Do animals have imagination?

Dparrott, you really need to define your terms. I think most of your confusion stems from the fact that you haven't come up with solid definitions. The three terms that I would like you to create logically sound definitions for are imagination, logic, and intelligence.

Until then, I have a couple of disagreements with what you have already said. In my limited understanding, I consider imagination the ability to link stored information with the present. If I think about an apple, I am imagining one. As someone else said, our process of recalling a memory is actually an imaginative process of reconstructing an event that we think already happened. If I were to imagine a new fruit that nobody has seen before, I would use information on shape, color, different kinds of fruit, etc to construct a new one in my mind. Without that information I could not do that, and I also could not do that from just having the information. The same would be true with "recalling" an apple.

Logic requires imagination. In order to use logic we must recall a variety of stored information, mentally organize it, and then use it to create a solution to whatever problem we are trying to answer. I would say a computer does not have imagination in this way because it only does exactly what its hardware and software tell it to. If I input a command into a computer, that command bounces through a series of other commands and produces an output. There is no thought involved. Of course there are those who think that humans are the biological equivalent of this, but that's a separate discussion. Assuming humans are not computers, the computer does not display a logical imagination whereas humans do. Mathematicians are just as imaginative as artists.

With all that said, animals definitely have imaginations. In fact, I think all animals do. This isn't to say that all animals have the same imaginative capabilities because it's a solid bet that most animals don't think about architecture or cosmology. However in order for a wolf to recognize the territory of a predator it must connect the prior information that it has about that predator and its home with the current situation. That's the ability to connect stored information with the present. If animals could not do this then every time they encountered a familiar situation, they would react as if it was completely unfamiliar. In addition some of the more evolved animals other than humans do display excellent problem solving and social capabilities all of which, again, require the ability to connect stored information with the present. The problem solving and social capacities displayed by these animals also require the ability to imagine multiple steps ahead. All variants of apes and monkeys display problem solving abilities. Wolves display multiple-step coordinated group hunting strategies which they can improvise on. The list is very long.

Imagination is of high variability among humans, and look how large our brains are compared to dogs. I watch my 3 dogs playing with one another and I can't help but think they have imagination. How do we quantify the qualitative? It's also obvious to me that dogs have emotions. My wife and I visit my sister and her husband a lot, and 5 minutes before he gets home from work, their dog Tia, a teacup poodle, starts to get very animated. I doubt she can look at the clock and tell time. This has to be an extra-rational event. I think sometimes intellectuals deny the subjective and its' potential because it is not always amenable to the construct of logic. I wonder if you can give me some logical reasons why animals don't have imagination?

Dparrott, you really need to define your terms. I think most of your confusion stems from the fact that you haven't come up with solid definitions. The three terms that I would like you to create logically sound definitions for are imagination, logic, and intelligence.

Until then, I have a couple of disagreements with what you have already said. In my limited understanding, I consider imagination the ability to link stored information with the present. If I think about an apple, I am imagining one. As someone else said, our process of recalling a memory is actually an imaginative process of reconstructing an event that we think already happened. If I were to imagine a new fruit that nobody has seen before, I would use information on shape, color, different kinds of fruit, etc to construct a new one in my mind. Without that information I could not do that, and I also could not do that from just having the information. The same would be true with "recalling" an apple.

Logic requires imagination. In order to use logic we must recall a variety of stored information, mentally organize it, and then use it to create a solution to whatever problem we are trying to answer. I would say a computer does not have imagination in this way because it only does exactly what its hardware and software tell it to. If I input a command into a computer, that command bounces through a series of other commands and produces an output. There is no thought involved. Of course there are those who think that humans are the biological equivalent of this, but that's a separate discussion. Assuming humans are not computers, the computer does not display a logical imagination whereas humans do. Mathematicians are just as imaginative as artists.

With all that said, animals definitely have imaginations. In fact, I think all animals do. This isn't to say that all animals have the same imaginative capabilities because it's a solid bet that most animals don't think about architecture or cosmology. However in order for a wolf to recognize the territory of a predator it must connect the prior information that it has about that predator and its home with the current situation. That's the ability to connect stored information with the present. If animals could not do this then every time they encountered a familiar situation, they would react as if it was completely unfamiliar. In addition some of the more evolved animals other than humans do display excellent problem solving and social capabilities all of which, again, require the ability to connect stored information with the present. The problem solving and social capacities displayed by these animals also require the ability to imagine multiple steps ahead. All variants of apes and monkeys display problem solving abilities. Wolves display multiple-step coordinated group hunting strategies which they can improvise on. The list is very long.

I agree that I don't have a firm definition of imagination yet, but I know what it is not and that is intelligence, knowledge, reason, logic, or emotion.

-- Updated Wed Mar 14, 2012 1:55 pm to add the following --

If you say nothing seperates us from the rest of the animals I would not be able to believe you. There is something that makes us humans different and I just believe it is imagination. Do you think an animal can have metacognition? That would certainly take an imagination.

