1 The predictions of the Mental Synthesis TheoryVIDEOS: Daniel Hanus was able to demonstrate that some chimpanzees were able to pull a peanut from a tube, using water from a nearby container (Hanus, 2011): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yrPb41hzYdw Betty and tool use: https://youtu.be/TtmLVP0HvDg  Ravens confronted with food hanging on a string were able to devise a strategy for retrieving the food (Heinrich, 2007):

2 Conscious purposeful imagination of novel imagesSimple memory recall Conscious purposeful imagination of novel images Dreaming, hallucinations, spontaneous insight remembering an image (recalling a mental image of an object from memory) or remembering a sequence of images (a mental movie) does not normally involve mental synthesis (as you do not need to combine two representations together to recall images from memory). Furthermore, remembering an image that your mind had already synthesized in the past does not involve mental synthesis either. Once an image comprising of several neuronal ensembles has been synthesized (in the past), the connections between neurons become stronger and a new neuronal ensemble is formed. Thus, when you now think of a mermaid, you simply activate the neuronal ensemble for mermaid, even though originally (the first time you heard of a mermaid) you may have synchronized the ensemble of a fish with the ensemble of a woman. Similarly with Pinocchio inside a shark (or any other composite image): once you think about this scene, it becomes its own neuronal ensemble building block that you can use to make more and more complicated images (e.g. you can picture a mermaid holding Pinocchio inside a shark’s belly). The important thing to remember is that that mental synthesis must include an active, voluntary process of synthesizing a never-before-seen image from several images recalled from memory. DEFINITION: Mental Synthesis is the conscious purposeful imagination of novel images

3 These connections must be fine-tuned to become synchronous.Thus, the synchronization mechanism poses a serious challenge that every human needs to solve during development: These connections must be fine-tuned to become synchronous. We don’t actually know how the prefrontal cortex synchronizes its connections but in other systems that have been studied, synchronicity is achieved by changes in the conduction velocity along the connecting fibers. Without a mechanism that could equalize transit times, the signal from the prefrontal cortex would arrive to its targets in the posterior cortex at different times. This synchronization mechanism poses a serious challenge that every human needs to solve during development: These connections must be fine-tuned to become synchronous.

4 More myelin -> faster conduction velocityLess myelin -> slower conduction velocity To summarize, the current consensus is that MYELINATION is the primary factor producing uniform conduction time. Longer fibers are wrapped with many extra layers of myelin to increase the conduction velocity. Hypothesis: myelination is the primary factor producing uniform conduction time throughout the cortex

5 The lateral prefrontal cortex as a puppeteerPFC Puppeteer Puppets in the posterior cortex A major role of the lateral prefrontal cortex is to “manufacture” novel images by pulling neuronal ensembles into working memory and synchronizing them in time. These “manufactured” novel images allow humans to simulate the future and form the basis for such functions as language and reasoning. While the central role of the lateral prefrontal cortex in planning and decision-making has been recognized for several decades, the specific neurological mechanism of those functions has been understood only in general terms. Planning and decision-making are thought to rely on such lateral prefrontal cortex functions as working memory and “time-integration”(Fuster JM, 2008), but specifics of time-integration are lacking. Current models of the lateral prefrontal cortex do not explicitly talk about synchronization of independent neuronal ensembles as a specific mechanism of planning and decision-making in humans. This monograph is the attempt to pinpoint a specific neurological mechanism responsible for visual planning and decision-making. Rather than describing the process in general terms of “time-integration,” the model proposed in this monograph offers synchronization of independent neuronal ensembles as the tentative mechanism of mental synthesis organized by the lateral prefrontal cortex. By pulling the strings, the prefrontal cortex changes the firing phase of the retrieved neuronal ensembles thus synchronizing them into new mental constructs (Hipp, 2011; Sehatpour, 2008). In this process, the lateral prefrontal cortex synthesizes novel mental objects, mediates visual planning and visual problem solving. Mental Synthesis Synchronization

6 A wish list of experimentsAn important component of a theory is that it should be falsifiable. A theory must make predictions that were not used in the construction of the theory initially but are now available for inspection. If the predictions are borne out, the theory would be strengthened. If not, then the original theory ought to be modified or abandoned.

7 1. The theory predicts that mental synthesis involves synchronization of independent neuronal ensembles Published: 2015 Mental synthesis involves the synchronization of independent neuronal ensembles Step 1 - Recall of Bill Clinton: The prefrontal cortex (PFC) activates the ensemble of neurons representing Bill Clinton to fire synchronous actions potentials. Bill Clinton is perceived by the patient. The electrode implanted into the temporal lobe (TL) records action potentials. Step 2 - Recall of the lion: The prefrontal cortex activates the ensemble of neurons representing the lion to fire synchronous actions potentials. The lion is perceived. The second electrode implanted into the temporal lobe records action potentials. Step 3 - The patient mentally synthesizes the images of Bill Clinton and the lion. The prefrontal cortex synchronizes the two neuronal ensembles in time. Step 4 - When synchronization is achieved a new, never-before-seen mental image of Bill Clinton holding the lion on his lap is perceived. The two implanted electrodes record synchronous action potentials. Suppose we identified two selective neurons for Bill Clinton and the lion What will happen if the subject imagines Clinton holding the lion on his lap? The Mental Synthesis theory predicts that both the Clinton neuron and the lion neuron will increase their firing rate and that their action potentials will be synchronized.

8 In addition… Morphing of more than two objects into one mental frame can be investigated. For example, if researchers happen to identify selective neurons for Bill Clinton, the Sydney Opera house, and a lion, the subject can be asked to imagine Bill Clinton sitting next to the Sydney Opera house and holding the lion. In this case, all three neurons would be expected to fire synchronously. OTHER EXPERIMENTS: what would happen on neuronal level if: Bill Clinton was imagined as a monument rather than as a human being? (change a category) the lion was seen fighting Bill Clinton, rather than sitting on his lap?; the subject was to imagine the lion swallowing Bill Clinton?; etc.

9 2. Greater differential myelinationDespite the three-fold difference in brain volume, the structure of the human brain is not very different from that of a chimpanzee. The morphological and functional continuity between humans and other great apes on the neurological level contrasts sharply with behavioral discontinuity. The Mental Synthesis theory explains this conundrum by arguing that the behavioral discontinuity comes from acquisition of mental synthesis. Neurologically, mental synthesis is based on isochronous neural connections between the prefrontal cortex and the posterior sensory cortex. Isochronous neural networks, in turn, are developed during ontogenesis primarily as a result of differential myelination of those connections. Thus, the major difference between humans and great apes is probably not in the structure or organization of the brain, but rather in the degree of differential myelination. Prediction: Electron microscopy  greater differential myelination in the human brain.

