Artefactualidad animal

  1. Cuevas Badallo, Ana 1
  1. 1 Departamento de Filosofía, Lógica y Estética, Facultad de Filosofía, Universidad de Salamanca, España.
Revista:
Ludus vitalis: revista de filosofía de las ciencias de la vida = journal of philosophy of life sciences = revue de philosophie des sciences de la vie

ISSN: 1133-5165

Año de publicación: 2016

Volumen: 24

Número: 45

Páginas: 155-174

Tipo: Artículo

DIALNET GOOGLE SCHOLAR lock_openAcceso abierto editor

Otras publicaciones en: Ludus vitalis: revista de filosofía de las ciencias de la vida = journal of philosophy of life sciences = revue de philosophie des sciences de la vie

Resumen

Animal and artifactsTraditionally, to make artifacts has been considered an exclusively human ability. Nevertheless, it is necessary to reconsider the exclusiveness of this capacity taking into account the latest developments in the area of ethological research. In order to provide an adequate answer to the question if other animals are able to create and use artifacts, we need to re-examine the notions of intentionality and artifact, as well the definition in ethology on usage and making of tools.

Referencias bibliográficas

  • Alcock, J. (1972), ‘Origin of tool-using by Egyptian vultures Neophron percnopterus’, Ibis, vol. 112 (4), pp. 542.
  • Allen, C. (1999), ‘Animal concepts revisited: the use of self-monitoring as an empirical approach’, Erkenntnis, vol. 51, pp. 33-40.
  • Allen, C. & Trestman, M (2007): ‘Animal consciousness’, en E. Zalta (ed.), The Stanford Encyclopaedia of Philosophy (Summer 2014 Edition) URL = http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2014/entries/consciousness-animal/.
  • Baker, L. R. (2006), ‘On the twofold nature of artefacts’, Studies in History and Philosophy of Science, vol. 37, pp. 132–136.
  • Beck, B. B. (1980), Animal Tool Behavior, New York, Garland.
  • Bekoff, M. & Jamieson, D. (1991), ‘Reflective ethology, applied philosophy, and the moral status of animals’, Perspectives in Ethology, vol. 9, pp. 1-47.
  • Bentley-Condit, V. K. & Smith, E. O. (2010), ‘Animal Beh’, Behaviour, vol. 147 (2), pp. 185-221.
  • Boesch, C. (1996), ‘The emergence of cultures among wild chimpanzees’, Proceedings of the British Academy, vol. 88, pp. 251-268.
  • Boesch, C. & Boesch, H. (1990), ‘Tool use and tool making in wild chimpanzees’, Folia Primatologica, vol. 54 (1-2), pp. 86-99.
  • Bonner, J. T. (1980), The Evolution of Culture in Animals, Princeton, Princeton University Press.
  • Boswall, J. (1977a), ‘Notes on tool-using by Egyptian Vultures’, Bulletin of the British Ornithologists’ Club, vol. 14 (2), pp. 74-76.
  • Davidson, D. (1985), ‘Rational animals’, en E. LePore & B. McLaughin (eds.), Actions and Events, Oxford, Blackwell, pp. 231-236.
  • Davidson, D. (1999), ‘The emergence of thought’, Erkenntnis, vol. 51, pp. 7-17.
  • De Waal, F. & Tyack, P. L. (2003), Animal Social Complexity: Intelligence, Culture, and Individualized Societies, Cambridge, Harvard University Press.
  • Dipert, R. R. (1993), Artifacts, Art Works, and Agency, Philadelphia, Temple University Press.
  • Dipert, R. R. (1995), ‘Some issues in the theory of artifacts’, The Monist, vol. 78 (2), pp. 119-135.
  • Dupré, J. (1996), ‘The mental lifes of nonhuman animals’, en M. Bekoff & D. Jamieson (eds.), Readings in Animal Cognition, Cambridge, MIT Press, pp. 323-336.
  • Fisher, J. A. (1996), ‘The myth of anthropomorphism’, en M. Bekoff & D. Jamieson (eds.), Readings in Animal Cognition, Cambridge, MIT Press, pp. 3-16.
  • Fletcher, l. & Carruthers, P. (2013), ‘Behavior-reading versus mentalizing in animals’, en J. Metcalfe & H. S. Terrace (eds.), Agency and Joint Attention, Oxford, Oxford University Press, pp. 82-99.
