Thinking Wolves Do wolves think? When a wolf sits and looks, is he contemplating what he knows, his aims, beliefs, desires and what he will do next? Do such mental states exist only in human minds? Alternatively, can we think like a wolf? Can we experience a wolf's mental state? Thinking Of Thought We usually think of thought as being a defining human trait. Picking out arbitrary defining characteristics of what it is to be human is a constant theme running through human-animal relations. Someone chooses a factor he thinks clearly sets humans apart from animals, such as a soul, large brain, language, reasoning, tool use, bipedalism or thinking. Then he claims the exclusive possession of that factor makes humans unique and special. This line of reasoning is weak because these distinctions are thought up arbitrarily; they do not arise naturally from objective analysis of humans and animals and are therefore likely to be wrong. Slight Detour 1: Two Reasons Why Wolves Might Think Evolutionary Continuity A strong reason for believing animals can think is that evolution has continuity. Species do not evolve from scratch but evolve from pre-existing species. Brains, hearts, lungs, kidneys, skeletons, and their structures and functions, are not invented anew in each animal species but are passed on from one species to another. Humans share many of the features of other animals species (brains, hearts, lungs, etc). Therefore, if humans can think, it is logical to believe that thought exists in some form in some other animals. This does not mean the minds of other animals are as broad or deep as our minds. Thought has apparently developed further in humans; other animals appear to dwell proportionately more on the concerns of their present, their near past and immediate future than on abstractions the human mind can summon up. Thus, humans have many of the features of other animals. If humans can think then at least some other animals may also think, particularly the class of animals we have evolved from, the mammals, such as wolves. Genes vs Ecology 98 per cent of the genes of humans and 98 per cent of the genes of chimpanzees are identical. What makes humans and chimpanzees different is a mere two per cent of their genes. Gorillas and orang-utans are also genetically very close to us. Chimpanzees, gorillas, orangs and humans all evolved from the same line of animals, the apes. So it is often suggested when we look at other animals for understanding our own thinking abilities that we should look to the apes. However, an alternative suggestion is sometimes made. Human nature may be more similar to the social-living, group-hunting, meat-eaters, like wolves and lions, than to the more solitary and herbivorous apes. Ecologically, their lifestyle is closer to our own, even though animals like wolves and lions are more distantly related to us genetically. It is long recognised that ecological lifestyle (social-living) is an important factor that shapes cognitive (mental) ability, so we should look to wolves and lions as exemplars of thought. Slight Detour 2: Some Historical Background Opening The Mind's Lid Cognition (from the Latin to learn or to know) is about processing information in the brain, like thinking, perceiving, imagining, reasoning, learning, being aware and making decisions. Wolfgang Kohler (1887-1967), a primateologist interested in chimpanzee cognition, set up a classic cognitive experiment in 1925. He suspended fruit above chimpanzees and watched what they did. They tried jumping up to get it but it was too high. Eventually they stacked up some crates lying about, climbed on top of them and got the fruit. Kohler guessed they had thought about the problem and one of them had the idea of placing a crate on top of another: evidence of insightful thinking. A Set-back: Behaviourism However, a widespread view put paid to Kohler's work: that exploring subjective thoughts and feelings was a worthless pursuit because it did not lead to understanding cognition. Some scientists argued that proper scientific study must be limited to acquiring facts by offering subjects measurable stimuli and recording their measurable responses. The study of out of sight, inaccessible and unmeasurable, entities like cognition, had no place in science so had to be ignored. This measurable analysis of observable behaviour became known as behaviourism. Behaviourism eventually made many good contributions to knowledge but had a downside. Its dogma had such a forceful impact on scientists that research on animal thought and animal minds was practically abandoned for most of the 20th century. Back To Animal Minds Over the years, however, even as behaviourism flourished, observational evidence on animal behaviour accumulated. In general it showed that animals are more complex than can be explained by behaviourism. Animals are versatile, adapt their behaviour to novel and unpredictable situations, and seem to anticipate and plan for the future. Their versatility is evidence of calculating minds. For example, wolves cruising about their immense territories are believed to navigate by learning mental maps of the land (so called cognitive maps). They might help explain how wolves are able successfully to take short cuts through regions of their territories they have not previously explored. Some scientists eventually managed to break free of behaviourism and start research again into animal minds. The science of animal thinking reached a new beginning as the 20th century was drawing to a close. Thus science has only now begun to explore in depth the mental life of animals - cognition, consciousness, emotions. End of Detours: Back To Thinking Wolves Thinking Without Words A major difference between animals and humans is language. Our use of language enables us to label ideas and think about them. The behaviourist view was that animals have no language and therefore cannot think. But thoughts need not be based on human language. After all, how do people think who are completely deaf from birth and have never heard a word spoken? If you accept that thoughts can be based on a notion, image, intention, a tacit assumption, an anticipation, an insight, a conviction, a voiceless acknowledgement of a feeling, then you must believe that animals are able to think. How many kinds of thought are there? We are so used to human-style thought that we may not realise our language-based thinking is not the only mode of thought. If animals do not have language and yet think, then they must think without words. They think in a kind of non-linguistic, non-verbal thought. Thinking Like A Wolf Can YOU think without words, without language? You can. Get a measure of what non-verbal thought is like. Simply suppress your urge to think in words. Suppress the stream of words constantly running through your head by repeating over and over to yourself a short rhythm, like "one, two". Or if musically inclined repeat to yourself two or three musical notes. You will find that as long as you do not let your mind stray, you can pay attention to and explore your non-verbal thoughts. Keep going for as long as you can. You may then be thinking more like a wolf than like a human. Whereas language excels at abstract thought, you may find your non-verbal thoughts incline to awareness of external stimuli, how your body feels, visual images, emotions and notions of incipient activity. Think non-verbally of a problem and solve it by non-verbal reasoning or by insight. We must give wolves credit for analysing problems and solving them mentally by imagining courses of action and then carrying them out. Perhaps a reason why wolves seldom get credit for thinking is because few people have learned what it is like to think like a wolf. The Significance Of Thinking Wolves Humans cannot be understood isolated from other animals. Wolves, occupying a similar ecological niche to humans, may give us insight into our own mental life. An understanding of animal cognition is important for a complete understanding of humanity, and of course of animality and lupinity. On the moral sphere, some people hold that it does not matter much how we treat animals if they are not aware of themselves and cannot reflect on what is happening to them. But others believe we are bound to treat animals with more respect and consideration if we know animals are aware or reflect on their situation. The notion of animals thinking leads some people to claim that the more self-conscious species are the more moral consideration they deserve. A down side is some people might then feel that they have fewer obligations to less conscious animals. Others would argue that all animals, conscious or not, deserve our respect and consideration. © Wolf Trust 2004. All rights reserved.

Home - Wolf Trust Home - Thinking Wolves