A different view has emerged in recent years, one that draws on findings from experimental psychology, biology, linguistics, and cognitive ethology. Writes Donald Griffin, an associate at Harvard's Museum of Comparative Zoology, "Communicative behavior is not a human monopoly." Animal communication--from the dance language of the bees to the vocalisms of parrots and bonobos--suggests that there is more than a ghost in the machine. For underlying that communicative ability are other powers that humans have no easy way of gauging: a sense of time and futurity, a complex memory, an ability to lie, even consciousness itself.

Griffin examines recent studies that show that many species are able to discern and classify colors, shapes, materials, and "sameness," and that many other species are able to adapt their communications systems to account for novel situations. Warning that our understanding of animal minds is still ill-formed and that much work remains to be done in the field before we can confidently answer that ancient question one way or the other, he argues that "animals are best viewed as actors who choose what to do, rather than as objects totally dependent on outside influences." --Gregory McNamee

Product Description

A class in semantics may have clarified the author's thoughts. Everything he talks about, e.g., whether animals and computers can think, is based on his or others verbal definitions without much evidence to verify these beliefs. It is obvious that every creature has its own view of the world. And equally obvious that there is no way to compare the worldview of a bee or ant to a human worldview because of greatly differing boundary conditions. I doubt that a long recitation of ones ignorance will prove useful in the grand scheme of life. And one simply can't define oneself up to a higher state of knowledge. This writing reminds me of a dog chasing its own tail.


Not the best -- not the greatest   January 9, 2002
 12 out of 20 found this review helpful

Griffin spends a lot of time arguing his stance and not enough discussing the definitions and concepts that his stance is based on. He does explain the research in nice detail but I kept thinking that learning theory explains the same behaviors he is describing without reference to conscious awareness and so the arguments don't fully make it for me. Minds of Their Own by Rogers is better but I still found this book (Animal Minds) better than Species of Mind which was way to hard to read -- I came away with no knew knowledge from reading Species of Mind. To sum I'd say it's worth reading for sure but only if you intend to also read Mind's of Their Own. They compliment each other nicely because Griffin describes more detail in the research while Rogers discusses the arguements and definitions better.

James O'Heare, Dip.C.B.


Do NOT Read This Book   December 4, 2001
 6 out of 42 found this review helpful

Do not read this book. I attempted to read this book for a college class. This book should be cut down to the size of a magazine article and be published in a scientific journal. The public should not be misled into thinking that this book is readable. It is written at too high of a diction, and Griffin rambles on for 20 pages on one topic, which I won't spoil for those of you unfortunate to read this trash. The subject information is interesting, but this is written poorly, and will bore the reader to tears. Just thought I'd let you all know.