David Premack on the differences between human and animal cognition

David Premack reviews the differences between animal and human cognition in “Human and animal cognition: Continuity and discontinuity” (doi). Abstract only:

Microscopic study of the human brain has revealed neural structures, enhanced wiring, and forms of connectivity among nerve cells not found in any animal, challenging the view that the human brain is simply an enlarged chimpanzee brain. On the other hand, cognitive studies have found animals to have abilities once thought unique to the human. This suggests a disparity between brain and mind. The suggestion is misleading. Cognitive research has not kept pace with neural research.

Neural findings are based on microscopic study of the brain and are primarily cellular. Because cognition cannot be studied microscopically, we need to refine the study of cognition by using a different approach. In examining claims of similarity between animals and humans, one must ask: What are the dissimilarities? This approach prevents confusing similarity with equivalence. We follow this approach in examining eight cognitive cases—teaching, short-term memory, causal reasoning, planning, deception, transitive inference, theory of mind, and language—and find, in all cases, that similarities between animal and human abilities are small, dissimilarities large. There is no disparity between brain and mind.

Update: That would be David Premack not Daniel Premack. My apologies!

Posted on timeAugust 29th, 2007 by userSimon Greenhill



tag2 Responses to “David Premack on the differences between human and animal cognition”

  1. ann Premack Says:

    Since it is my dear friend and husband who has written this review article for the Proceedings of the National Academy of Science, it would be nice if you could identify him properly by his given name which is DAVID.
    Ann Premack.

    I have noted other errors in spelling, hominid for instance. What are your standards in spelling? Or are you intent on starting a new alphabet?

  2. Simon Says:

    Ouch, how embarrassing - there’s nothing more inconsiderate than getting someone’s name wrong. Thank you for pointing that out and I’ve fixed it. Please apologise to David for me.

    As for hominid etc, I’ll generally use the term that the original source does. Feel free to correct me if I’m wrong.

    I wouldn’t mind starting a new alphabet, there’s a number of improvements that I would like to see, but until I get the time, I will try to use the standard 26 letter Latin alphabet. Once again, if there are any errors do let me know so I can correct them.

    Thanks,
    Simon

Leave a Reply


Related Posts from the Past:



RSS feeds:

Search: