An emerging new picture of animal consciousness
April 25, 2024 4:42 PM Subscribe
The New York Declaration on Animal Consciousness, signed by 88 researchers, asks us to consider more non-human creatures as capable of subjective experiences.
First, there is strong scientific support for attributions of conscious experience to other mammals and to birds.
Second, the empirical evidence indicates at least a realistic possibility of conscious experience in all vertebrates (including reptiles, amphibians, and fishes) and many invertebrates (including, at minimum, cephalopod mollusks, decapod crustaceans, and insects).
Third, when there is a realistic possibility of conscious experience in an animal, it is irresponsible to ignore that possibility in decisions affecting that animal. We should consider welfare risks and use the evidence to inform our responses to these risks.
And yet:
It would be inappropriate to talk about “proof,” “certainty,” or “conclusive evidence” in the search for animal consciousness, because the nature of consciousness is still hotly contested. However, it is entirely appropriate to interpret these remarkable displays of learning, memory, planning, problem-solving, self-awareness, and other such capacities as evidence of consciousness in cases where the same behavior, if found in a human or other mammal, would be well explained by conscious processing. These behaviors make it more likely that these animals have consciousness without proving that they have it, just as the symptoms of a disease make it more likely that you have the disease without proving that you have it.
First, there is strong scientific support for attributions of conscious experience to other mammals and to birds.
Second, the empirical evidence indicates at least a realistic possibility of conscious experience in all vertebrates (including reptiles, amphibians, and fishes) and many invertebrates (including, at minimum, cephalopod mollusks, decapod crustaceans, and insects).
Third, when there is a realistic possibility of conscious experience in an animal, it is irresponsible to ignore that possibility in decisions affecting that animal. We should consider welfare risks and use the evidence to inform our responses to these risks.
And yet:
It would be inappropriate to talk about “proof,” “certainty,” or “conclusive evidence” in the search for animal consciousness, because the nature of consciousness is still hotly contested. However, it is entirely appropriate to interpret these remarkable displays of learning, memory, planning, problem-solving, self-awareness, and other such capacities as evidence of consciousness in cases where the same behavior, if found in a human or other mammal, would be well explained by conscious processing. These behaviors make it more likely that these animals have consciousness without proving that they have it, just as the symptoms of a disease make it more likely that you have the disease without proving that you have it.
Human resources koala -- now there's a service animal.
posted by y2karl at 5:43 PM on April 25 [8 favorites]
posted by y2karl at 5:43 PM on April 25 [8 favorites]
a rescue sloth.
posted by clavdivs at 6:02 PM on April 25 [4 favorites]
posted by clavdivs at 6:02 PM on April 25 [4 favorites]
This is messing with the inner carnivore.
last time I rode a horse swear to God it acted like it was going to give me a Yelp review. like Mr Ed the head echoes "keeping it in second gear, again.'
my friend's parrot hated me for 6 months until I would wait on the stairs and act is like a aircraft carrier and take her down all the while nibbling at my ear it's not a test that's a trial. and the pack, having three dogs two of them rescue, to observe them interact, it was like on four different levels most likely scent, sight, hearing, posturing/body language. what was interesting is we introduced the two dogs within a week and the elder dog took on a roll of almost a mother. and the dogs hierarchical needs had to be accomplished by hierarchy in this case matriarchy..
middle dog was a catahoula leopard which is an incredibly fast dog and it got outside one day and of course I started to run like a man chasing his hat and then I stopped in the middle of a big field an gestured,, he just ran circles around me and we made that eye contact and that was the only contact that we had in that moment. I broke eye contact after 45 or 60 seconds of twirling, he would sort of charge in every time to my right. the point is verbal communication (yelling) eventual capture after he ran outside and punishment did not work but turn it into a game and confine them to one area, and he knew he would not be punished. But attempting escape, was a punishable thing, little bastard would crouch low on haunches until he saw me looking and was like la-deda and finding his Kong chew toy. littlest dog was a beagle and a miniature beagle at that but when all three were outside, he caught wind of something gave his little howl and he went off and the other two followed. I found that that interesting.I don't know that proves any consciousness other than my own memory.
but dogs got to run.
posted by clavdivs at 6:02 PM on April 25 [10 favorites]
last time I rode a horse swear to God it acted like it was going to give me a Yelp review. like Mr Ed the head echoes "keeping it in second gear, again.'
