror was absent. But although the data are convincing, they are not conclusive. Did they use the mirror simply as a cue to begin a search? Or did they understand that there was no sense in searching without the mirror? The latter requires information processing. > > The results from the MMOD experiment, however, suggest that the birds do not use the mirror simply as a cue. They indeed realize the mirror is reflecting an image of a real object. If they didn’t, during MMOD they would not have differentiated positive from negative items and refrained from searching when the latter were present; they simply would have searched on every trial. Other experiments in animal intelligence/self-awareness include dolphin [research](http://planet-hawaii.com/earthtrust/delphis.html) which showed that dolphins understood images on television as representing reality and passed the “mirror test.” > [@](#): > > A central goal of Project Delphis is to devise and perfect and flexible interface between dolphins and computers. As a first step, a basic method of operation in the Delphis laboratory is to interact with the dolphins and explore their mental abilities and characteristics using a computer and TV monitor. [83K GIF Photo of Interior of Lab] The dolphins were shown a videotape of a Sea Life Park trainer feeding them. It was anticipated that if the dolphins viewed TV as reality, they would swim to their feeding area. These dolphins first tried to catch the fish they saw being thrown on the screen, and then swam off to their regular feeding location. This response indicated a positive reality test: the dolphins accepted the TV image as a representation of reality. > > \ > > We conducted this “mark test” on five bottlenose dolphins by putting zinc oxide on their side and videotaping their behavior through a one-way mirror. Indeed they came to the mirror and twisted and turned as if they were looking at their mark. To test whether their postures were self-aware rather than social, we conducted control experiments: (1) we compared marked to unmarked behavior; (2) we compared mirror behavior to behavior with a real stranger through an underwater barred gate; and (3) we let the dolphins watch themselves on TV, both real-time and playback, and compared the two. The results of the mark tests and all control experiments strongly suggest self-awareness in the bottlenose dolphin. ---
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [May 10, 2003, 4:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-can-we-test-for-sentience-cognition-in-animals/173867/32 "2003-05-10T04:13:33Z")
The smarter animals usually taste better (sorry). Logic tests that require specific steps would be my choice. You could gauge the results numerically based on the number of steps required. If you look at chess masters, they are critiqued by how many advance moves they can perceive. ---
**Author:** ![Lissa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/85f322/32.png) [@Lissa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lissa)\ **Post date:** [May 10, 2003, 4:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-can-we-test-for-sentience-cognition-in-animals/173867/33 "2003-05-10T04:50:17Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Magiver \* > \*\*The smarter animals usually taste better (sorry). \*\* Well, I’ve never eaten chimpanzee, so I can’t really judge whether it tastes better than cow. Cow tastes wonderful, and they’re as dumb as rocks. Chimp must be incredible. > [@](#): > > \*\*Logic tests that require specific steps would be my choice. You could gauge the results numerically based on the number of steps required. If you look at chess masters, they are critiqued by how many advance moves they can perceive. \*\* [In this test,](http://future.newsday.com/12/fmon1220.htm) monkeys could apparently see three steps ahead to their reward, which is more than most young children (or adults, for that matter!) can do: > [@](#): > > {I}n the South Carolina laboratory of research psychologist Greg Westergaard, capuchin monkeys learn to make crude cutting tools from quartzite stones – and, later, share them with other monkeys that use the implements to get food from closed containers. Then the monkeys share the food they have retrieved. ---
**Author:** ![bo989](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/e9c0ed/32.png) [@bo989](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bo989)\ **Post date:** [May 10, 2003, 7:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-can-we-test-for-sentience-cognition-in-animals/173867/34 "2003-05-10T07:07:05Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by mooka \* > \*\*Thanks to Rickjay and John Mace - they’ve made me realise i have been using the word sentient all my life incorrectly. Apologies - the mirror test is of course a test for self awareness, not sentience. I thought they were the same thing! \*\* You’re not wrong at all. According to both Merriam-Webster and The American Heritage Dictionary, awareness/conciousness is one of several definitions of the word. Sentience and self-awareness are practically synonymous in the psychological community ---
**Author:** ![blowero](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/41988e/32.png) [@blowero](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/blowero)\ **Post date:** [May 10, 2003, 7:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-can-we-test-for-sentience-cognition-in-animals/173867/35 "2003-05-10T07:47:27Z")
I always thought this would be funny scenario: Imagine a scientist concluding a day’s work, chuckling to himself about the silly monkey who will push a button over and over again in order to get some food. He walks out of the lab to the elevator, and pushes the elevator button over and over again, hoping it will get there faster… ---
