Primate self-awareness

[Oolon Colluphid]

... is apparently limited to just great apes. Or at least, the ability to recognise a reflection as being their own.

Proc. R. Soc. B vol. 276 no. 1662 pp. 1671-1677 (7 May 2009)

The evolution of primate visual self-recognition: evidence of absence in lesser apes

Suddendorf and Collier-Baker
Mirror self-recognition typically emerges in human children in the second year of life and has been documented in great apes. In contrast to monkeys, humans and great apes can use mirrors to inspect unusual marks on their body that cannot be seen directly.

Here we show that lesser apes (family Hylobatidae) [gibbons] fail to use the mirror to find surreptitiously placed marks on their head, in spite of being strongly motivated to retrieve directly visible marks from the mirror surface itself and from their own limbs.

These findings suggest that the capacity for visual self-recognition evolved in a common ancestor of all great apes after the split from the line that led to modern lesser apes approximately 18 Myr ago.

They also highlight the potential of a comparative approach for identifying the neurological and genetic underpinnings of self-recognition and other higher cognitive faculties.
Although bonobos still need to be tested and only slightly less than half of all the individual great apes tested have passed, these data suggest that it is likely that the potential for mirror self-recognition was inherited from a common ancestor, because this hypothesis requires only one assumption about an evolutionary change (i.e. acquisition of the capacity by a common ancestor of the great apes and humans), whereas a model of convergent evolution would imply at least four separate acquisition events in the lines leading to modern great apes and humans (Suddendorf & Whiten 2001). Given recent molecular estimates (Wildman et al. 2003), this suggests that the trait is at least 13.8 Myr old (figure 1).

http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/276/1662/1671/F1.medium.gif

Phylogenetic tree of the living apes. The four lesser ape genera, crested gibbons (Nomascus), siamangs (Symphalangus), hoolocks (Bunopithecus) and common gibbons (Hylobates) differ in the number of chromosomes (52, 50, 38 and 44, respectively). Common and crested gibbons comprise several species. There has been some debate about which of the lesser ape genera is the most basal (e.g. Takacs et al. 2005).

[...]]

Of almost 60 hours of behavioural recording during the mirror exposure sessions, there were only 23 instances of self-directed behaviour from seven of the gibbons while facing the mirror. Apart from some tongue manipulation displayed by one siamang (Symphalangus syndactylus), that we included although her tongue may have been visible without the aid of the mirror, every other behaviour observed in the category of ‘manipulating a body part visible only in the mirror’ consisted of scratching or touching the head, face or back. It is possible that these instances reflect a capacity for self-recognition. However, none of these behaviours were followed by further self-directed manipulations, suggesting that they may have been merely coincidental with orientation to the mirror. The mark test gave gibbons the opportunity to provide more objective evidence.

[...]

We did not find any evidence to suggest that lesser apes can recognize themselves in mirrors. The apes were clearly driven to find and retrieve a mark, and their continuing failure is hence evidence of absence rather than merely absence of evidence. In the face of substantially increased opportunity to show competence and continued failure to do so, it is now likely that lesser apes do not in fact have the capacity to recognize their mirror image.

[...]

If other mammals have evolved self-recognition through convergent evolution, more extensive comparative analysis could provide additional clues. However, the underlying mechanisms involved may be fundamentally different. Positive results for one elephant (Plotnik et al. 2006), two magpies (Prior et al. 2008) and one dolphin (Reiss & Marino 2001) have been reported in the literature. Among primates, only the descendents of a humanoid that probably lived between 13.8 and 18 Myr ago have so far reliably demonstrated that they know who it is that who looks back at them when they look in a mirror.

[Ray Moscow]

Even in our own species, self awareness is not always achieved.

http://themoderatevoice.com/wordpress-engine/files/2009-january/BushChimp.jpg

[Goldie]

Interesting stuff!

lol@ray

[lpetrich]

We are, of course, very advanced. We learn to recognize ourselves in mirrors typically at around 18 months of age. By comparison, chimps do not learn to self-recognize until their adolescence.

