The Animal Mind: An Introduction to the Philosophy of Animal Cognition

by Kristin Andrews

The study of animal cognition raises profound questions about the minds of animals and philosophy of mind itself. Aristotle argued that humans are the only animal to laugh, but in recent experiments rats have also been shown to laugh. In other experiments, dogs have been shown to respond appropriately to over two hundred words in human language. In this introduction to the philosophy of animal minds Kristin Andrews introduces and assesses the essential topics, problems and debates as they cut across animal cognition and philosophy of mind. She addresses the following key Extensive use of empirical examples and case studies is made throughout the book. These include Cheney and Seyfarth’s ververt monkey research, Thorndike’s cat puzzle boxes, Jensen’s research into humans and chimpanzees and the ultimatum game, Pankseep and Burgdorf’s research on rat laughter, and Clayton and Emery’s research on memory in scrub-jays. Additional features such as chapter summaries, annotated further reading and a glossary make this an indispensable introduction to those teaching philosophy of mind, animal cognition. It will also be an excellent resource for those in fields such as ethology, biology and psychology.

Genres: Philosophy, Science, Animals, Psychology, Nonfiction, Biology, Cultural

242 pages, Paperback

First published December 2, 2014

Reviews

[Sepehr · Rating 3 out of 5]

quack quack

[Heather Browning · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is a solid overview and introduction to the science and philosophy of animal minds. It covers not only what we know about animal minds - their various capacities and abilities (like communication and empathy) - but how we come to know it; the methods of the sciences of animal minds, and the various background assumptions and theories required. I would definitely use this if teaching on the subject, but is also good for anyone interested in the topics.

[Kike Ramos · Rating 5 out of 5]

English / Español

In this book, the author takes on a journey to explore different work about the minds of animals. Do animals have a concept of self? Do animals understand other's intentions? Do they communicate using language or do they just respond to stimilu?
These are the kind of questions that the author tries to explore, and she does a great job explaining how hard it is to do research this area, the advances in the science of animal behavior and cognition and explains a lot of concepts using great examples.

Is a great read, but I think it is for people who already know about cognitive science or philosophy of mind, or maybe biologists but I think a reader that does not read academic books that often could find a hard time with it.

________

En este libro, la autora nos lleva a un increíble viaje para explorar los diferentes trabajos que se han hecho sobre la mente de los animales. ¿Los animales tienen autoconcepto? ¿Los animales entienden las intenciones de otros? ¿Se comunican por medio de un lenguaje o simplemente reaccionan reflexivamente ante estímulos? Estas son el tipo de preguntas que la autora trata de resolver, y hace un gran trabajo explicando las dificultades de hacer investigación en el área, los avances científicos en cognición y conducta animal, y explica los conceptos usando ejemplos muy acertados.

Es un libro increíble, pero creo que está dirigido a gente que ya tiene conocimientos previos en cognición o filosofía de la mente, aunque biólogos también podrían disfrutarlo. El punto es que no sé que tan buena idea sea acercarse a él sin tener conocimientos previos.

[Miranda Newell · Rating 4 out of 5]

This quote stuck with me:

“Both utilitarian and deontological approaches [to determining whether animals have moral value] are anthropocentric, and take as a starting position the fact that humans are valuable. Another way to approach the issue of what matters is to consider how relationships create value, and to develop and use moral imagination to see how different kinds of beings participate in lives of significance, even if they are very different from our own. Relationships can be the source of value, and beings in relationship merit respect. Such approaches are used to show that we have moral and political obligations toward other animals.”

CARE ETHICS FTW???

[Tom Roth · Rating 4 out of 5]

Very extensive, but sometimes quite complicated. And the conclusion in almost every chapter is the same: everything depends on the definition you use, and often we don't know enough yet.