10 Greater differential myelinationSlower conduction velocity Slower conduction velocity Faster conduction velocity Faster conduction velocity Some fibers are myelinated with up to a hundred layers of myelin while OTHERS are myelinated with just a few layers. Faster conduction velocity Faster conduction velocity

11 Mental synthesis 3. An artificial extension of the period of plasticity of the PFC in chimpanzees Mental synthesis Find the genetic regulators of the duration of the period of plasticity of the PFC in apes  artificially extend the duration  may increase propensity for mental synthesis Chimpanzees with an extended period of PFC plasticity can then be exposed to a syntactic communication system through lexigrams or sign language. If scientists succeed in stretching out the developmental window from several months to several years, these artificially modified animals may be prone to acquisition of some mental synthesis.

12 4. Autism Neurodevelopmental disorder Prevalence: 1 in 68 childrenSensory overload Neurodevelopmental disorder Prevalence: 1 in 68 children Male to female ratio = 4:1 The cost of autism to the US is upwards of $35 billion per year The cost of providing care for a single individual about $126 million. Brain abnormalities in circuits processing faces  no interest in face observation speech does not develop As a result, nearly 50% of children do not acquire speech before the end of critical period. Without speech they do not exhibit symbolic play, no understanding of spatial prepositions or verb tenses  they do not acquire mental synthesis They often acquire some words after the end of critical period, but too late for mental synthesis and full syntactic language. Repetitive activity Lining things up Sensory overload. All these noises in a supermarket. They cannot filter those noises out.

13 "stimulus overselectivity“ "tunnel vision“When asked to pick up the "red crayon under the table," the child with ASD often picks a "crayon" and ignores both its location and the fact that it should also be red. Why? Since lacking mental synthesis, the child cannot generate a mental image of “red crayon under the table”. The child will therefore pick up any available crayon, failing to attend to the cues of color and location. This characteristic has been called "stimulus overselectivity" or "tunnel vision“ or “lack of response to multiple cues” Language therapy will therefore include exercises aimed at training mental synthesis children with ASD often focus on only one stimulus at a time, a characteristic that has been called "stimulus overselectivity" or "tunnel vision" (2, 3). When asked to pick up the "red crayon under the table," the child may over-select on the cue "crayon" and ignore both its location and the fact that it should also be red. The child will therefore pick up any available crayon, failing to attend to the cues of color and location.

14 Mental Synthesis HypothesisFull infinite language: 1. An infinite communication system 2. Mental Synthesis Train them separately!

15 Developmental toys and puzzles that require mental synthesis are helpful;however, physical puzzles are always limited in their range and adaptability. exercises on an iPad disguised as a game

16 Exercises that require attending to only one cueExercises that require attending to only one cue. A: shape, B: size, C: color, D: pattern.

17 A: color and shape, B: color and size.Examples of more difficult exercises that require attending to two cues simultaneously. A: color and shape, B: color and size.

18 Even more difficult exercise that require attending to three cues simultaneously: color, pattern, and size

19 Examples of complex exercises that require attending to a whole variety of visual cues simultaneously

20 ImagiRation learning steps are very small and gradualAttend to many visual cues Step 5 Attend to three cues: shape, size & color Step 4 Number of cues to attend to Attend to two cues: size & color Step 3 Attend to one cue: shape (difficult, outlines are overlapping) Step 2 Attend to one cue: shape (moderate) Step 1 Attend to one cue: shape (easy) Puzzles are increasing in difficulty gradually over time

21 Asynchronous connections Synchronous connectionsMental Imagery Therapy for Autism (MITA) Clinical trial with children with ASD (started February 2016) MITA exercises  MITA therapy may trigger a domino effect by boosting child's mental synthesis ability Mental synthesis + words  full language Full language  loss of ASD diagnosis ImagiRation exercises Asynchronous connections Synchronous connections

22 5. Prediction: mental synthesis is a uniquely human traitHumans are unique in their genetic predisposition to ontogenetic acquisition of mental synthesis (slow PFC development) Humans are unique in their cultural exposure to infinite syntactic communication system (spatial prepositions, verb tenses) That means other animals do not have Mental Synthesis: they cannot purposefully imagine a novel object, they cannot purposefully simulate a plan in their mind That conclusion bothers some people funny: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zUASSJgr9ig Can animals be smarter than human? Yes. In many ways. Leave you in the forest with no food. Will you survive?

23 5.1 Decision making Lack of a voluntary ability to synchronize independent neuronal ensembles does not make animals incapable of making decisions. Consider mental synthesis disability in linguistically-deprived children in people with lesions of the left prefrontal cortex. These individuals can lead a comparably normal life capable of making minute-by-minute decisions. Their disability only becomes obvious when they are asked to solve special problems that require mental synthesis, such as the Tower of London or IQ test. The brain is capable of making all kinds of decisions, conscious and unconscious, without mental synthesis!

24 5.2 Future planning in animalsTraditionalists argue that animals would not be able to survive without future planning. Their argument is supported by numerous examples: bears dig burrows for the winter; squirrels, mice and beavers, gather extra food in the fall, etc. However, it seems to me that not all planning is created equal: some is visual planning through mental synthesis and some is simply instinct, conditioning, or memory. Animals planning for winter are following an instinctual behavior; your dog waiting for you by the door when you come back from work is due to conditioning, and a squirrel’s ability to find cashed acorns is based on memory.

25 To solve the problem and receive the reward, animals had toThe best evidence so far of an animal’s capacity for future thinking comes from a study conducted by Mulcahy and Call from Max Plank Institute. Five bonobos and five orangutans first learned to use a tool to get a reward from an apparatus in the test room. The key here is that the animals had to use the specific tool to get the reward. Then the researchers placed two suitable and six unsuitable tools in the test room but blocked animals’ access to the baited apparatus. After five minutes, the animals were ushered outside the test room into the waiting room, and the caretaker removed all objects left in the test room while animals watched. One hour later, animals were allowed to return to the test room and were given access to the apparatus. To solve the problem and receive the reward, animals had to (1) select a suitable tool from the test room, (2) bring it into the waiting room, (3) keep it in the waiting room for 1 hour, and (4) bring the tool back into the test room upon their return. Animals transported tools out of the test room into the waiting room and back from the waiting room into the test room in 44% of the trials.