Looking among the Old World monkeys, rhesus monkeys and other macaques have been tested, and they show little or no evidence of being able to recognize themselves in mirrors.

Most species tested fail this test; your pet dogs and cats do not recognize that the dog or cat in the mirror is itself.

There are a few exceptions, like elephants and dolphins, but they are rare.


Interestingly, one of the forms of mental regression of Alzheimer's disease is losing the ability to recognize oneself in a mirror, though that happens in the second or third stages of the disease.

[Goldie]

We are, of course, very advanced. We learn to recognize ourselves in mirrors typically at around 18 months of age. By comparison, chimps do not learn to self-recognize until their adolescence.

Looking among the Old World monkeys, rhesus monkeys and other macaques have been tested, and they show little or no evidence of being able to recognize themselves in mirrors.

Most species tested fail this test; your pet dogs and cats do not recognize that the dog or cat in the mirror is itself.

There are a few exceptions, like elephants and dolphins, but they are rare.


Interestingly, one of the forms of mental regression of Alzheimer's disease is losing the ability to recognize oneself in a mirror, though that happens in the second or third stages of the disease.


I am gonna guess that this is because Alzheimers patients regress... they think they are younger typically. So, who is that geezer in the mirror?

[lpetrich]

Interestingly, one of the forms of mental regression of Alzheimer's disease is losing the ability to recognize oneself in a mirror, though that happens in the second or third stages of the disease.

I am gonna guess that this is because Alzheimers patients regress... they think they are younger typically. So, who is that geezer in the mirror?
They don't "think" that they are younger; their minds more-or-less reverse their development. In fact, an old name for Alzheimer's disease was "second childhood".

[DMB]

I would say "they don't think". As I observe my demented 94yo mother, I see very little sign of anything that could really be described as thought.

[Sodong]

Ipetrich: Looking among the Old World monkeys, rhesus monkeys and other macaques have been tested, and they show little or no evidence of being able to recognize themselves in mirrors.Heh. This reminded me of a spider monkey I used to know. :) Back in the 60's a relative of mine had two pet monkeys. I don't remember what species the other one was but both were around the same size. I remember the spider monkey well though. We loved to walk around with one or the other of them perched on our shoulder. We would occasionally place a piece of fruit or a peanut on our heads, surely the only thing that kept him on our shoulders instead of wreaking havoc in the house (which is the other thing they seemed to enjoy doing) I had him on my shoulder one day and was walking into the living room when Jo warned, "don't walk in front of that mirror!", a warning that came a tad late unfortunately. The second he got a glimpse of the thing in the mirror he let go with a whopping stream of urine. I was close enough to said mirror to get backsplash and to add insult to injury, the diminishing stream dribbled down my shoulder and the front of my shirt. I don't know what the monkey thought about what he saw in the mirror but I'm pretty sure it wasn't "ain't I a handsome lad".

[wordy]

Doesn't all this support that it is the processes that creates the awareness and not an independent consiousness outside of the brain that use the brain as a receiver of info.

One could say that what emerge as self awareness are very dependent on the quality of the hardware.

Distortion and illusions or delusions creep in very easily and make the quality of observation go down drastically.

[Garrett]

Doesn't all this support that it is the processes that creates the awareness and not an independent consiousness outside of the brain that use the brain as a receiver of info.

Does a malfunctioning radio support that the processes of the radio creates the music and not an independent radio signal outside of the radio that uses the radio as a receiver?

:)

critical thinking vs confirmation bias

[Garrett]

... is apparently limited to just great apes. Or at least, the ability to recognise a reflection as being their own.
I see no reason to think that an entity cannot be self-aware unless that entity can recognise itself in a mirror. So I'm glad you added that caveat!

What is 'self-awareness' anyway - how does it differ from regular awareness?

If an entity were aware but not self-aware, what are the implications? If it hurts, would it not feel the pain since it doesn't know the pain is happening to itself?

