La cuestión de las capacidades técnicas de los animales
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.22370/rhv2019iss14pp139-170Palabras clave:
artefacto, herramientas animales, intencionalidad, etología, plasticidad del comportamientoResumen
La habilidad para usar y hacer artefactos técnicos se ha considerado como una actividad exclusivamente humana. Sin embargo, recientes descubrimientos realizados en estudios etológicos tanto en la naturaleza como en cautividad en el laboratorio han mostrado que esto no es del todo cierto. En el área de la filosofía de la tecnología hay muy pocas excepciones que tiene en cuenta la habilidad de animales no humanos para manufacturar y usar herramientas. En este artículo se pretenden mostrar algunas razones por las que merece la pena reconsiderar este asunto. Al parecer, capacidades tales como la intencionalidad, la cultura o incluso la complejidad de las estructuras de los objetos creados no son características exclusivas de los seres humanos. Se sugerirá una forma diferente de analizar objetos creados por animales no humanos, que intente explicar la gradualidad en la complejidad de la estructura, pero que también tenga en cuenta la plasticidad del comportamiento que desarrollan esos animales. Esos dos elementos, estructura y plasticidad del comportamiento permiten una mejor comprensión de la gran variedad de objetos creados y usados por otros animales.
Descargas
Citas
Alcock, J. (1972). The evolution of the use of tools by feeding animals. Evolution, 464-473.
Allen, C., Hauser, M. D. (1991). Concept attribution in nonhuman animals: Theoretical and methodological problems in ascribing complex mental processes. Philosophy of Science, 58(2), 221-240.
Andics, A., Gábor, A., Gácsi, M., Faragó, T., Szabó, D., Miklósi, Á. (2016). Neural mechanisms for lexical processing in dogs. Science, 353(6303): 1030-1032.
Andrews, K., Huss, B. (2014). Anthropomorphism, anthropectomy, and the null hypothesis. Biology, Philosophy, 29(5): 711-729.
Baker, L. R. (2006). On the twofold nature of artifacts. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A, 37(1): 132-136.
Beck, B. B. (1980). Animal Tool Behavior. New York: Garland STPM Pub.
Bentley-Condit, V., Smith, E. O. (2010). Animal tool use: current definitions and an updated comprehensive catalog. Behaviour, 147(2): 185-221, A1-A32.
Bijker, W. E., Hughes, T. P., Pinch, T. (2012). The Social Construction of Technological Systems: New Directions in the Sociology and History of Technology. Cambridge, Massachusetts: The MIT Press.
Boesch, C., Boesch, H. (1990). Tool use and tool making in wild chimpanzees. Folia primatologica, 54(1-2), 86-99.
Boesch, C. (1996). The emergence of cultures among wild chimpanzees. Proceedings British Academy, 88, 251-268.
Boesch, C., Tomasello, M. (1998). Chimpanzee and human cultures. Current Anthropology 39: 591-614.
Boesch, C., Head, J., Robbins, M. M. (2009). Complex tool sets for honey extraction among chimpanzees in Loango National Park, Gabon. Journal of Human Evolution, 56(6): 560-569.
Bonner, J. T. (1980). The Evolution of Culture in Animals. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Borgo, S., Vieu, L. (2009). Artifacts in formal ontology. In Anthonie Meijers (ed), Philosophy of Technology and Engineering Sciences. Handbook of The Philosophy of Science Series, Vol. 9, pp. 273-308. Amsterdam: North Holland, Elsevier.
Borgo, S., Spagnoletti, N., Vieu, L., Visalberghi, E. (2013). Artifact and artifact categorization: comparing humans and capuchin monkeys. Review of Philosophy and Psychology, 4(3): 375-389.
Boswall, J. (1977a). Notes on tool-using by Egyptian Vultures. Bulletin of the British Ornithologists’ Club, 14(2): 74-76.
Boswall, J. (1977b). Tool using by birds and related behaviour. Aviculture Maazine, 83: 88-97.
Boswall, J. (1978). Further notes on tool-using by birds and related behaviour. Aviculture Magazin, 8: 162.
Boswall, J. (1983). Tool-using and related behaviour in birds: More notes. Aviculture Magazine, 89: 94-108
Breen, A., Guillette, L. M., Healy, S. D. (2016). What can nest-building birds teach us?. Comparative Cognition & Behavior Reviews. 11: 83-102.
Buckner, C. (2013). Morgan’s Canon, meet Hume’s Dictum: avoiding anthropofabulation in cross-species comparisons. Biology & Philosophy, 28(5): 853-871.
Collias, E.C., Collias, E.N. (1984) Nest building and bird behaviour. Princeton University Press, Princeton.
Darwin, C. (1981[1871]). The Descent of Man, and Selection in Relation to Sex. Princeton: Princeton UP.
Davidson, D. (1982). Rational animals. Dialectica, 36(4): 317-327
Davidson, D. (1985). Incoherence and irrationality. Dialectica, 39(4): 345-354.
Davidson, D. (1999). The emergence of thought. Erkenntnis, 51(1): 511-521.
Dennett. D. (1981).True believers: The intentional strategy and why it works. In AF Heath (ed.), Scientific Explanation: Papers Based on Herbert Spencer Lectures Given in the University of Oxford. Clarendon Press: 150-167.
Dipert, R. R. (1993). Artifacts, art works, and agency. Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism, 52(3): 367-369.
Dipert, R. R. (1995). Some issues in the theory of artifacts. The Monist, 78(2): 119-135.
Dretske, F. I. (1999). Machines, plants and animals: the origins of agency. Erkenntnis, 51(1): 523-535.
Dupré, J. (1996). The mental lives of non-human animals. In M. Bekoff and D. Jamieson (eds.), Readings in Animal Cognition, pp. 323-336. Cambridge, Massachusetts: The MIT Press.
Fisher, J. A. (1996). The myth of anthropomorphism. In M. Bekoff and D. Jamieson (eds.), Readings in Animal Cognition, pp. 3-16. Cambridge, Massachusetts: The MIT Press.
Fitzpatrick, S. (2008). Doing away with Morgan’s canon. Mind, Language, 23(2): 224-246.
Fragaszy, S., Izar, P., Visalberghi, E., Ottoni, E. B., de Oliveira, M. G. (2004). Wild capuchin monkeys (Cebus libidinosus) use anvils and stone pounding tools. American Journal of Primatology: Official Journal of the American Society of Primatologists, 64(4): 359-366.
Franssen, M. (2006). The normativity of artifacts. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A, 37(1): 42-57.
Galef, B. G. (2009). Culture in animals?. In K. N. Laland and B. G. Galef, (eds.), The question of animal culture, pp. 222-246. Harvard University Press.
Glock, H.-J. (2009). Can animals act for reasons? Inquiry, 52(3): 232-254.
Gould, J. L. (2007). Animal artifacts. In E. Margolis and S. Laurence (eds.), Creations of the Mind: Theories of Artifacts and their Representation, pp. 249-266. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Haeckel, E. (1889). Natürliche schöpfungsgeschichte: Gemeinverständliche wissenschaftliche vorträge über die entwickelungslehre im allgemeinen und diejenige von Darwin, Goethe und Lamarck im besonderen. Berlin: G. Reimer.
Hagmayer Y., Sloman S.A., Lagnado D.A., Waldmann M.R. (2007). Causal reasoning through intervention. In A Gopnik and L Schulz. Causal Learning: Psychology, Philosophy and Computation, pp. 86-100. Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press.
Healy, S., Walsh, P., Hansell, M. (2008). Nest building by birds. Current Biology, 18(7): R271-R273.
Heidegger, M. (2010). Being and Time. New York: SUNY Press.
Hilpinen, R. (1993). Authors and artifacts. Proceedings of the
Aristotelian Society, 93: 155-178.
Hoogland, John L. (1996). Cynomys ludovicianus. Mammalian species, 535: 1-10.
Hunt, G. R. (1996). Manufacture and use of hook-tools by new caledonian crows. Nature, 379 (6562): 249-251.
Hunt, G. R. (2000). Human–like, population–level specialization in the manufacture of pandanus tools by new Caledonian crows corvus moneduloides. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences, 267(1441): 403-413.
Hunt, G. R., Gray, R. D. (2002). Species-wide manufacture of stick-type tools by New Caledonian crows. Emu, 102(4): 349-353.
Hunt, G. R., Gray, R. D. (2003). Diversification and cumulative evolution in New Caledonian crow tool manufacture. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences, 270(1517): 867-874.
Hunt, G. R., Gray, R. D. (2004). The crafting of hook tools by wild New Caledonian crows. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences, 271(suppl_3): S88-S90.
Jones, A. M., Brown, C., Gardner, S. (2011). Tool use in the tuskfish choerodon schoenleinii? Coral Reefs-Journal of the International Society for Reef Studies, 30(3): 865.
Kabadayi, C., Osvath, M. (2017). Ravens parallel great apes in flexible planning for tool-use and bartering. Science, 357(6347): 202-204.
Keeley, B. L. (2004). Anthropomorphism, primatomorphism, mammalomorphism: understanding cross-species comparisons. Biology and Philosophy, 19(4): 521-540.
King, S. L., Janik, V. M. (2013). Bottlenose dolphins can use learned vocal labels to address each other. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 110(32): 13216-13221.
Knolle, F., Goncalves, Rita P., Morton, J. (2017). Sheep recognize familiar and unfamiliar human faces from two-dimensional images. Open Science, 4(11): 171228.
Krützen, M., Mann, J., Heithaus, Michael R., Connor, R. C., Bejder, L., Sherwin, W. B. (2005). Cultural transmission of tool use in bottlenose dolphins. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 102(25): 8939-8943.
Laland, K. N., Galef, B. G. (eds.) (2009). The Question of Animal Culture. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Landau, M. (1993). Narratives of Human Evolution. New Haven: Yale University Press.
Lien, Y., Cheng, P. W. (2000). Distinguishing genuine from spurious causes: a coherence hypothesis. Cognitive Psychology, 40(2): 87-137.
Lumsden, C. J., Wilson, E. O. (1981). Genes, mind, and ideology. The Sciences, 21(9): 6-8.
Maclean, G. L. (1973). The sociable weaver, Part 2: nest architecture and social organization. Ostrich: Journal of African Ornithology, 44(3-4): 191-218.
Malcolm, N. (1972-1973). Thoughtless brutes. Proceedings and Addresses of the American Philosophical Society 46: 5-20.
Matthews, J. R., Matthews, R. W. (2018). Nesting biology of an australian potter wasp, Delta latreillei (Saussure) (Hymenoptera: Vespidae: Eumeninae). Australian Entomologist, 45(1): 93-104.
McGrew, W. C., Tutin, C. E. (1978). Evidence for a social custom in wild chimpanzees? Man, 13(2): 234-251.
Morgan, C. L. (1894). An Introduction to Comparative Psychology. London: Walter Scott.
Newen, A., Bartels, A. (2007). Animal minds and the possession of concepts. Philosophical Psychology, 20(3): 283-308.
Perry, S., Panger, M., Rose, L. M., Baker, M., Gros-Louis, J., Jack, K., Pyle, K. (2003). Traditions in wild white-faced capuchins. In D. M. Fragaszy, and S. Perry, (eds.), The Biology of Traditions: Models and Evidence, pp. 391-425. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, New York.
Pierce Jr., J. D. (1986). A review of tool use in insects. Florida Entomologist. 69(1): 95-104.
Pilliod, D. S., Rohde, A. T., Charnley, S., Davee, R. R., Dunham, J. B., Gosnell, H., Nash, C. (2018). Survey of beaver-related restoration practices in rangeland streams of the western USA. Environmental management, 61(1): 58-68.
Preston, B. (1998). Cognition and tool use. Mind and Language, 13(4): 513-547.
Price, H. H. (1953). Thinking and Experience. Hutchinson, London.
Proffitt, T. et al. (2016). Wild monkeys flake stone tools. Nature, 539(7627): 85-88. doi:10.1038/nature 20112
Reader, S. M., Laland, K. N. (2002). Social intelligence, innovation and enhanced brain size in primates. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA, 99: 4436–4441.
Riehl, C. P. (2001). Black-crowned Night Heron fishes with bait. Waterbirds, 24(2):285-286.
Saidel, E. (2009). Attributing mental representations to animals. In R. W. Lurz (ed.), The philosophy of animal minds, pp. 35-51. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Sargent, R. C. (1982). Territory quality, male quality, courtship intrusions, and female nest-choice in the threespine stickleback, Gasterosteus aculeatus. Animal Behaviour, 30(2): 364-374.
Scarf, D., Boy, K., Reinert, A. U., Devine, J., Güntürkün, O., Colombo, M. (2016). Orthographic processing in pigeons (Columba livia). Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 113(40): 11272-11276.
Scheele, M. (2006). Function and use of technical artifacts: social conditions of function ascription. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A, 37(1): 23-36.
Searle, John R. (1995). The construction of social reality. New York: The Free Press, Simon and Schuster.
Shumaker, R. W., Walkup, K. R., Beck, B. B. (2011). Animal tool behavior: the use and manufacture of tools by animals. Baltimore, Maryland: JHU Press.
Snell-Rood. E. C. (2013). An overview of the evolutionary causes and consequences of behavioural plasticity. Animal Behaviour, 85(5): 1004-1011.