26 In the next experiment, the researchers selected the smartest animals and increased the delay between tool retrieval and reward retrieval to 14 hours. They brought the animals into the test room, then sent them to the sleeping room (which served as the waiting room) for the night, and brought them back to the test room in the morning. The sleeping room was not contiguous to the test room but located one floor above it. The researchers tested one orangutan and one bonobo. Neither ape took any tools in the first trial. The orangutan took suitable tools in all 11 remaining trials, which she brought back and used in 7 trials to get the reward. The bonobo took suitable tools in 8 of the remaining 11 trials, which he always brought back to the testing room to get the reward.

27 The authors concluded:“…because traditional learning mechanisms or certain biological predispositions appear insufficient to explain our current results, we propose that they represent a genuine case of future planning. Subjects executed a response (tool transport) that had not been reinforced during training, in the absence of the apparatus or the reward, that produced no consequences or reduced any present needs but was crucial to meet future ones. The presence of future planning in both bonobos and orangutans suggests that its precursors may have evolved before 14 Ma [million years ago] in the great apes. Together with recent evidence from scrub jays, our results suggest that future planning is not a uniquely human ability, thus contradicting the notion that it emerged in hominids only within the past 2.5 to 1.6 million years” (Mulcahy, 2006).

28 There is no argument that orangutans and bonobos used “future planning” to transport the specific tool and retrieve the reward. The question is if the neurological mechanism underlying the animals’ “future planning” is identical to the human mechanism of future simulation in the process of mental synthesis. Our natural inclination is to use anthropomorphic logic to assume that the apes were able to mentally simulate the future, just like we humans do. If I was a subject in this experiment, I would think: “Hmm, I might use this tool tomorrow. I will wake up tomorrow, bring the tool into the test room and use it to get a reward. Let me take the tool with me now and bring it back to the test room tomorrow.” I would actually imagine myself in the future going down into the test room and using the tool to get a reward. This is the most intuitive line of logic. did the study demonstrate that the bonobo and the orangutan actually imagine themselves using the tool tomorrow? No. The study only demonstrated that the apes saved a tool for future use. The inference about the apes’ imagination was done by humans.

29 5.3 Self-awareness The standard test for self-awareness is a mirror test developed by Gordon Gallup Jr. in 1970s. The test measures self-awareness by determining whether a subject can recognize its own image in a mirror as a reflection of itself. This is accomplished by marking the subject with a dye in a spot that is not normally visible to the subject (e.g. a spot on a forehead). When looking at its reflection in a mirror, the self-aware subject will notice the unusual spot and may attempt to touch it or rub it off. NOT passing the mirror test: dogs, cats, monkeys. Passing the test: all of the great apes (chimpanzees, gorillas, orangutans, and bonobos), as well as dolphins, killer whales, elephants, and even magpie (a songbird from the crow family) *

30 5.4 How do animals use of tools?In the book avoid use of tools because tool do not indicate the presence of MS For examples, chimpanzees are well known to use tools to break nut shells

31 Another chimp is using hammer stone to break nut shells

32 Chimps are also known to use tools when hunting for termites

33 … and to extract honey from a beehive

34 In one of spectacular observations, chimps were filmed when hunting with a spear1. A chimpanzee is looking for a bushbaby hideout: 2. The chimp finds a stick and carries the stick in his mouth: 3. The chimp sharpens the stick with his teeth: 4. The chimp uses his foot to help aim the spear into the hole: 5. The chimp eats bushbaby meat:

35

36 5.5 chimpanzees’ problem solving capacitiesWolfgang Köhler showed that chimpanzees who could not reach fruit hanging from a high ceiling, could spontaneously figure out how to stack boxes in order to reach higher.

37 Some chimpanzees were also able to use long sticks to reach food outside of their enclosure (Köhler & Winter, 1927).

38 Daniel Hanus was able to demonstrate that some chimpanzees were able to pull a peanut from a tube, using water from a nearby container (Hanus, 2011): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yrPb41hzYdw As we humans watch these animal feats, it is natural for us to assume things about the animals’ behavior based on what we know about our own behavior.

39 Birds: when hiding their food, ravens (a select group of crows), make a mental note of the food’s “expiration date.” They also check for onlookers before storing their provisions. If any are present, they stage a sophisticated performance to conceal what they are doing. https://youtu.be/TtmLVP0HvDg  Betty and tool use

40

41

42

43

44 Ravens -Heinrich and Bugnyar experimentravens confronted with food hanging on a string were able to devise a strategy for retrieving the food (Heinrich, 2007): To get the food, the raven had to reach down from a perch, grasp a string in its bill, pull up on the string, place the loop of pulled-up string onto the perch, step on the string, then let go of the string, and reach down again, repeating this sequence six or more times in a row until it had pulled up the entire string. The scientists reported that some adult birds were able to solve the problem and get the food. In fact, the birds’ approach to the solution seemed very human-like. The raven would examine the set-up for several minutes (almost as if it was planning its actions) and then perform the procedure on its first try in as little as 30 seconds. Note that the raven was never given an opportunity for trial and error learning — neither in the lab, not in the wild. The scientists concluded that “the simplest suggestion is that they [the ravens] imagined possibilities and figured out what steps to take.”

45 Ravens -Heinrich and Bugnyar experimentThere is no doubt that humans would use mental synthesis to solve the problem like the one presented to the ravens. A human would visualize multiple plans in the mind and then select the plan that solves the problem. However, we have to be careful to avoid our human propensity for using anthropomorphic logic when coming to conclusions about an animal’s intentions. An animal may not be approaching or solving a problem in the same way that we would, even if the solutions appear to be similar. it is also possible that the ravens in the Heinrich and Bugnyar experiment were able to devise a strategy for pulling up food by relying on their hard-wired (innate) reflexes. In the wild, ravens prey on small invertebrates, amphibians, reptiles, small mammals and birds. Separating the meat from the bones of dead animals is not an easy task. A raven must have a significant genetic background for pulling pieces of meat hanging on ligaments from dead bodies. The ravens could have mixed and matched their arsenal of reflexes to solve the problem.

46 The ravens in the same experiment were unable to solve a very similar problem, in which they had to pull down on the string which was suspended over a wire meshing in order to retrieve their food. While the ravens solved the first problem quickly (pulling up on the string to get at the food), they were completely unable to solve the second problem, even though it was logically equivalent to the first problem (and therefore had a comparable difficulty level). The researchers report, that “Under this situation [the second setup], the ravens were still interested in the food; they investigated the setup and pecked and yanked on the string, thus making it at times come a little closer. They soon gave up, however, and none learned to access the food even though the same pull/step/release sequences that quickly delivered the food before could have provided it again.” Heinrich and Bugnyar go on to conclude, “We believe, therefore, that the direct pull-up was mastered quickly and sometimes almost “instantly” only because it was supported by logic. Apparently ravens have the ability to test actions in their minds and project the outcomes of those actions” (Heinrich, 2007). The authors think that pulling up on something to get it closer is logical but pulling down is not? Why not? If the authors are correct, and the ravens actually have the ability to mentally simulate actions and project outcomes, then they should have been able to do that in the second experiment just as well as in the first, and get the much desired food!

