Animals Think? Thomas Nagel Poses

¶ … animals think?" Thomas Nagel poses the question, "what is it like to be a bat?" In his discussion of conscious thought and perception. Clearly, humans, in their human form, cannot experience what it is to be a bat or any other animal, because we cannot shed our own forms and take on the characteristics of another species. Yet, these animals do have physical and mental experiences. They cannot understand our physical and mental experiences any more than we can understand theirs.

However, simply because we do not understand the reality and nuances of their experience, does not mean they do not think and have thought processes. To truly understand what it is like to be a bat, we would have to transform ourselves into bats and live their lives. Since this is impossible, we must rely on the studies of others to determine whether animals can think, or are simply beings reacting to the world around them.

Do animals think? That remains to be seen, but many experts feel they are capable of conscious thought. While the idea of conscious thought among animals may be difficult, if not impossible to prove without a doubt at this time, many experts believe animals think. Nagel writes, "Conscious experience is a widespread phenomenon. It occurs at many levels of animal life, though we cannot be sure of its presence in the simpler organisms, and it is very difficult to say in general what provides evidence of it" (Nagel).

Even more persuasive is the notion that many animals posses "access consciousness" as a result of "representational content" broadcast into a "global workspace" that is available for all species to use (Allen). Author Colin Allen continues, "Block believes that many animals possess access consciousness (speech is not a requirement). Indeed, some of the neurological evidence cited by Block (2005) in support of the global workspace is derived from monkeys" (Allen). Thus, studies have already indicated that at least some animals think, and use these thoughts for survival and even play.

While animals may think, there is an aspect of the human species that may be absent in animals, and that is "self-consciousness." Humans are self-conscious or self-aware, and there is evidence that animals are neither of these things. They "are," and they think, but they do not have the capacity for self-analysis and conscious growth. In other words, they know they are, but they do not know "who" they are, and there is a vast difference between the two concepts (Allen).

As author Allen notes later in his essay, most studies have failed to discover symptoms of self-awareness in animals. He notes, "Alternative approaches that have attempted to provide strong evidence of theory of mind in nonhuman animals under natural conditions have generally failed to produce such evidence" (Allen). Therefore, there is evidence animals can think, but little evidence they can turn that thought toward themselves and self-improvement in any meaningful way. Many people equate animal thought to their experiences with their pets.

Allen states, "Most people, if asked why they think familiar animals such as their pets are conscious, would point to similarities between the behavior of those animals and human behavior. Similarity arguments for animal consciousness thus have roots in common sense observations" (Allen). Other studies and experts, who argue that animals may not be able to reason, but that does not indicate they cannot think, corroborate these common sense observations.

Thus, people observe their pets, see certain characteristics, and believe their pets have conscious thoughts or ideas and are expressing them the only way they know how. For example, a person pets a cat, and it purrs, therefore the cat is happy. (Or at least happy in the way humans think of happiness.) The cat may not be consciously aware it is happy, it is responding to stimuli. However, some cats do not purr, no matter what the stimuli, and yet, this does not mean they are unhappy.

Cats do not think about being happy or unhappy, they do not understand those concepts. Yet, the studies on animal consciousness show that they are conscious, and they are capable of thought, and so, whatever they feel, they are feeling something and reacting to that feeling. Their brains are involved, and brains involve thought, in addition to mere stimulus. As author Saigel says about petting his cat, "Certainly, it seems that my rubbing my cat's head has no advantage to it other than the way it might make her feel.

She may not recognize this, she may not be able to think about it, but surely, the purr is evidence that there is some phenomenal experience the cat is having, whether she is aware of it or not" (Saigel). Animals may not be capable of higher-order thought as humans are, and make intelligent decisions based on that thought, but evidence does indicate they are capable of thought, and use thought processes throughout their lives.

Author Eric Saigel notes, "I argue that an organism (a cat, say) might be conscious without being able to reflect upon or represent its conscious states. This would limit its ability to reason about its conscious states, but while such reasoning is emblematic of human consciousness, it need not be present for consciousness to be present" (Saigel). In addition, Saidel discusses phenomenal consciousness as opposed to simple consciousness.

Phenomenal consciousness includes more than mere consciousness that something is happening around an animal, but that they have thoughts about what is happening. Nagel notes that we must also create alternate ways of thinking and describing things in objective terms in order to understand the experiences of others. He writes, "We must consider whether any method will permit us to extrapolate to the inner life of the bat from our own case, and if not, what alternative methods there may be for understanding the notion" (Nagel).

If we do not have that method, as we do not now, we must derive other methods of expression and thought that can help us describe experiences more objectively and yet with more detail. Near the end of his essay, he uses the example of explaining the color red to a blind person, and coming up with descriptions that match sounds the blind person can understand.

The same metamorphosis must be developed to describe and perceive the experiences of other beings in order for us to effectively and yet objectively understand their.