  • Fox, E. A.; Sitompul, A.F. & Van Schaik, C. P. (1999), ‘Intelligent Tool Use in Wild Sumatran Orangutans’, en S. T. Parker, R. W. Mitchell, & H. L. Miles (eds.), The Mentalities of Gorillas and Orangutans: Comparative Perspectives, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, pp. 99-116
  • Franssen, M. (2006), ‘The normativity of artefacts’, Studies in History and Philosophy of Science, vol. 37, pp. 42–57.
  • Galef, B. G. (1992), ‘The question of animal culture’, Human Nature, vol. 3, pp. 157-178.
  • Glock, H. J. (2000), ‘Animal thoughts and concepts’, Synthese, vol. 123, pp. 35-64.
  • Glock, H. J. (2006), ‘Concepts: representations or abilities?’, en E. Di Nucci & C. McHugh (eds.), Concept, Consciousness, and Perception: Essays in Contemporary Philosophy of Mind, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, pp. 3-30.
  • Glock, H. J. (2010), ‘Can animals judge?’, Dialectica, vol. 64 (1), pp. 11-33. Gould, J. L. (2007), ‘Animal artifacts’, en E. Margolis & S. Laurence (eds.), Creations of the Mind. Theories of Artifacts and Their Representation, Oxford, Oxford University Press, pp. 249–266.
  • Hall, K. R. & Schaller, G. B. (1964), ‘Tool using behavior of the California sea otter’, Journal of Mammalogy, vol. 45 (2), pp. 287-298.
  • Hall, K. R. L. (1963), ‘Tool-using performances as indicators of behavioral adaptability’, Current Anthropology, vol. 4, pp. 479-494.
  • Hilpinen, R. (1993), ‘Authors and artifacts’, Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, vol. 93, pp. 155–178.
  • Hunt, G. R. (1996), ‘Manufacture and use of hooks-tools by New Caledonian Crows’, Nature, vol. 379 (18), pp. 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 B-Biological Sciences, vol. 267(1441), pp. 403-413.
  • Hunt, G. R. & Gray. R. D. (2002), ‘Species-wide manufacture of stick-type tools by New Caledonian Crows’, Emu, vol. 102 (4), pp. 349-353.
  • Hunt, G. R. & Gray. R. D. (2003), ‘Diversification and cumulative evolution in New caledonian crow tool manufacture’, Proceedings of the Royal Society B-Biological Sciences, vol. 270 (1517), pp. 867-874.
  • Hunt, G. R. & Gray. R. D. (2004), ‘The crafting of hook tools by Wild New Caledonian Crows’, Proceedings of the Royal Society B-Biological Sciences, vol. 271 (sippl. 3), pp. S88-S90.
  • Kacelnik. A. (2009), ‘Tools for thought or thoughts for tools’, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, vol. 106 (25), pp. 10071-10072.
  • Kaminski, J., Call, J. & Tomasello, M. (2008), ‘Chimpanzees know what others know, but not what they believe’, Cognition, vol. 109, pp. 224-234.
  • Kenward, B., Weir, A. A., Rutz, C., & Kacelnik, A. (2005), ‘Tool manufacture by naive juvenile crows’, Nature, vol. 433, pp. 121.
  • Krützen, M., Mann, J. Heithaus, M. R., Connor, R. C., Bejder, L. (2005), ‘Cultural transmission of tool use in bottlenose dolphins’, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, vol. 102 (25): 8939-8943.
  • Laland, K. & Galef, B. G. (eds.) (2009), The Question of Animal Culture, Cambridge, Harvard University Press.
  • Lawler, D., & Vega, J. (2000), ‘Clases artificiales’, Azafea, vol.12, pp. 119-147.
  • Malcolm, N. (1972-3), ‘Thoughtless brutes’, Proceedings and Addresses of the American Philosophical Society, vol. 46, pp. 5-20.
  • Möbius, Y., Boesch, C. Koops, K, Matsuzawa, T. & Humle, T. (2008), ‘Cultural differences in army ant predation by West African Chimpanzees? A Comparative Study of Microecological Variables’, Animal Behaviour, vol. 25, pp. 525-535.
  • Morgan, C. L. (1894), An Introduction to Comparative Psychology, Londres, Walter Scott.
  • Osvath, M. & Osvath, H. (2008), ‘Chimpanzee (Pan troglodites) and Orangutan (Pongo abelii) forethought: self-control and pre-experience in the face of future tool use’, Animal Cognition, vol. 11 (4), pp. 661-674.
  • Oswalt, W. H. (1973), Habitat and Technology: The Evolution of Hunting, New York, John Wiley & Sons.