47 Chimpanzees in the wild often need to reach objects hanging high in the trees. Consequently, they must have developed a range of reflexes that could help them solve the problem: they very likely have a way to quickly asses the distance to a nearby fruit and they must have a reflex to step on a higher branch or a stone in order to get to an out-of-reach fruit. Once a chimp in Köhler’s experiment placed the first box under the fruit, it must have immediately realized that moving the box got it closer to the fruit. Adding another box is just a repeat of the first action; the assumptions of the chimp’s mentation is the product of human imagination. It is just easier for us to think anthropomorphically and assume that the chimp has solved the puzzle through mental stimulations.

48 Reflexes Archerfish shooting a water stream at a bug on a hanging branch in order to catch it. Without visual planning based on mental synthesis humans would not be able to build a termite mound, or to build a spider web, or to build an ant hill, or to build a beehive, or catch prey with a water stream Does it mean that termites, spiders, ants, bees and archerfish are capable of visual simulation of the future through mental synthesis? Given the primitive nervous system of insects and fish, this is very unlikely  some complex reflexes. Animals are impressively complex organisms perfected for survival. Unsuccessful species are invariably eliminated in the process of competition for natural resources. All currently living animals have survived because they succeeded in solving nearly every important problem that they encountered. To succeed in evolution, animals had to evolve the reflexes that helped them solve problems. While humans can sometimes only solve a given problem mentally by visualizing the solution using mental synthesis, animals can often just put together a series of complex reflexes to solve a problem. Humans may have never developed those reflexes. For most of us, the idea that neither ants nor bees rely on visual planning when building their nests or pack-hunting is intuitive. However when it comes to primates, we tend to assume that their visual planning is similar to ours. It is much more intuitive for us to use anthropomorphism to assume that just like humans, primates can mentally simulate the future.

49 Memory In addition to reflexes, all animals have memory that can guide their behavior. In mammals, memory is the function of the neocortex. Just think about what this means: the neocortex, the largest part of our brain, is primarily dedicated to memory. If you had been mugged on the corner of 45th St. and 9th Ave. in New York, you would probably feel uneasy every time you pass that intersection for the rest of your life. You don’t need mental synthesis to appreciate the danger associated with the west side of the theatre district. If you had once found a hundred dollar bill taped to a particular lamppost, you will most likely check that lamppost every time you pass by it. Your actions would be driven by your memory, not by mental synthesis.

50 long-term memory in animals Squirrels can remember hundreds of food cache locations. Clark's nutcrackers normally store over 30,000 pine nuts in about 3,000 locations over an area of over 100 square kilometers, and remember where almost 70% of them were placed. *

51 Can memory alone be used for future thinking?Imagine that a year ago you traveled to London and forgot to bring an electrical plug adapter. Because of this oversight, you were unable to charge your phone and missed an important call. Eventually, you had to buy the plug adapter at a much-inflated price at the hotel shop. Now imagine that tomorrow you are going back to London. What will you take with you? What will you definitely try not to forget? Let me guess – an electrical plug adapter. You will simply remember to take the adapter because your previous negative experience has left such a strong memory. You do not need to imagine yourself using the adapter in London (you might of course do that, but you don’t have to). In this example, it is not mental synthesis but rather your memory of that experience in London that allows you to plan for the future. A spear-making chimpanzee (Pruetz & Bertolani, 2007) might just remember to bite on a stick a few times before going hunting. Chimps going for termite fishing could simply remember that they need a long stick to fish for termites. At some point in time, some individual stumbled upon the solution. Other chimps learned the technique simply by observing.

52 Imagination Simple memory recallMental Synthesis: Conscious purposeful imagination of novel images Dreaming, hallucinations, spontaneous insight remembering an image (recalling a mental image of an object from memory) or remembering a sequence of images (a mental movie) does not normally involve mental synthesis (as you do not need to combine two representations together to recall images from memory). Furthermore, remembering an image that your mind had already synthesized in the past does not involve mental synthesis either. Once an image comprising of several neuronal ensembles has been synthesized (in the past), the connections between neurons become stronger and a new neuronal ensemble is formed. Thus, when you now think of a mermaid, you simply activate the neuronal ensemble for mermaid, even though originally (the first time you heard of a mermaid) you may have synchronized the ensemble of a fish with the ensemble of a woman. Similarly with Pinocchio inside a shark (or any other composite image): once you think about this scene, it becomes its own neuronal ensemble building block that you can use to make more and more complicated images (e.g. you can picture a mermaid holding Pinocchio inside a shark’s belly). The important thing to remember is that that mental synthesis must include an active, voluntary process of synthesizing a never-before-seen image from several images recalled from memory.

53 Michael Gazzaniga on the origin of anthropomorphism: “We use our theory-of-mind system (our intuitive understanding that others have invisible states—beliefs, desires, intentions, and goals — and that these can cause behaviors and events) to ascribe these same characteristics not only to other humans but also to the animate category in general, even though other animals do not possess it to the same degree humans do. (Sometimes it can also get sloppily slapped onto objects.) This is why it is so easy to think of our pets and other animals as having thoughts and beliefs like our own and why anthropomorphism is so easy to resort to. This is also why it can be so hard for humans to accept that their psychology is unique. We are wired to think otherwise. We are wired to think animate objects have theory-of-mind. We think other animals, especially ones most similar to us, think as we do. Our intuitive psychology does not limit the extent of theory-of-mind in other animals. In fact, when presented with films of geometric shapes moving in ways that suggest intention or goal-directed behavior (moving in ways that an animal would move), people will even attribute desires and intentions to geometric figures (Heider & Simmel, 1944). Yes, other animals have desires and goals, but they are shaped by a body and a brain that has answered survival and fitness problems with different solutions. We are not all hooked up the same. ... just because other animals may have some of the same behaviors that we do, inferring from this that they have the same cognitive system may not be correct.” (Gazzaniga M, 2008 p. 261).

54 Personal communication with Marc HouserMH: [animals are] imaginative, but just not as imaginative as humans; there are hundreds of cases of creative problem solving, in unfamiliar contexts. there are cases where they combine certain narrow domains, but it is highly limited. their tool use shows this….  AV: When you say that animals are “imaginative, but just not as imaginative as humans”, do you imply that the "imaginative" animals can visually simulate the "solution" to creative problems in unfamiliar contexts? MH: work by Nathan Emery shows that if you show rooks a worm at the bottom of a test tube that is too narrow for them to insert their beaks, that they spontaneously, first trial, go over and find rocks to drop in the water, displacing the water and lifting the worm to the surface.  no training. no prior experience, novel solution.  now where, precisely, this happens, is definitely unclear.  how you would find out is presumably by imaging the bird, or knocking out areas known to be involved in such matters.  But yes, i think a plausible hypothesis is that this completely novel solution is solved by means of some kind of visual representation about rocks, water, test tubes, and combinations. AV: Let me make sure we are on the same page: So you think that rooks first, before dropping rocks into test tubes, visually simulate the process: they combine the rocks and the water, water rising in the tube and the worm rising with water. Then they realize that the worm in the novel mental image ("visual representation about rocks, water, test tubes, and combinations") is rising in the tube and that is what they want (the worm is closer). Therefore it is a good solution to chose and they start dropping physical rocks into test tubes. The main point: they simulate the result of their action, they form a novel mental image of the result of their action ("visual representation about rocks, water, test tubes, and combinations")  before going into action, right? MH: we don't know how they achieve this. all i said is this is one possibility.  what animal cognition types have been interested in is the novelty of problem solving solutions, and a way to get away from boring associations. this is why the captive data are so important as these were captive reared rooks. how they do it is unclear, except to rule out simple  learned associations. they could run a simulation, imagining a solution. what we know is that it isn't solved by trial and error. so the key is to invoke different possible mechanisms to explain what they are doing. AV: Don't you think that if any animal acquired a neurological mechanism enabling it to "run a simulation, imagining a solution", (initially to a smaller degree than in humans), the natural selection would then perfect that neurological mechanism to enable that animal to run a much more complex simulations?

55 “... if there is one single thing that distinguishes humans from other life-forms, living or extinct, it is the capacity for symbolic thought: the ability to generate complex mental symbols and to manipulate them into new combinations. This is the very foundation of imagination and creativity: of the unique ability of humans to create a world in the mind...“ — IAN TATTERSALL, former curator of the American Museum of Natural History, Becoming Human (1999) The idea that I really like is that the difference between humans and other animals is in human ability to control their imagination. And I am not alone in this thinking. if there is one single thing that distinguishes humans from other life-forms, living or extinct, it is the capacity for symbolic thought: the ability to generate complex mental symbols and to manipulate them into new combinations. This is the very foundation of imagination and creativity: of the unique ability of humans to create a world in the mind...“ — IAN TATTERSALL, Becoming Human (1999)

56 “Imagination is a new formation that is not present in the consciousness of the very young child, is totally absent in animals, and represents a specifically human form of conscious activity.” — LEV VYGOTSKY, psychologist (1933) Imagination is a new formation that is not present in the consciousness of the very young child, is totally absent in animals, and represents a specifically human form of conscious activity.” — LEV VYGOTSKY (1933)

57 “the modern human mind, alone among all minds in the animal kingdom“the modern human mind, alone among all minds in the animal kingdom ... is free to organize the elements of its perception in an infinitely diverse array of combinatorial possibilities” — JOSEPH CARROLL, an English professor at the University of Missouri (2009) “the modern human mind, alone among all minds in the animal kingdom ... is free to organize the elements of its perception in an infinitely diverse array of combinatorial possibilities” — JOSEPH CARROLL (2009)

58 “... Our imaginative ability allowed one of us thousands of years ago to look at a wall of an empty cave in France and decide to spruce it up with a little fresco…” — MICHAEL GAZZANIGA (2008) The challenge is to connect these imaginative creative abilities to neuroscience. And that is what I was doing over last 20 years.

59 The challenge is to connect these imaginative creative abilities to NEUROSCIENCEThere is no neurological definition of imagination! Imagination is often equated with mental imagery: “…since all imagery is mediated by the same neurological mechanism, then anyone who can perform a simple memory recall task can also perform any kind of imagery.” Since simple recall is something that many animals can do then those animals must also be able to perform any kind of imagery and therefore they must have the capacity for “imagination.” Darwin in The Descent of Man: “The IMAGINATION is one of the highest prerogatives of man. By this faculty he unites former images and ideas, independently of the will, and thus creates brilliant and novel results. A poet, as Jean Paul Richter remarks, "who must reflect whether he shall make a character say yes or no — to the devil with him; he is only a stupid corpse." Dreaming gives us the best notion of this power; as Jean Paul again says, "The dream is an involuntary art of poetry." The value of the products of our imagination depends of course on the number, accuracy, and clearness of our impressions, on our judgment and taste in selecting or rejecting the involuntary combinations, and to a certain extent on our power of voluntarily combining them. As dogs, cats, horses, and probably all the higher animals, even birds have vivid dreams, and this is shewn by their movements and the sounds uttered, we must admit that they possess some power of imagination.”

60 Conscious purposeful imagination of novel imagesSimple memory recall Conscious purposeful imagination of novel images Dreaming, hallucinations, spontaneous insight remembering an image (recalling a mental image of an object from memory) or remembering a sequence of images (a mental movie) does not normally involve mental synthesis (as you do not need to combine two representations together to recall images from memory). Furthermore, remembering an image that your mind had already synthesized in the past does not involve mental synthesis either. Once an image comprising of several neuronal ensembles has been synthesized (in the past), the connections between neurons become stronger and a new neuronal ensemble is formed. Thus, when you now think of a mermaid, you simply activate the neuronal ensemble for mermaid, even though originally (the first time you heard of a mermaid) you may have synchronized the ensemble of a fish with the ensemble of a woman. Similarly with Pinocchio inside a shark (or any other composite image): once you think about this scene, it becomes its own neuronal ensemble building block that you can use to make more and more complicated images (e.g. you can picture a mermaid holding Pinocchio inside a shark’s belly). The important thing to remember is that that mental synthesis must include an active, voluntary process of synthesizing a never-before-seen image from several images recalled from memory. DEFINITION: Mental Synthesis is the conscious purposeful imagination of novel images