Sober, E. (1998). Innate knowledge. Routledge encyclopedia of philosophy, 4: 794-797.
Sober, E. (2005). Comparative psychology meets evolutionary biology. In L. Daston and G. Mitman (eds.), Thinking with Animals: New Perspectives on Anthropomorphism, pp. 85-99. New York: Columbia University Press.
Soo, R. M., Hemp, J., Parks, D. H., Fischer, W. W., Hugenholtz, P. (2017). On the origins of oxygenic photosynthesis and aerobic respiration in Cyanobacteria. Science, 355(6332): 1436-1440.
St. Amant, R., Horton, T. E. (2008). Revisiting the definition of animal tool use. Animal Behaviour, 75(4): 1199-1208.
Susi, T., Ziemke, T. (2005). On the subject of objects: Four views on object perception and tool use. tripleC: Communication, Capitalism, Critique. Open Access Journal for a Global Sustainable Information Society, 3(2): 6-19.
Tebbich, S., Taborsky, M., Fessl, B., Blomqvist, D. (2001). Do woodpecker finches acquire tool-use by social learning? Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences, 268(1482): 2189-2193.
Tebbich, S., Bshary, R. (2004). Cognitive abilities related to tool use in the woodpecker finch, Cactospiza pallida. Animal behaviour 67(4): 689-697.
Thirunavukarasu, P., Nicolson, M., Elgar, M. A. (1996). Leaf selection by the leaf-curling spider Phonognatha graeffei (Keyserling) (Araneoidea: Araneae). Bulletin of the British Arachnological Society 10(5): 187-189.
Thomasson, A. (2007). Ordinary objects. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Tomasello, M. (2000). Culture and cognitive development. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 9(2): 37-40.
Tomasello, M., Call, J. (1997). Primate cognition. Oxford University Press.
Tomasello, M., Kruger, A. C., Ratner, H. H. (1993). Cultural learning. Behavioral and brain sciences, 16(3): 495-511
van Lawick-Goodal, J. (1970), Tool-using in primates and other vertebrates. Advances in the Study of Behavior, 3: 195-249.
van Schaik, C. P., Fox, E. A., Sitompul, A. F. (1996). Manufacture and use of tools in wild Sumatran orangutans. Naturwissenschaften, 83(4): 186-188.
Vermaas, P. E., Houkes, W. (2006). Technical functions: A drawbridge between the intentional and structural natures of technical artifacts. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A, 37(1): 5-18.
Visalberghi, E., Fragaszy, D. (2009). What is challenging about tool use? The capuchin’s perspective. In E. A. Wasserman and T. R. Zentall (eds.). Comparative cognition: Experimental explorations of animal intelligence, pp. 529-552. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Visalberghi, E., Fragaszy, D. (2013). The Etho-Cebus Project: Stone-tool use by wild capuchin monkeys. In C. Sanz, J. Call, and C. Boesch (eds.), Tool Use in Animals: Cognition and Ecology, pp. 203-222. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Waldmann, M. R., Holyoak, K. J. (1992). Predictive and diagnostic learning within causal models: asymmetries in cue competition. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 121(2): 222-236.
Waldmann, M. R., Hagmayer, Y. (2005). Seeing versus doing: two modes of accessing causal knowledge. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 31(2): 216-227.
Wilson, E. O. (1975). Sociobiology: The new synthesis. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Belknap Press.
Zyskowski, K., Prum, R. O. (1999). Phylogenetic analysis of the nest architecture of Neotropical ovenbirds (Furnariidae). The Auk, 116 (4): 891-911.
Descargas
Publicado
Cómo citar
Número
Sección
Licencia
Aquellos autores/as que tengan publicaciones con esta revista, aceptan los términos siguientes:
- Los autores/as conservarán sus derechos de autor y garantizarán a la revista el derecho de primera publicación de su obra, el cual estará simultáneamente sujeto a la Licencia de reconocimiento de Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 International) que permite a terceros compartir la obra siempre que se indique su autor y su primera publicación esta revista.
- Los autores/as podrán adoptar otros acuerdos de licencia no exclusiva de distribución de la versión de la obra publicada (p. ej.: depositarla en un archivo telemático institucional o publicarla en un volumen monográfico) siempre que se indique la publicación inicial en esta revista.
- Se permite y recomienda a los autores/as difundir su obra a través de Internet (p. ej.: en archivos telemáticos institucionales o en su página web) antes y durante el proceso de envío, lo cual puede producir intercambios interesantes y aumentar las citas de la obra publicada. (Véase El efecto del acceso abierto).