I agree that I don't have a firm definition of imagination yet, but I know what it is not and that is intelligence, knowledge, reason, logic, or emotion.

This confuses me. How can you know with absolute certainty what it is not when you can't define what it is? I agree that logic isn't synonymous with imagination, but I think it's possible that logic requires imagination as does reason. I'm not sure at all what knowledge is. Furthermore how can you ask if animals have something that you can't even provide a definition for in humans? Your questioning here doesn't make sense to me.

If you say nothing seperates us from the rest of the animals I would not be able to believe you. There is something that makes us humans different and I just believe it is imagination. Do you think an animal can have metacognition? That would certainly take an imagination.

I did not say that, but it sounds to me like the question you're really asking is what makes humans different from animals. In that case I would ask that question directly rather than framing the question in a best guess that you don't have a definition for yet. The reason is that if you ask what makes humans different from animals, you might get responses that are drastically different from what your original guess was. You might even get a definition for imagination in the process, or it might not come up at all. However if you constrain the real question within a guess then you're going to get very limited responses to a question that you might not have even been asking. That seems to be what's happening here as people are giving you reasons that animals have imagination, but you seem unresponsive probably because that wasn't actually your question. Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong about the intent of your question, but in general when framing a question try to restrict the question to terms you can define. It will create questions that will be assuredly accurate to your intent (so we don't have to guess what your intent is), and it will get you answers that are accurate to your question.

Imagination is: "the ability to bring things to mind which are not currently being perceived by the senses". Surely the most significant example of this is things that are not currently being perceived because they haven't yet happened. So anticipation of future events, including the future behaviour of other people/animals, is probably the most important example of the use of imagination. And this ability clearly confers strong selective advantage and is possessed by many animals.

But I guess in popular useage, the term "imagination" is often associated with artistic creativity and emotions. It's interesting to speculate as to whether other animals can, for example, appreciate beauty in the same way that we do. My hunch would be that, if anything, it is more important to them than it is to us. I suspect they probably rely on emotional responses to a greater extent than we do.

I've read recently about observations of other primates suggesting that they do things like sitting and admiring a beautiful sunset!

But I guess in popular useage, the term "imagination" is often associated with artistic creativity and emotions. It's interesting to speculate as to whether other animals can, for example, appreciate beauty in the same way that we do. My hunch would be that, if anything, it is more important to them than it is to us. I suspect they probably rely on emotional responses to a greater extent than we do.

I've read recently about observations of other primates suggesting that they do things like sitting and admiring a beautiful sunset!

Your definition is much better than mine, but I particularly appreciate your contrast to the popular definition. I think there is a tendency to perceive animal behavior as zombie humans. For instance in Planet Earth (the TV documentary series) there is footage of a bird with a particularly striking mating dance. The bird cleans the area where it's going to perform the dance beforehand. It removes twigs with its beak moving them off to the side, sweeps the area with its tail feathers, and even wipes down the nearby tree branch (very thin one) with a small piece of flat debris (holding it in its beak).

Yet there's a tendency to take this behavior and say the bird had nothing more than a mating instinct (command) brought on by a certain time (external source of command) which resulted in certain behaviors (software). Then we take strikingly similar behavior in humans and say that we are not programmed, we desire the mate and thereby want to clean, and so on. There's no actual evidence for this that I've seen.

The people who advocate these sorts of views are quick to say that humans are not computers but animals are. As far as I'm concerned, that doesn't make any sense. There is no obvious differentiating factor which indicates that humans are of a completely different type of organism from animals. The only thing that I think causes this perception is that we can talk about our personal experiences and animals can't. So we are quick to say our experiences have inner life but the animals do not.

This seems to be a gross misrepresentation of very limited evidence. I have not seen a convincing argument for this point of view. Does the bird not desire the mate? Is it not projecting ahead to see that the mate might leave if the area is not clean? To dismiss this as nothing more than anthropomorphizing is both an easy answer and a false one. It's as bad an argument as a solipsist saying, "But do you KNOW you're not in a dream?" It may be an interesting observation of a potential, but it does not come near a solid conclusion.

To further illustrate this, I went to the local zoo a few months ago and ended up talking with one of the gorilla trainers. This particular gorilla was the grandmother of the family. She shows off for cameras and visitors, can perform some rudimentary sign language, and recognizes her name as well as those of all of the trainers, but there was one piece of information that I found most interesting. She always carries a towel around with her. She refuses to be without one. It doesn't necessarily matter which towel, but she will not be without a towel. The trainer called it her security blanket, but even if that wasn't the case it does not explain the behavior. Furthermore whenever the trainers want to wash the towel, she refuses to give it up to them without being presented with a replacement towel first. This represents clear understanding of exchange of trade, that the trainers intent is not malicious, and many other extremely sophisticated understandings.

Avi Love:
I agree. Your story about the gorilla is interesting. I've seen several accounts of evidence that other great apes in particular have very sophisticated social arrangements and abilities to have abstract thoughts.