61 Mental Synthesis theory:The neurological mechanism of imagining a new object is significantly different from that of simple memory recall. The process of imagining novel objects involves both activation of neuronal ensembles and the active purposeful process of synchronizing those neuronal ensembles in time, while simple recall involves only activation but no synchronization. Synchronization no enhanced connections The neuronal ensembles encoding those novel objects cannot synchronize on their own since the parts forming those novel images have never been seen together and therefore have no enhanced connections between them. Six years ago I proposed that the mechanism of mental synthesis involves active SYNCHRONIZATION of independent neuronal ensembles. Thus, the apple neuronal ensemble is actively synchronized with the dolphin neuronal ensemble, and the two disparate objects are perceived together for the first time. This is the central dogma of the mental synthesis theory. There is no direct prove of this hypothesis, but there are many indirect experiments consistent with this hypothesis. Psychologists use the term mental synthesis to describe the process in which visual imagery is used to combine separate components into new, never-before-seen configurations (reviewed by Pearson & Logie, 2000). Asynchronously firing neuronal ensembles Perceived as two different objects Synchronously firing neuronal ensembles Perceived as one morphed image

62 The lateral prefrontal cortex as a puppeteerPFC Puppeteer Puppets in the posterior cortex A major role of the lateral prefrontal cortex is to “manufacture” novel images by pulling neuronal ensembles into working memory and synchronizing them in time. These “manufactured” novel images allow humans to simulate the future and form the basis for such functions as language and reasoning. While the central role of the lateral prefrontal cortex in planning and decision-making has been recognized for several decades, the specific neurological mechanism of those functions has been understood only in general terms. Planning and decision-making are thought to rely on such lateral prefrontal cortex functions as working memory and “time-integration”(Fuster JM, 2008), but specifics of time-integration are lacking. Current models of the lateral prefrontal cortex do not explicitly talk about synchronization of independent neuronal ensembles as a specific mechanism of planning and decision-making in humans. This monograph is the attempt to pinpoint a specific neurological mechanism responsible for visual planning and decision-making. Rather than describing the process in general terms of “time-integration,” the model proposed in this monograph offers synchronization of independent neuronal ensembles as the tentative mechanism of mental synthesis organized by the lateral prefrontal cortex. By pulling the strings, the prefrontal cortex changes the firing phase of the retrieved neuronal ensembles thus synchronizing them into new mental constructs (Hipp, 2011; Sehatpour, 2008). In this process, the lateral prefrontal cortex synthesizes novel mental objects, mediates visual planning and visual problem solving. Mental Synthesis Synchronization

63 Is the Human Mind UniqueIs the Human Mind Unique? -- Daniel Povinelli: Desperately Seeking Explanation CARTA: Is the Human Mind Unique? -- Daniel Povinelli: Desperately Seeking Explanation https://youtu.be/kX49dlbfG9E?t=14m31s

64 Suppose you have an enemy in your camp (a strong guy, an alpha male) - how would you kill that person? Most humans will take a stone and kill an enemy with a stone while the enemy is asleep. Chimps never do that. Chimps often kill other chimps. But always with their hands. They never kill with tools. They often get injured in this process. There are many things that chimps just cannot do, but our anthropomorphism is so strong …

65 Problem solving, tool use, self-awareness, and future thinking is animals can be explained by a combination of: Memory Trial-and-error Reflexes Spontaneous insight

66 I will change my mind if animals were shown to exhibit these External manifestation of mental synthesis: Verbal Manifestations: communication of new images to a listener Syntactic communication system Storytelling Active teaching Creative Manifestations: mental synthesis of new objects Representational art Creativity and innovation Design and construction Natural sciences (seeking an explanation for invisible forces) Behavioral Manifestations: mental synthesis manifests itself in pursuits that are based around imagination Pretend play Strategy games Religious beliefs

67 The anthropomorphic belief that animals are capable of imagining the consequences of their actions was even stronger in the past Until the eighteenth century in Europe, animals were put on trial when they violated the laws of men. Just like common criminals, they would be arrested, jailed, accused of wrongdoing and forced to stand trial. Offences alleged against them ranged from murder to criminal damage. The court would even appoint lawyers who would defend the animals at the trial. In addition, animals could be tortured for confession and if convicted, it was usual for an animal to be executed, or exiled. The earliest surviving record of an animal trial involves a pig that was executed in 1266 at Fontenay-aux-Roses (Cohen E, 1986). Because animals were treated as peers with humans in judicial proceedings, it was considered improper to consume any animal that had been capitally punished. Many different animals had their day in court: pigs, dogs, horses, and even bulls. Some animals were even believed to possess magic powers. In 1692 and 1693 twenty people were accused of witchcraft and executed in Salem, Massachusetts. Along with people, two dogs were also sentenced to death: dogs were believed to possess and exercise witchcraft – quite a high mark for the dogs (Sawyer & Bundren, 2000). This illustration from Chambers Book of Days depicts a sow and her piglets being tried for the murder of a child. The trial allegedly took place in 1457, the mother being found guilty and the piglets acquitted.

68 An 18th-century illustration of Saint Francis of Assisi preaching to the birds

69 Heliocentricity For thousands of years humanity also assumed that the Earth was in the center of the universe. It was very natural and intuitive to think that all stars were circling around the Earth. Only relatively recently (in 1543) did Nicolaus Copernicus formulate his heliocentric cosmology which displaced the Earth from the center of the universe. It wasn’t until 1822 that the Catholic Church allowed the printing of heliocentric books. It took another hundred years for astronomers to realize that the sun was not the center of the universe either and that it is part of a galaxy that is only one of many billions. Charles Darwin: “When it was first said that the sun stood still and the world turned round, the common sense of mankind declared the doctrine false; but the old saying of Vox populi, vox Dei [the voice of the people is the voice of God], as every philosopher knows, cannot be trusted in science”

70 Theory of continental driftUntil very recently all educated humanity assumed that continents were literally fixed on the surface of the Earth. It was very natural and intuitive to think this because there was no visual evidence to the contrary. It wasn’t until 1912 that Alfred Wegener presented his theory of continental drift. His idea that, in the past, all continents had been united and formed one large super-continent of Pangaea was so counterintuitive that it was not accepted by the majority of scientists until 1958 when Carey introduced the theory of plate tectonics, which provided an explanation for the forces responsible for continental drift.

71 Prions transmit diseasesThe microbial theory of disease was so intuitive and successful that scientists refused to accept that a pathogen can be composed of a single protein. For many years Stanley Prusiner, searching for the infection agent responsible for the transmission of mad cow disease, was denied grant support and laughed at by fellow scientists. It was counterintuitive to think that a misfolded protein could ever transmit a disease. Stanley Prusiner had purified the infectious agent (prion) in 1982 and was awarded the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine in 1997.