  • Penn, D.; Holyoak, K. J.; Povinelli, D. J. (2008), ‘Darwin’s mistake: Explaining the discontinuity between human and nonhuman minds’, Behavioral and Brain Sciences, vol. 31 (2), pp. 109-130.
  • Penn, D., Povinelli, D. J. (2013), ‘The comparative delusion: the behavioristic/mentalistic dichotomy in comparative theory of mind research’, en J. Metcalfe & H. S. Terrace (eds.), Agency and Joint Attention, Oxford, Oxford University Press, pp. 62-82
  • Pierce, J. D. (1986), ‘A review of tool use in insects’, Florida Entomologists, vol. 69 (1), pp. 95-104.
  • Pinch, T., (1984), ‘The social construction of facts and artefacts: or how the sociology of science and the sociology of technology might benefit each other’, Social Studies of Science, vol. 14 (3), pp. 388–441.
  • Povinelli, D. J. (2000), ‘Toward a science of other minds: escaping the argument by analogy’, Cognitive science, vol. 24 (3), pp. 509-541.
  • Preston B. (1998), ‘Cognition and tool use’, Mind and Language, vol. 13 (4), pp. 513-547.
  • Price, H. H. (1953), Thinking and Experience, Londres, Hutchinson.
  • Riehl, C. (2001), ‘Black-crowed night heron fishes with bait’, Waterbirds, vol. 24 (2), pp. 285-286.
  • Sanz, C. M., Schöning, C. & Morgan, D. B. (2004), Chimpanzees prey on army ants with specialized tool sets’, American Journal of Primatology, vol. 71, pp. 1-8.
  • Scheele, M. (2006), ‘Function and use of technical artefacts: social conditions of function ascription’, Studies in History and Philosophy of Science, vol. 37, pp. 23-26
  • Schumaker, R. W., Walkup, K. R. & Beck, B. B. (2011), Animal Tool Behavior, The Use and Manufacture of Tools by Animals, Baltimore, The John Hopkins University Press.
  • Searle, J. R. (1995), The Construction of Social Reality, Londres, Penguin Books.
  • Seed, A. & Byrne, R. (2010), ‘Animal tool use’, Current Biology, vol. 20 (7), pp. R1032-1039.
  • St Amant, R. & Horton, T. E. (2008), ‘Revisiting the definition of animal tool use’, Animal Behaviour, vol. 75 (4), pp. 1199-1208.
  • Taylor, A. H., Hunt, G. R., Holzhaider, J. C. & Gray, R. D. (2007), ‘Spontaneous metatool use by New Caledonian crows,’ Current Biology, vol. 17 (17), pp. 1504-1057.
  • Tebbich, S. & Bshary, R. (2004), ‘Cognitive abilities related to tool use in the woodpecker finch, Cactospiza pallida’, Animal Behaviour, vol. 67 (4), pp. 689-697.
  • Thomasson, A., (2007), ‘Artifacts and human concepts’, en E. Margolis & S. Laurence (eds.), Creations of the Mind. Theories of Artifacts and Their Representation, Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press, pp. 52–73.
  • Tomasello, M. (2000), ‘Culture and cognitive development’, Current Directions in Psychological Science, vol. 9 (2), pp. 37-40.
  • Tomasello, M. & Call, J. (2007), Primate Cognition, Oxford, Oxford University Press.
  • Van Lawick-Goodal, J. (1970), ‘Tool-using in primates and other vertebrates’, Advances in the Study of Behavior, vol. 3, pp. 195-249.
  • Van Schaik, C. P. & Fox, E. A. (1994), ‘Tool-use in wild Sumatran orangutans (Pongo pygmaeus)’, XVth Congress of the International Primatological Society, August, 3-8, Bali Indonesia, Indonesia, Indonesian WildLife Society, pp. 339.
  • Van Schaik, C. P. Fox, E. A. & Sitompul, A. F. (1996), ‘Manufacture and use of tools in wild Sumatran orangutans: implications for human evolution’, Naturwissenschaften, vol. 83 (4), pp. 186-188.
  • Vermaas, P., Houkes, W. (2006), ‘Technical functions: a drawbridge between the intentional and structural natures of technical artefacts’, Studies in History and Philosophy of Science, vol. 37, pp. 5–18.
  • Visalberghi, E. & Guidi, C. (1998), ‘Play behaviour in young tufted capuchin monkeys’, Folia Primatologica; International Journal of Primatology, vol. 69 (6), pp. 419-422.
  • Wrangham, R. W., Mcgrew, W., De Waal, F.B.M. & Heltne, P. (eds.) (1994), Chimpanzee Cultures, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Fuente de los datos: Dialnet