[Sodong]

Maybe there are degrees of perceiving a self as separate from an other that depend on nervous system complexity. In humans, pain is experienced in various parts of the brain including the neocortex where it happens to an entity we call "I". "I" is part bodily sensation - neural cell signaling and processing - part psychosocial construction. Perhaps that is why we see something we identify as self-awareness evident in animals with both neocortical processing ability and complex social lives. A less complex arrangement doesn't seem to preclude feeling an aversive bodily sensation. I'm inclined to think that the sensation of pain is greater and more significant in organisms capable of complex processing of the transduced signals. An interesting question is then how much nervous system complexity is necessary before we might be obliged to avoid causing pain?

[Garrett]

An interesting question is then how much nervous system complexity is necessary before we might be obliged to avoid causing pain?
Smaller than a bird's brain, and imo smaller than a bug's brain.

Here's (http://rationalpagans.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=4315&p=18504#p18504) an interesting OP from RatPags.

And btw I'd say "avoid causing unnecessary pain".

[Sodong]

An interesting question is then how much nervous system complexity is necessary before we might be obliged to avoid causing pain?
Smaller than a bird's brain, and imo smaller than a bug's brain.

Here's (http://rationalpagans.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=4315&p=18504#p18504) an interesting OP from RatPags.

And btw I'd say "avoid causing unnecessary pain".Yes, unnecessary pain.

[lpetrich]

My favorite speculation is that a sense of self comes from mental modeling. Much of our perception involves mental modeling; we do not see objects directly, we get light patterns and interpret them as coming from objects. This usually works, but sometimes not, as in interpreting rainbows as solid objects. This mental modeling takes place behind the scenes of our consciousness, so we don't know it's there.

Consciousness could be a byproduct of mental modeling of oneself; I recall seeing some such speculation somewhere. That mental modeling could be a way of tracking one's state to help make decisions about what to do, like how to move one's arms to grab something.

But that speculation might eventually be tested by brain scanning.

[Sodong]

This (http://www.cambridge.org/catalogue/catalogue.asp?isbn=0521025915) looks like it might make an interesting on-topic read. If only I had the time.

[Oolon Colluphid]

This (http://www.cambridge.org/catalogue/catalogue.asp?isbn=0521025915) looks like it might make an interesting on-topic read. If only I had the time.
... and the money :(

[Sodong]

This (http://www.cambridge.org/catalogue/catalogue.asp?isbn=0521025915) looks like it might make an interesting on-topic read. If only I had the time.
... and the money :(True enough, but it is a collection of original articles that may be more easily acquired.
Part I. Comparative and Developmental Approaches to Self-Awareness: 1. Expanding dimensions of the self: through the looking glass and beyond Sue Taylor Parker, Robert W. Mitchell and Maria L. Boccia; 2. Myself and me Michael Lewis; 3. Self-recognition: research strategies and experimental design Gordon G. Gallup, Jr.; 4. From self-recognition to theory-of-mind György Gergely; 5. Mutual awareness in primate communication: a Gricean approach Juan Carlos Gómez; 6. Multiplicities of self Robert W. Mitchell; 7. Contributions of imitation and role playing games to the construction of self in primates Sue Taylor Parker and Constance Milbrath; Part II. The Development of Self in Human Infants and Children: 8. Detection of self: the perfect algorithm John S. Watson; 9. Social imitation and the emergence of a mental model of self Daniel Hart and Suzanne Fegley; 10. Minds, bodies and persons: young children’s understanding of the self and others as reflected in imitation and ‘theory of mind’ research Alison Gopnik and Andrew N. Meltzoff; Part III. Self-Awareness in Great Apes: 11. Social and cognitive factors in chimpanzee and gorilla mirror behavior and self-recognition Karyl B. Swartz and Siân Evans; 12. The comparative and developmental study of self-recognition and imitation: the importance of social factors Deborah Custance and Kim A. Bard; 13. Shadows and mirrors: alternative avenues to the development of self-recognition in chimpanzees Sarah T. Boysen, Kirstan M. Bryan and Traci A. Shreyer;...<snip>

Like this one (http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/276/1662/1671.abstract), for example. Of course it requires either a subscription or a ~$20/day access fee, per article payment or some other way of accessing the journal in question (library?).