**Author:** ![mooka](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/b5a626/32.png) [@mooka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mooka)\ **Post date:** [May 10, 2003, 12:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-can-we-test-for-sentience-cognition-in-animals/173867/36 "2003-05-10T12:45:10Z")
I do think the principle of the mirror test is a good one - show a living creature an image of itself, and see if it can work out it is seeing itself, and not another creature. You have to have a sense of self, be self aware to work out that the image is in fact yourself. Problems do arise though because an image in the mirror might not be perceived as something “real” . So it might be possible to be self aware and not pass the test. The problems arise in the actual nuts and bolts of the test, but i don’t think this is a sign that the principle of the test itself is incorrect. Not quite on topic but bo989 - [dictionary.com](http://dictionary.com) gives this definition of sentient: # Having sense perception; conscious: “The living knew themselves just sentient puppets on God’s stage” (T.E. Lawrence). # Experiencing sensation or feeling It doesn’t to be a word with a clear well defined meaning. Conscious mean aware of ones own thoughts, so this would be the same as self aware. The second definition of sentient though is clearly not the same as self aware. ---
**Author:** ![Tir\_Tinuviel](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bc79bd/32.png) [@Tir\_Tinuviel](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tir_Tinuviel)\ **Post date:** [May 10, 2003, 1:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-can-we-test-for-sentience-cognition-in-animals/173867/37 "2003-05-10T13:44:52Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by jsgoddess \* > \*\*Most cats seem not to be able to “see” the mirror. They act as if it’s not even there. I don’t think that reveals much about their brains, but perhaps it reveals something about their eyes. > > Julie \*\* I’ve had cats my whole life, and it’s true that Adult cats will ignore the mirror. However if you stick a kitten in front of a mirror for the first time, it is VERY interested. They do automatically think that it’s another cat, but they realise pretty quickly that it’s themselves, and lose interest. I redecorated my room some years ago, took down a mirror and shoved it against the wall. When my (aged) cat walked in the room, she immediately jumped at her reflection, not used to there being a mirror there, she assumed it was another cat, it took her all of about a second to realise it was herself and forget about it. If a human had never seen it’s own reflection or didn’t understand what reflection was (so no mirrors, no water reflections, etc) I’m pretty sure that the first time they did look in a mirror they would firstly assume it was another person, and then work out it was themselves. ---
**Author:** ![Tir\_Tinuviel](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bc79bd/32.png) [@Tir\_Tinuviel](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tir_Tinuviel)\ **Post date:** [May 10, 2003, 1:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-can-we-test-for-sentience-cognition-in-animals/173867/38 "2003-05-10T13:49:38Z")
Oh, sorry, just had another thought… My kitties certainly have no difficulty ‘seeing’ the mirror. I have quite often picked my cats up and held them up to the mirror, although they are not interested in looking at themselves, They often try to ‘look around’ into the mirror. They realise the cat in the mirror is themselves, but I think they are a little confused about the reflection of the room, although I’ve never had a cat try to jump into a mirror. But then I can recognise myself in a mirror, but the rest of it confuses the crap outta me. 😉 ---
**Author:** ![bo989](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/e9c0ed/32.png) [@bo989](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bo989)\ **Post date:** [May 10, 2003, 3:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-can-we-test-for-sentience-cognition-in-animals/173867/39 "2003-05-10T15:05:16Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by mooka \* > \*\* > Not quite on topic but bo989 - [dictionary.com](http://dictionary.com) gives this definition of sentient: > > # Having sense perception; conscious: “The living knew themselves just sentient puppets on God’s stage” (T.E. Lawrence). > > # Experiencing sensation or feeling > > It doesn’t to be a word with a clear well defined meaning. Conscious mean aware of ones own thoughts, so this would be the same as self aware. The second definition of sentient though is clearly not the same as self aware. \*\* You’re right, it’s a bit off-topic, but important none-the-less. I never implied that self-awareness or conciousness was the _only_ definition, nor that there was any _clear_ definition of the word. I only pointed out that several of the definitions of the word supported its usage as self-awareness or conciousness. I also further cited that the practical use of the word in an important academic field treats the words synonymously. Finally, to ‘experience’ anything, you have to be self-aware. An organism can not ‘experience’ something without the knowledge that it is seperate and independent from the environment around it. So your final statement that the second definition is clearly not the same as self-aware is not completely accurate. ---
**Author:** ![mooka](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/b5a626/32.png) [@mooka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mooka)\ **Post date:** [May 10, 2003, 4:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-can-we-test-for-sentience-cognition-in-animals/173867/40 "2003-05-10T16:46:59Z")
Sorry about the thread hijack everyone… Bo989 - Apologies - I did misunderstand you a little. I guess self awareness can be one of the definitions of sentient, but not the only one. As you said, there is no single meaning of the word. I would disagree though that to experience something you have to be self aware. I don’t believe less intelligent animals have a clearly defined sense of self, but they can still experience pain or hunger for example. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-can-we-test-for-sentience-cognition-in-animals/173867.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-can-we-test-for-sentience-cognition-in-animals/173867.md?page=3)