my friend's parrot hated me for 6 months until I would wait on the stairs and act is like a aircraft carrier and take her down all the while nibbling at my ear it's not a test that's a trial. and the pack, having three dogs two of them rescue, to observe them interact, it was like on four different levels most likely scent, sight, hearing, posturing/body language. what was interesting is we introduced the two dogs within a week and the elder dog took on a roll of almost a mother. and the dogs hierarchical needs had to be accomplished by hierarchy in this case matriarchy..
middle dog was a catahoula leopard which is an incredibly fast dog and it got outside one day and of course I started to run like a man chasing his hat and then I stopped in the middle of a big field an gestured,, he just ran circles around me and we made that eye contact and that was the only contact that we had in that moment. I broke eye contact after 45 or 60 seconds of twirling, he would sort of charge in every time to my right. the point is verbal communication (yelling) eventual capture after he ran outside and punishment did not work but turn it into a game and confine them to one area, and he knew he would not be punished. But attempting escape, was a punishable thing, little bastard would crouch low on haunches until he saw me looking and was like la-deda and finding his Kong chew toy. littlest dog was a beagle and a miniature beagle at that but when all three were outside, he caught wind of something gave his little howl and he went off and the other two followed. I found that that interesting.I don't know that proves any consciousness other than my own memory.
but dogs got to run.
posted by clavdivs at 6:02 PM on April 25 [10 favorites]
I have just had it. This reminds me, again, of the video where the original Nim researcher meets Nim again and it actually effing surprising that the Chimp remembers him.
It's like these people haven't met an animal. Of any kind. Ever.
posted by Lesser Shrew at 7:00 PM on April 25 [9 favorites]
It's like these people haven't met an animal. Of any kind. Ever.
posted by Lesser Shrew at 7:00 PM on April 25 [9 favorites]
It's a good first step.
Next step: define consciousness.
posted by neuron at 7:33 PM on April 25 [3 favorites]
Next step: define consciousness.
posted by neuron at 7:33 PM on April 25 [3 favorites]
eponysterical
posted by neuron at 7:33 PM on April 25 [5 favorites]
posted by neuron at 7:33 PM on April 25 [5 favorites]
“It would be inappropriate to talk about “proof,” “certainty,” or “conclusive evidence” in the search for animal consciousness…”
Checkmate, consciousness skeptics.
posted by ursus_comiter at 7:45 PM on April 25 [4 favorites]
Checkmate, consciousness skeptics.
posted by ursus_comiter at 7:45 PM on April 25 [4 favorites]
Not really sure why people are going so hard on this when it’s legal to kill and eat non-human animals and case law is so heavily weighed against requiring they be treated as anything more than property. This sort of thing is actually news to many people!
posted by rhymedirective at 8:05 PM on April 25 [13 favorites]
posted by rhymedirective at 8:05 PM on April 25 [13 favorites]
Speaking of horses… I once sat in a car with two others and watched a horse let itself out of a gate and a man came and put it back. It let itself out again when he walked away and then hid behind the stable when the man came to put it back again. When the man would go to one side the horse would peek around the corner and then follow him so he couldn’t catch it. He would go one way and the horse would go around the other. It was like Laurel and Hardy. We were laughing in disbelief. It even looked over at us at one point and if it could have winked I’m sure it would have. Once the guy finally got it back in its paddock we drove away and honked the horn and the horse came running across the field and along the fence beside us tossing its head and neighing loudly as if to laugh because it knew we had seen the whole thing.
Not just planning and memory but humor. It knew exactly what it was doing the whole time and it wasn’t trying to get away, it was just entertaining itself.
posted by Conrad-Casserole at 8:10 PM on April 25 [26 favorites]
Not just planning and memory but humor. It knew exactly what it was doing the whole time and it wasn’t trying to get away, it was just entertaining itself.
posted by Conrad-Casserole at 8:10 PM on April 25 [26 favorites]
As in, you'd need to be extremely narrow-minded and genuinely isolated from the natural world to believe otherwise.
Maybe, but this is apparently the vast majority of people? I think it's rather that most people have an amazing number of cognitive mechanisms in place to maintain the cognitive dissonance required to do what we do to animals. It's going to take an arsenal of very firm and obvious evidence to break that down.
posted by Alex404 at 10:17 PM on April 25 [10 favorites]
Maybe, but this is apparently the vast majority of people? I think it's rather that most people have an amazing number of cognitive mechanisms in place to maintain the cognitive dissonance required to do what we do to animals. It's going to take an arsenal of very firm and obvious evidence to break that down.
posted by Alex404 at 10:17 PM on April 25 [10 favorites]
People have difficulty believing that *other people* have inner lives and shouldn't be subjected to suffering.
posted by Zumbador at 10:34 PM on April 25 [28 favorites]
posted by Zumbador at 10:34 PM on April 25 [28 favorites]
I don’t get it, some people believe animals don’t self reflect?