72 stop

73 http://www. youtube. com/watchTool use in Crows in the field – Attenborough Betty and tool use https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TtmLVP0HvDg  Betty bending a wire – same as above Betty modifies a toolhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZE4BT8QSgZk Sequential Tool use by Betty Crow uses sequence of three tools – same as above https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mmpUoGKyyto Nicky Clayton and Western Scrub Jays https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sestyof8UL4 Scrub Jay caching in the wild https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SzEdi074SuQ Tool use in New Caledonian crows and Keas – EXCELLENT Heinrich – Ravens meat on a string – Imagination – Insight – EXCELLENT https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JY8-gP3Sw_8 Crows solve a sequential problem – INSIGHT Crows in Japan dropping nuts in the road – Attenborough Rook uses stones to raise water level to get food – Imagination – Insight https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D2YZhzhn4qs Dr. Balcombe on Scrub Jays episodic memories, peanuts vs waxworms. Crows using a tool to push out a food item in the lab – 8 non-human tool users New Caledonian crows using tools.movie – in wild   Ravens - from Nature Crows in Japan dropping nuts in the road - Attenborough

74 Suppose you have an enemy in your camp (a strong guy, an alpha male) - how would you kill that person? Any normal human will take a stone and kill an enemy with a stone while the enemy is asleep. Chimps never do that. Chimps often kill other chimps. But always with their hands. They never kill with tools. They often get injured in this process. There are many things that chimps just cannot do, but our anthropomorphism is so strong …

75 Cloning of a NeanderthalIn January of 2013, George Church, a Professor of Genetics at Harvard Medical School, said in an interview that it could be possible to clone a Neanderthal baby from ancient DNA if he could find a woman willing to act as a surrogate: “I have already managed to attract enough DNA from fossil bones to reconstruct the DNA of the human species largely extinct. Now I need an adventurous female human.” How different will it be? George Church suggests, “Neanderthals might think differently than we do. We know that they had a larger cranial size. They could even be more intelligent than us.” Lack of mental synthesis in Neanderthals can be explained by either a lack of the innate ability to acquire mental synthesis (i.e. the lack of genetic mutations necessary for mental synthesis) or by the lack of a culturally acquired syntactic communication system (after all, mental synthesis does not develop even in modern children deprived of exposure to normal syntactic communication) or by the lack of both the genetic and the cultural components.

76 Will this child acquire mental synthesis and full human language?The answer would depend on the duration of the period of plasticity of the prefrontal cortex in the cloned Neanderthal. If the period of plasticity is similar to that of a chimpanzee, then it is highly unlikely that the cloned child would be able to acquire much ability for mental synthesis. However, if the period of plasticity is similar to that of a modern human, then the child will acquire normal mental synthesis and the hypothesis that Neanderthals lacked the “last” mutation would be incorrect. This would mean that the genetic mutation that caused the delay in the maturation of the prefrontal cortex was acquired earlier in hominid evolution than the syntactic communication system. It would also imply that modern humans and Neanderthals shared the mutation that delays the maturation of the prefrontal cortex and that the only reason Neanderthals did not have mental synthesis is because they did not invent a syntactic language. Prediction: the delay in maturation of the prefrontal cortex is somewhat longer in Neanderthals than in chimpanzees but still significantly shorter than in humans. Neanderthals likely did not have that “last” genetic mutation that dramatically slowed down maturation of the prefrontal cortex, but they had other mutations that delayed it somewhat compared to chimpanzees (after all, the volume of the Neanderthal brain was nearly four times greater than that of the chimpanzee; some delay of the prefrontal cortex maturation could have been a direct result of increase in brain volume). I predict that under purposeful linguistic training the cloned Neanderthal would acquire some mental synthesis but probably much less than a modern human.

77 Contrary to George Church’s proposition, the Neanderthal would likely be significantly less intelligent than an average modern human. Furthermore the experiment with a cloned Neanderthal raised by modern humans and exposed to syntactic communication from the time of birth still would not answer the main question concerning the cognitive level of extinct Neanderthals. even if Neanderthals had acquired all the right mutations, but had not invented an infinite syntactic communication system, they would have likely developed similar to linguistically deprived children, acquiring no capability for mental synthesis during ontogenesis.

78 Correlation between the age of maturation of the prefrontal cortex and propensity for mental synthesis The Mental Synthesis theory argues that mental synthesis is ontogenetically acquired via an experience-dependent mechanism limited in time by the duration of the period of plasticity of the prefrontal cortex. It follows that a significantly shortened period of plasticity may be associated with a reduced propensity for mental synthesis in adulthood. Nature often experiments with genetic mutations. Modern humans who have a significantly shortened period of maturation of the prefrontal cortex may be investigated to study the correlation between the duration of the period of plasticity and mental synthesis ability in adulthood. reaching puberty early, at four to five years of age, may significantly limit the ability of the prefrontal cortex connections to attain isochronicity as a result of an abnormally shortened period of experience

79 Youngest mother Lina Medina, from Peru, gave birth by cesarean section at age 5 1⁄2 to a healthy boy. Medina's parents, who assumed their daughter had a tumor, took her to a hospital where she then was found to be 7 months pregnant.

80 Detection of partially concealed predatorsDuring the six million years of evolution in the savanna, our forebears were evolutionarily selected for their ability to better detect partially concealed motionless predators: the human brain was tweaked to better detect a stalking leopard based on only a few, small visual cues: a leopard’s tail or an ear perked up above the swaying grass of the savanna.

81 Humans are much better at detecting immobile objectsModern humans detect immobile visual targets an order of magnitude faster than chimpanzees (Matsuno, 2006). Consistent with this additional selective pressure, modern humans evolved to detect immobile visual targets an order of magnitude faster than chimpanzees (Matsuno, 2006) and integrate local immobile elements into a bigger shape significantly better than chimpanzees (Fagot, 2001). Humans Chimpanzees Dead Fly detection time – Live Fly detection time 100ms 1000ms

82 Humans are much better at visual integrationWhen shown a large Kanizsa-square, chimpanzees only perceived the inducers. Modern humans integrate inducers into a bigger shape and perceive a square (Fagot, 2001). Consistent with this hypothesis of a significant selective pressure acting upon the hominin visual system, humans are much better at visual integration than chimpanzees.

83 Which tail belongs to a wild boar? Which tail belongs to a leopard?Modern humans can tell a wild boar’s tail from a leopard’s tail from as far as 100 meters away. We can then decide to hunt the pig and to run away from the leopard.

84 Prediction: naive chimpanzees would not recognize a motionless leopard based on its tail alone, while most humans would be able to recognize the leopard. Chimps Attack Leopard Mockup : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bKpZUsRJWBg A model of a stalking leopard can be hidden in thick vegetation at some distance from feeding stations. By observing the chimpanzees’ reaction to the partially concealed model, the researchers can determine whether a chimpanzee can recognize an object based on minimal visual cues. If the chimpanzees show no reaction when only a small part of the tail is visible, then a greater portion of the tail could be revealed. If this does not result in recognition, then more (and more) of the model can be revealed until the leopard is recognized. Similar experiments can be conducted with other small, visible body parts, such as the leopard’s ears or back.

