Analogous cognitive ability and homologous cognitive ability

Analogous cognitive ability and homologous cognitive ability

In psychology, cognitive ability could be explained as the mental skills needed by animals to perform tasks, which could be both rudimentary and complex. Delving further, cognitive ability relates to how tasks are learnt, remembered, solving of tasks and attention to detail.

Analogous cognitive ability occurs in species that are not evolutionary related and consequent shared genetics between the two species.

To answer the question on the paper; chimps and capuchins will reflect analogous cognitive ability as opposed to chimps and humans.

The reason why chimps and capuchins will reflect analogous cognitive ability is due to the fact that using primate evolution tree; chimps fall under the homininae line while capuchins fall under the old world monkey line and therefore the evolutionary related degree shared is less, as would have been compared between humans and chimps.

Humans and chimps share the same homininae line on the primate evolution tree, so they are closely related evolutionarily.

Tools

1. Van Lawick-Goodall – The use of an external object as a functional extension of mouth or beak, hand or claw in the attainment of an immediate goal.

Using this definition of a tool, a toothbrush cannot be classified as one. A toothbrush does not help one reach an external object, given that the mouth cannot be classified as such. An iPhone cannot be classified as a tool too.

2. Under manipulation of an inanimate object with the effect of improving the efficiency in altering a separate object, the toothbrush would not be classified as a tool; as there is no separate object being altered. An iPhone would also not be classified as one, as there is no object being altered.
3. A toothbrush would be classified as a tool under the third definition. As it is employed as an unattached object to alter the organ itself. An iPhone does not fall under this as well.
4. An iPhone would be classified as a tool under this definition – as it meditates the flow of information between the tool user and other organisms. A toothbrush would not be classified as a tool under the other part of the definition – exertion of control over a freely manipulable external object.
5. A toothbrush would be classified as a tool under the last definition, as it is a manipulable object that alters the form of the user, while an iPhone does not alter the form of the user nor another object, therefore it is not a tool.

New Caledonian crows not good imitators

New Caledonian crows cannot be said to be unlikely to engage in social transmission of use given that from the early analysis, it was concluded that isolated NC crow juveniles that had received prior demonstration of twig tool use by their human foster parents used those tools more than juveniles who had not seen them.

In the beginning we also see juvenile crows breaking twigs for tool use, and even using those twigs to extract meat. The only handicap being they are not able to choose the right twigs at first instance.

Graph

Sheba and Bobby are the two chimps who solved the trap-tube task.

The chimp with below par performance is Derrel.

The chimp had a below per performance given that it stood further from the end of the  tube which was way further from the food.

Lessons learnt from animal tool use.

The most surprising lesson learnt is that children will tend to copy or imitate everything as they have been taught or they have seen. However, in animals such as chimpanzees, they are able to achieve same goals without necessarily imitating what they have seen.

Using the Aesop’s paradigm it is surprising to know that children even at the age of 4 years would be outperformed by crows. Their learning and reasoning capabilities only became better than crows from the age of 7.