Why else does my cat hedge the other cat out of the food dish? Clearly, he understands me/my food vs you/your food. What more would anyone look for? That it can theorize about another’s mind? Have an internal commentary?
Even my five year old child was arguing that a fish doesn’t want to be eaten and that it’s unfair to the fish to eat them.
posted by St. Peepsburg at 11:37 PM on April 25 [2 favorites]
Why else does my cat hedge the other cat out of the food dish? Clearly, he understands me/my food vs you/your food. What more would anyone look for? That it can theorize about another’s mind? Have an internal commentary?
Even my five year old child was arguing that a fish doesn’t want to be eaten and that it’s unfair to the fish to eat them.
posted by St. Peepsburg at 11:37 PM on April 25 [2 favorites]
I like to think this issue illustrates the difference between Continental rationalism and British empiricism.
Descartes believed animals were mindless robots and that it was fine to dissect living, conscious dogs.
Hume said he was almost embarrassed to present arguments for the thesis that dogs had feelings because it seemed so obvious from mere observation.
posted by Phanx at 2:07 AM on April 26 [9 favorites]
Descartes believed animals were mindless robots and that it was fine to dissect living, conscious dogs.
Hume said he was almost embarrassed to present arguments for the thesis that dogs had feelings because it seemed so obvious from mere observation.
posted by Phanx at 2:07 AM on April 26 [9 favorites]
It's definitely not really a gotcha moment for avoiding a meat diet considering there's credible research on plant consciousness as well. I think what matters is to reflect on lessons of older cultures and civilisations that didn't seek to segregate the humans from the world in order to feel better about extraction. But I think that's definitely a huge cultural challenge - I don't know where I land on this yet but who knows, maybe interspecies cultivation treaties wouldn't be so far-fetched.
posted by cendawanita at 2:55 AM on April 26 [1 favorite]
posted by cendawanita at 2:55 AM on April 26 [1 favorite]
In a college class many moons ago, I was taught that animals don't have sentience because they don't respond to mirrors and don't use symbolic language. So many people do in fact believe that animals are not truly conscious.
(Mirrors are visual and many animals ascertain truth from smells, not appearances. In that same class, we learned that lying required an understanding of the other's mind, and I have definitely seen animals lie about who committed a house crime.)
posted by tofu_crouton at 4:50 AM on April 26 [7 favorites]
(Mirrors are visual and many animals ascertain truth from smells, not appearances. In that same class, we learned that lying required an understanding of the other's mind, and I have definitely seen animals lie about who committed a house crime.)
posted by tofu_crouton at 4:50 AM on April 26 [7 favorites]
When I tell Greg she can't do something, I say "no" and she gets mad, cusses me out, glares at me, and stalks away. Exactly like a child, except Greg is a cat.
posted by seanmpuckett at 5:19 AM on April 26 [3 favorites]
posted by seanmpuckett at 5:19 AM on April 26 [3 favorites]
Ask any pet person, regardless of the pet, if their pet is conscious and you'll get an affirmative answer. Not scientific, obviously, but if you spend time with an animal in non-stressful situations you'll see what researchers often miss. There's more going on in animal's minds than we've given them credit for.
posted by tommasz at 5:20 AM on April 26 [3 favorites]
posted by tommasz at 5:20 AM on April 26 [3 favorites]
That third step is quite a leap, and sets out a pretty dangerous kind of ethics that is really more a kind of aesthetics: Be nice to animals who have test results that make consciousness scientists interested. It sounds kind of like "be nice to animals because they have a capacity to feel pain"--which has led to a lot of research in how best to slaughter billions of cows without distressing them overmuch. There are pressing problems in our relationship to animals, but thinking that they might be sentient doesn't actually get us where we need to be. We might need something more like, "be nice to animals because they're a critical part of creating a livable world for us." (Or "are crucial to your economy in ways not immediately apparent.")
A sort of pragmatic vitalism like I was talking about the other day could also come into play here: "be nice to animals because when we treat things like they're people (even in the absence of evidence!) we tend to make better decisions about them."