I agree with what you're saying that there is probably essentially a quasi-continuous progression of mental sophistication from, say, insects right "up" to humans. Not a fundamental difference between us and all the rest. Clearly we've done a lot of things that are staggeringly different from what any other animal has done. But I suspect this might be because we are on one side of a "tipping point", on the other side of which are the other apes.

People often point out that chimpanzees don't understand, say, quantum mechanics and never will. But, of course, neither, on the whole, do humans!

Steve3007

"People often point out that chimpanzees don't understand, say, quantum mechanics and never will. But, of course, neither, on the whole, do humans!"


Just have to chime in, and don’t take this wrong but please correct me if you think I am wrong because I come here to learn and consider others thoughts and observations to help me understand better, but if I recall Quantum Mechanics is a theory, therefore, you might agree with the theory or even understand how it could be considered to be a distinct possibility and understand why many people would think it could someday be proven to be real, but you can’t really understand Quantum Mechanics which itself as its not a proven fact. Can you?

DonkeyMan:
I was just using Quantum Mechanics as an example of a complex abstract idea. I wasn't attempting to make any statement at all about its status as a theory or a fact or anything else. That would be a subject for another thread.

I agree with what you're saying that there is probably essentially a quasi-continuous progression of mental sophistication from, say, insects right "up" to humans. Not a fundamental difference between us and all the rest. Clearly we've done a lot of things that are staggeringly different from what any other animal has done. But I suspect this might be because we are on one side of a "tipping point", on the other side of which are the other apes.

I completely agree. I especially like your usage of a tipping point that would allow for the more obvious sophisticated advances. A couple of additions to that.

I read a while back about a SETI project to be able to tell whether a communication was an actual language as well as the complexity of that language. On one facet of the scale ranking the predictability of the language (where higher is better) English ranked about a 9. The sample of dolphin language that they could collect did confirm to be a language and ranked about a 3 or 4 in complexity. Squirrel monkeys ranked as only a partial language with some repetition but no complexity. The assumption is they make social noises with some consistent meaning but do not "talk." source

The other curiosity that I've had about that tipping point which I've thought about as well is what the role of physiology would play. For instance what if we realized that a species of a whale-like nature had a language more complex than English. They were actually smarter than humans. There are still physiological limitations. They could not engage in painting, writing, architecture, and many more because they lack the proper physiological tools. They also could not engage in science because they lack the physiology necessary to conduct empirical experiments. So the tipping point would be there for them in their communication, thought, and social structures, but you would not see physical output as a result. Their culture would also be drastically different. Without the ability to create anything lasting, they would live mostly in the present. All history would be oral as would all stories. All art would be theatrical or storytelling. Complex water dances would be possible, but would they even be desirable? If they had complex intellectual pursuits, they would most likely be in social structure, performance art, and philosophy. Everything else that we find to be a mark of intelligence (all of the sciences, history, physical creations of any kind, etc) would be non-existent. Yet according to language complexity they would still be smarter than us, and their philosophy (if they engaged in it) would likely blow us out of the water. So how much does intelligence actually correspond to physiology, or does it have any correspondence at all?

At least 95% of the top Physicists and Cosmologists believe Quantum Mechanics is a fact. They believe it as fact because of all the research, mathematics, and experimentation of the last 30+ years. Very few in the general poplulation understand the top levels of any Scientific discipline, let alone Quantum Theory. The use of the word "theory" here is describing the nuts and bolts of the discipline in question. It is not saying it is a "theory" because it is not accepted as an understanding of reality. I am reminded of an interesting statement, I just can't remember who said it..."Reality is not only stranger than you think, it's stranger than you can imagine".

The specifics of Quantum Mechanics are irrelevant to this thread. It's just an example of a complex idea. I wish I'd said "rocket science" now! Or perhaps it would have been safer just to say "X", where X = complex abstract idea.

I have lived in a farm, where I have cows, horses, chickens, pigs, dogs and I can think of many examples where at one point or another they have shown degree of imagination in overcoming difficulties they have found themselves in.

They also shown to be aware of time, and space.

What I have never seen in an animal is to have the concept of life. To me humans are the only animal which has the concept of life.

What I have never seen in an animal is to have the concept of life. To me humans are the only animal which has the concept of life.

I disagree. I don't think farm animals do, but there are species of animals which are capable of self-identification in a mirror. Gorillas are one of those, and I believe dolphins do as well though I don't have a source for that. Gorillas and chimpanzees both mourn the dead which is a clear indication of having a concept of life. It seems elephants mourn their dead as well. A concept of life is certainly high on the ranking of the intelligence scale that Steve and I mentioned, but I don't think it is unique to humans.

What I have never seen in an animal is to have the concept of life. To me humans are the only animal which has the concept of life.

Gorillas and chimpanzees both mourn the dead which is a clear indication of having a concept of life.

Being aware that a member of its species is dead, I also have seen this with horses and cats.

By the concept of life I was referring to the fact that we from quite an early age are aware that one day it will all end. So we start thinking of what we are going to do with our lives. So we start planning, questioning, what we want to use that life for? and worse, start comparing.