85 An artificial extension of the period of plasticity of the prefrontal cortex may increase propensity for mental synthesis in animals If genetic regulators of the period of plasticity of the prefrontal cortex were found, researchers could devise a way to extend the period of plasticity. Chimpanzees with an extended period of prefrontal cortex plasticity can then be exposed to a syntactic communication system through lexigrams or sign language. If scientists succeed in stretching out the developmental window from several months to several years, these artificially modified animals may be prone to acquisition of some mental synthesis.

86 A possible biological marker of mental synthesis: the size of the corpus callosumMental synthesis relies on the isochronic axonal projections to synchronize independent neuronal ensembles. The isochronicity of connections is achieved by fine-tuning the axonal conduction velocity in the experience-dependent manner via differential myelination of axonal fibers. The experience is primarily provided by exercising mental synthesis with syntactic language. Lack of experience is therefore expected to be associated with reduced myelination of relevant axonal projections. The corpus callosum is the largest and most prominent bundle of axonal projections in the brain. It consists of approximately 200 million axons connecting the left and right cerebral hemispheres. in people born with a normal corpus callosum, its myelination pattern may tell the story of the person’s upbringing just as tree rings reflect the pattern of the tree’s annual growth. The Mental Synthesis theory predicts a reduction of the myelination of the corpus callosum in all conditions associated with a reduction of mental synthesis and an increase in myelination of the corpus callosum in high-intelligence individuals with more developed mental synthesis. increased thickness of the corpus callosum has been positively correlated with intelligence, creativity, and other hallmarks of mental synthesis Albert Einstein, for example, whose thought experiments in which he'd imagine himself riding alongside a beam of light are well known, had a thicker corpus callosum than age-matched controls reduction in the thickness of the corpus callosum has been observed in patients with mental synthesis disability: those diagnosed with mental retardation, Down’s syndrome, autism, as well as children suffering from abuse and neglect who showed on average a 17% reduction in myelination of the corpus callosum Prediction: study the corpus callosum of linguistically deprived children. In these children, mental synthesis disability is expected to be associated with a significant reduction in the thickness of the corpus callosum

87 Start on a funny note: animals often show lack of mental synthesis: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zUASSJgr9ig C. Lloyd Morgan, a British ethologist who studied under T. H. Huxley, argued more than a century ago that we should not interpret animal behavior as the outcome of a higher “psychical” faculty when it can be fairly explained as the result of a lower one. Having defined mental synthesis neurologically as synchronization of independent neuronal ensembles (mental synthesis), let us apply C. Lloyd Morgan’s principle to assess the presence of mental synthesis in animals in a rigorous manner

88 Traditionalists argue that animals would not be able to survive without future planning. Their argument is supported by numerous examples: bears dig burrows for the winter; squirrels, mice and beavers, gather extra food in the fall, etc. However, it seems to me that not all planning is created equal: some is visual planning through mental synthesis and some is simply instinct, conditioning, or memory. Animals planning for winter are following an instinctual behavior; your dog waiting for you by the door when you come back from work is due to conditioning, and a squirrel’s ability to find cashed acorns is based on memory.

89 The best evidence so far of an animal’s capacity for future thinking comes from a study conducted by Nicholas J. Mulcahy and Josep Call from Max Plank Institute in Leipzig (Mulcahy & Call, 2006). Five bonobos and five orangutans first learned to use a tool to get a reward from an apparatus in the test room. The key here is that the animals had to use the specific tool to get the reward. Then the researchers placed two suitable and six unsuitable tools in the test room but blocked animals’ access to the baited apparatus. After five minutes, the animal subjects were ushered outside the test room into the waiting room, and the caretaker removed all objects left in the test room while animal subjects watched. One hour later, animal subjects were allowed to return to the test room and were given access to the apparatus. To solve the problem and receive the reward, animal subjects had to (1) select a suitable tool from the test room, (2) bring it into the waiting room, (3) keep it in the waiting room for 1 hour, and (4) bring the tool back into the test room upon their return. Animal subjects transported tools out of the test room into the waiting room and back from the waiting room into the test room in 44% of the trials (Mulcahy, 2006).

90 In the next experiment, the researchers selected the smartest animals and increased the delay between tool retrieval and reward retrieval to 14 hours. They brought the animal subjects into the test room, then sent them to the sleeping room (which served as the waiting room) for the night, and brought them back to the test room in the morning. The sleeping room was not contiguous to the test room but located one floor above it. The researchers tested one orangutan and one bonobo. Neither ape took any tools in the first trial. The orangutan took suitable tools in all 11 remaining trials, which she brought back and used in 7 trials to get the reward. The bonobo took suitable tools in 8 of the remaining 11 trials, which he always brought back to the testing room to get the reward.

91 The authors concluded:…because traditional learning mechanisms or certain biological predispositions appear insufficient to explain our current results, we propose that they represent a genuine case of future planning. Subjects executed a response (tool transport) that had not been reinforced during training, in the absence of the apparatus or the reward, that produced no consequences or reduced any present needs but was crucial to meet future ones. The presence of future planning in both bonobos and orangutans suggests that its precursors may have evolved before 14 Ma [million years ago] in the great apes. Together with recent evidence from scrub jays, our results suggest that future planning is not a uniquely human ability, thus contradicting the notion that it emerged in hominids only within the past 2.5 to 1.6 million years” (Mulcahy, 2006).

92 There is no argument that orangutans and bonobos used “future planning” to transport the specific tool and retrieve the reward. The question is if the neurological mechanism underlying the animals’ “future planning” is identical to the human mechanism of future simulation in the process of mental synthesis. Our natural inclination is to use anthropomorphic logic to assume that the apes were able to mentally simulate the future, just like we humans do. If I was a subject in this experiment, I would think: “Hmm, I might use this tool tomorrow. I will wake up tomorrow bring the tool into the test room and use it to get a reward. Let me take the tool with me now and bring it back to the test room tomorrow.” I would actually imagine myself in the future going down into the test room and using the tool to get a reward. This is the most intuitive line of logic. But let us follow C. Lloyd Morgan’s principle and ask the following question: did the study demonstrate that the bonobo and the orangutan actually imagine themselves using the tool tomorrow? No. The study only demonstrated that the apes saved a tool for future use. The inference about the apes’ imagination was done by humans. (To the authors’ credit, they never mentioned “visual future planning” but rather they just refer to “the presence of future planning” in animal subjects).