The reverse is also true of course. Zumbador's point above is well-taken; a key step if you want to dominate human beings is to stop thinking about them as human beings. They are mere animals--rats, pigs, flies. Bees exhibit play behavior, and so do prisoners, and that state of play could be used as evidence of sentience or evidence of not being punished hard enough; science is a political act and any test you use to prove something is human, could be twisted to prove a human is not human, so we have to be careful and generous and a little dumb when it comes to our definitions.
Obviously, none of this has to do with whether animals are really conscious--that's unknowable, where we are right now, although as the signers indicate, there's much more evidence for birds and mammals than for other animals, and there are arguments for why that is (consciousness is energy intensive!). There's a question of structure, too--can a bumblebee's tiny little brain (a marvel of efficiency though it is) really be said to be doing the same thing as a dolphin's much larger and more complex brain? If a bee is conscious, then consciousness must mean something very different than we thought it did. (This is why I thought it was interesting that Anil Seth signed the letter--I thought he would be much more along the lines of, "bees don't have the machinery for it.")
posted by mittens at 5:24 AM on April 26 [7 favorites]
A sort of pragmatic vitalism like I was talking about the other day could also come into play here: "be nice to animals because when we treat things like they're people (even in the absence of evidence!) we tend to make better decisions about them."
The reverse is also true of course. Zumbador's point above is well-taken; a key step if you want to dominate human beings is to stop thinking about them as human beings. They are mere animals--rats, pigs, flies. Bees exhibit play behavior, and so do prisoners, and that state of play could be used as evidence of sentience or evidence of not being punished hard enough; science is a political act and any test you use to prove something is human, could be twisted to prove a human is not human, so we have to be careful and generous and a little dumb when it comes to our definitions.
Obviously, none of this has to do with whether animals are really conscious--that's unknowable, where we are right now, although as the signers indicate, there's much more evidence for birds and mammals than for other animals, and there are arguments for why that is (consciousness is energy intensive!). There's a question of structure, too--can a bumblebee's tiny little brain (a marvel of efficiency though it is) really be said to be doing the same thing as a dolphin's much larger and more complex brain? If a bee is conscious, then consciousness must mean something very different than we thought it did. (This is why I thought it was interesting that Anil Seth signed the letter--I thought he would be much more along the lines of, "bees don't have the machinery for it.")
posted by mittens at 5:24 AM on April 26 [7 favorites]
one can also argue that most humans are not conscious, most of the time. --alas!
posted by graywyvern at 5:47 AM on April 26 [5 favorites]
posted by graywyvern at 5:47 AM on April 26 [5 favorites]
There is an assertion that much of animal behavior that appears to be intelligent is really just instinct, versus in humans it is learned and intelligence-based. For example, maternal behavior in animals are considered instinct, as if no learning from their own parents plays a role, they just know from birth how to take care of their young. Humans seem to give little credence, if any, to their own maternal behaviors being instinctual versus learned. This is just one example of the disparity among the animal kingdom as to what is responsible for behaviors of survival and social interactions. I wonder how much religious teachings over the centuries has lead to this unfairness.
posted by waving at 6:33 AM on April 26 [2 favorites]
posted by waving at 6:33 AM on April 26 [2 favorites]
I wonder how much religious teachings over the centuries has lead to this unfairness
Or teaching in general. One of the things about language is that it functions as a sort of annex to consciousness, a portable packet of conscious workspace that really draws attention to itself, and tries to explain everything in terms of itself. I think the example of child-rearing is an excellent one, because new parents are surrounded by language which demands attention to itself. It's certainly not that young parents don't have instincts, but advisors want to see fealty to their advice, and it becomes a real struggle!
posted by mittens at 7:27 AM on April 26 [3 favorites]
Or teaching in general. One of the things about language is that it functions as a sort of annex to consciousness, a portable packet of conscious workspace that really draws attention to itself, and tries to explain everything in terms of itself. I think the example of child-rearing is an excellent one, because new parents are surrounded by language which demands attention to itself. It's certainly not that young parents don't have instincts, but advisors want to see fealty to their advice, and it becomes a real struggle!
posted by mittens at 7:27 AM on April 26 [3 favorites]
What does consciousness have to do with moral duty? When do we have moral duty to non-human things? Does it in fact depend on whether and to what degree they're conscious? Might there be entire categories of things that are "conscious" but nevertheless we have no moral duty to preserve that consciousness or to treat it with "respect"?