[lpetrich]

You don't have to pay $20/day just to keep it accessible -- you can download a copy when you get access to it, so you need only pay for one day's access. I've done that a few times myself, but not very often; though it is usually as convenient as most other online purchases, it is rather expensive.

[Sodong]

You don't have to pay $20/day just to keep it accessible -- you can download a copy when you get access to it, so you need only pay for one day's access. I've done that a few times myself, but not very often; though it is usually as convenient as most other online purchases, it is rather expensive.It sure is on a page by page basis. I'm fortunate enough to have a workplace that allows me access to a wide range of journals, so if I had the time I could probably find some of those. Problem is that if I have the time to search through our holdings there are several other things I should be looking for before I get to subjects I'm generally (as opposed to professionally) interested in.

[Oolon Colluphid]

My Open University membership lets me at most things.

And I can therefore get the pdfs.

Nudge nudge, wink wink, say no more.

[wordy]

Our Royal Library allow us often to read things that others pay for.

But one need to be there physically so your "Open" is really open.

Envy abounds here within me :D

I want to know how much they really get and what it could have been in our lineage that allowed us to get so much better brain. I mean we don't know much about Cro Magnon and Neanderthal either. did they have language?

Apes like Koko??? Kansi and all the others they have tried to teach symbols.

It looks like they really get what they tell them but what on earth is going on within them we seems to have very little knowledge of. At least I am skeptic about it.

I mean if even a Parrot could manipulate symbols and recognize 300 words using such incredibly small brain.

I expect much more from an ape that have been around humans since birth than what they achieve.

Maybe they are like severe autists. So self absorbed that they fail to see things from our perspective.

If they are intelligent then they would ask for their rights would they not?

ok I tease a bit but half serious too. They have seen videos of apes in freedom and they have seen videos of other captured apes like them, if they had a rudimentary sense for what is logical they would reason that it is not fair to be kept in cages or large buildings. They would cooperate and go on strike until they got a fair negotiating.

[DMB]

Wordy, I don't think that your argument holds water. If IQ had a meaning for apes other than us then surely they would have a pretty low IQ. But humans with low IQs are easily manipulated and exploited by brighter people.

And do captive chimps necessarily have a perception that they and humans are from separate species? After all, early western travellers weren't always sure that the great apes weren't people and we know that there was discussion about whether people of certain other races had souls. Captive chimps that are used to interacting with humans may well fail to perceive that humans are more than powerful chimps.

[wordy]

I think I get what you say there. Yes one author named us the Third Chimp?

so apes see us as hierarchically higher level apes that they get angry at but there is no chance of negotiating?

But they trick us humans. They had to put locks on the fridge cause when humans looked the other way then the apes looted the fridge for food to eat.

I lean towards that it is like when they first time see a mirror, some of them realized that it is themselves looking back at them but others think that the ape they see confronting them is madly persistent in mocking them by aping every move they make and they charge at it.

I think of little babies who ask what is that and what name has that thing and do they even do such curiosity things. Do they ask the new care takers at the Zoo or institution of they have children and many friends and such things? Are they curious at all?

I mean to be intelligent one could improvise. An intelligent ape would suddenly try to befriend the human they see as superior in rank.

"Yes I know you are superior over me. You are allowed to leave the building and you go in that big metal box. where do you? What kind of life do you have outside of this building? They could just do things outside of heeding to the low status they have.

Even Cats refuse to eat if they feel badly treated.

[Berthold]

Yes one author named us the Third Chimp?
This (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Third_Chimpanzee).

[wordy]

Thanks and Jared Diamond is even more famous for this book

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guns,_Germs,_and_Steel

which I saw a TV series based on it and him traveling around the world and commenting and talking to people and so on. I guess every public Library have that that book. Not sure if they have the one about how similar we are to chimps. Chimps are the Champions :D

Easy to like that guy but I guess he is much into Left Politics thinking like my Dad also was.

[espritch]

Although bonobos still need to be tested and only slightly less than half of all the individual great apes tested have passed,

Well, testing the Creationists probably skewed the results down a bit.