If materialism is true, the United States is probably conscious
Oxford Handbook of the Philosophy of Consciousness - Consciousness and Morality
The moral parody argument against panpsychism
posted by the antecedent of that pronoun at 8:16 AM on April 26 [3 favorites]
If materialism is true, the United States is probably conscious
Oxford Handbook of the Philosophy of Consciousness - Consciousness and Morality
The moral parody argument against panpsychism
posted by the antecedent of that pronoun at 8:16 AM on April 26 [3 favorites]
I know nothing of these things. But It seems to me the concept of “mirror” would be harder for an animal to grasp than “me/my food /my space”. Which is the actual definition of sentience I guess? Not whether you know what a mirror is. Babies don’t pass the mirror test. The mirror test is ableism!
I mean most people my self included are generally on auto pilot; that’s the conditioned mind for you: stimulus and response. Even the most mindful moment is populated with uncontrolled content. Whether instinct or learned. And what is instinct but something that feels good or bad (gut feelings). Animals take care of their young because it feels good (and so do we!)
posted by St. Peepsburg at 8:35 AM on April 26
I mean most people my self included are generally on auto pilot; that’s the conditioned mind for you: stimulus and response. Even the most mindful moment is populated with uncontrolled content. Whether instinct or learned. And what is instinct but something that feels good or bad (gut feelings). Animals take care of their young because it feels good (and so do we!)
posted by St. Peepsburg at 8:35 AM on April 26
"anthropomorphism" was one of those big no-no's in animal behavior research-- my teacher in the 90's, who worked daily with animals and should have not been such a head-up-his-butt, harped on and on about how you must never say that animals have feelings or emotions because 'it's not scientifically proven'. He was a big fan of Skinner, obvs.
Anyway, anthropomorphism was originally, ascribing human traits to God, and it was considered wrong to limit God with human traits, because God is superior. Now, we use it to say that animals shouldn't have human traits, because humans are superior. Note who's replaced God in this equation.
posted by The otter lady at 8:48 AM on April 26 [2 favorites]
Anyway, anthropomorphism was originally, ascribing human traits to God, and it was considered wrong to limit God with human traits, because God is superior. Now, we use it to say that animals shouldn't have human traits, because humans are superior. Note who's replaced God in this equation.
posted by The otter lady at 8:48 AM on April 26 [2 favorites]
Favorited OP on basis of topic: having scanned thread, wondering if I really want to read TFA. Any discussion that doesn't start somewhere in the vicinity of "Dogs? Obviously conscious, in a doggy sort of way. Snakes? Not so obvious about consciousness, unless that's defined purely in terms of capacity to experience suffering" is probably not worth my time.
posted by Aardvark Cheeselog at 10:29 AM on April 26
posted by Aardvark Cheeselog at 10:29 AM on April 26
This is a depressing debate. Since when are instinct and consciousness opposed to one another? Anyone with ADD can attest to being conscious while still behaving instinctively. I say that animals do the same, each according to their nature.
posted by SnowRottie at 10:31 AM on April 26 [2 favorites]
posted by SnowRottie at 10:31 AM on April 26 [2 favorites]
In a college class many moons ago, I was taught that animals don't have sentience because they don't respond to mirrors and don't use symbolic language. So many people do in fact believe that animals are not truly conscious.
tofu_crouton, you might be interested in this part of the "Background" page:
Cleaner wrasse fish appear to pass a version of the mirror-mark test. Questions of self awareness in animals have long been explored using the “mirror-mark test,” which tests whether an animal, upon seeing a mark on their own body in a mirror, will try to remove that mark. In a surprising series of studies between 2019 and 2023, researchers showed that cleaner wrasse fish can pass the four phases of the test. First, when exposed to a mirror, the fish react aggressively as though they believe they see a rival fish. Second, the aggression fades and the fish begin performing unusual behaviors in front of the mirror, such as swimming upside down. Third, the fish seem to study themselves in the mirror. Finally, after the experimenters place a colored mark on the fish, the fish, on seeing the mark in the mirror, attempt to remove it by scraping against an available surface.
posted by doctornemo at 11:16 AM on April 26 [7 favorites]
tofu_crouton, you might be interested in this part of the "Background" page:
Cleaner wrasse fish appear to pass a version of the mirror-mark test. Questions of self awareness in animals have long been explored using the “mirror-mark test,” which tests whether an animal, upon seeing a mark on their own body in a mirror, will try to remove that mark. In a surprising series of studies between 2019 and 2023, researchers showed that cleaner wrasse fish can pass the four phases of the test. First, when exposed to a mirror, the fish react aggressively as though they believe they see a rival fish. Second, the aggression fades and the fish begin performing unusual behaviors in front of the mirror, such as swimming upside down. Third, the fish seem to study themselves in the mirror. Finally, after the experimenters place a colored mark on the fish, the fish, on seeing the mark in the mirror, attempt to remove it by scraping against an available surface.
posted by doctornemo at 11:16 AM on April 26 [7 favorites]
Thank you doctornemo! My college class was easily 2 decades before that. People will not give up the danged mirror test, but at least we're getting better about it.
posted by tofu_crouton at 11:40 AM on April 26 [1 favorite]
posted by tofu_crouton at 11:40 AM on April 26 [1 favorite]
The cleaner wrasse is a great example of why the mirror test isn't testing for consciousness--or, at least, why this particular way of looking at one's body is not indicative of a larger subjective experience.
If, say, there was a parasite on the fish, in some spot the fish couldn't see, but the fish's skin was irritated, I think we'd understand that no particular consciousness would be needed for the fish to act appropriately--rubbing itself against a rock, or whatever fish do to clean themselves. And I don't think we'd jump to any conclusions if the fish saw a parasite, either--something on its fin perhaps. (At least...would you assume that was consciousness, that a fish might have a visual representation of itself strong enough to know when something was amiss in its vision? I would assume that's not a sign of consciousness, but would understand someone disagreeing on that point, even if they agreed with the tactile part.)
That (maybe) unconscious visual representation has to be constantly updated, because with every movement, your body and the world around you are changing in your field of vision. It's like object permanence, but you're the object.
I think the mirror test is actually changing the internal representation of the body, so that the fish isn't going, hey, that's me in the mirror--but look at that weird spot! But, rather, on a much lower level, the mirror image is now being incorporated into the fish's pre-existing visual representation. The swimming upside-down, we might see it as a form of handshaking between two sets of images, the normal image and the mirror image.
I think my question might be, what happens after the mirror test? Does the fish act at all differently, when the mirror is taken away? Does the fish immediately pass the mirror test again if presented with the mirror a few days later, or does it go through the four phases again?
And, maybe importantly, is this just part of the cleaner wrasse's job? If you're evolved to pick out little bits of things off other fish, or off other animals in your environment, could this be less about self-image and more about finding particular imperfections tasty?
posted by mittens at 11:57 AM on April 26 [3 favorites]
If, say, there was a parasite on the fish, in some spot the fish couldn't see, but the fish's skin was irritated, I think we'd understand that no particular consciousness would be needed for the fish to act appropriately--rubbing itself against a rock, or whatever fish do to clean themselves. And I don't think we'd jump to any conclusions if the fish saw a parasite, either--something on its fin perhaps. (At least...would you assume that was consciousness, that a fish might have a visual representation of itself strong enough to know when something was amiss in its vision? I would assume that's not a sign of consciousness, but would understand someone disagreeing on that point, even if they agreed with the tactile part.)
That (maybe) unconscious visual representation has to be constantly updated, because with every movement, your body and the world around you are changing in your field of vision. It's like object permanence, but you're the object.
I think the mirror test is actually changing the internal representation of the body, so that the fish isn't going, hey, that's me in the mirror--but look at that weird spot! But, rather, on a much lower level, the mirror image is now being incorporated into the fish's pre-existing visual representation. The swimming upside-down, we might see it as a form of handshaking between two sets of images, the normal image and the mirror image.
I think my question might be, what happens after the mirror test? Does the fish act at all differently, when the mirror is taken away? Does the fish immediately pass the mirror test again if presented with the mirror a few days later, or does it go through the four phases again?
And, maybe importantly, is this just part of the cleaner wrasse's job? If you're evolved to pick out little bits of things off other fish, or off other animals in your environment, could this be less about self-image and more about finding particular imperfections tasty?
posted by mittens at 11:57 AM on April 26 [3 favorites]
Literally reading Homo Deus right now, and this is one of the first arguments in the book.
I'm for it, but don't expect factory farming to change anytime soon.
posted by daHIFI at 4:15 PM on April 26
I'm for it, but don't expect factory farming to change anytime soon.
posted by daHIFI at 4:15 PM on April 26
« Older new music for your ears | Passersby were amazed at the unusually large... Newer »
posted by mhoye at 5:09 PM on April 25 [19 favorites]