Having read my share on animal consciousness research, I've come to the conclusion that it's a mistake to ask if a particular species is or isn't conscious. Consciousness is too amorphous a collection of capabilities for those kinds of binary answers. The intuition that it must be there or not seems rooted in remnant Cartesian intuitions.
It's better, I think, to take an incrementalist view, and so ask, what level or kind of consciousness do they have: sensory, affective, episodic memory, theory of mind, etc. In that sense, crows are more conscious than, say, fish or arthropods, but maybe not as much as your typical monkey or great ape.
Of course, if someone insists that only recursive introspective capabilities count, then the number of species that make the cut are much smaller. In the end, consciousness seems like it's in the eye of the beholder.
It feels to me that someone long ago — Descartes maybe — decided that consciousness was a man-only ability and philosophers and scientists and been slowly working back from that ever since.
I think it makes much more sense to assume that some primitive form of consciousness has been around since the start of the animal kingdom and different abilities have been added — like Mike Smith said — as they became more sophisticated.
I agree. I think the interesting question is -- what is consciousness for? If we take an evolutionary perspective, then animals would have precisely the consciousness they need to help them survive and reproduce.
I agree! (although I might quibble about the idea of 'levels' of consciousness). I tend to think consciousness is a biological process, so it is best explained through an evolutionary perspective -- but not everyone will agree with us.
For most, it seems, the intuition is strong that consciousness is something added on top (so to speak). I think it was Kripke who said that God could have created a world without consciousness -- he could have created all the physical processes in our world, and stopped there, he had to do more work to ensure that it contained consciousness. This idea, which is similar to the idea that zombies are possible, seems to be a commonly held view. So, for many I think it seems reasonable to think that crows might be zombies -- zombie crows!! 👻
Also, when we think about our everyday experience, consciousness seems all-or-none. It really does feel like we see something or we don't. We are either awake or not. Each moment of awareness feels like a distinct state - we're either conscious of it or we're not. There doesn't seem to be a middle ground in our subjective experience.
Good point on "levels". In retrospect, it may not have been the best word. Maybe "scope" or "capabilities".
Definitely there is a widespread sentiment that experience is unrelated to behavior. It's always seemed to me that if it is, then it's an unsolvable problem, a metaphysical proposition that we can't really do more than speculate about. But the other side of the coin is it wouldn't be able to make any difference in the world, including being unrelated to our discussions of it, a conclusion often resisted by those who advocate for the separation.
The zombie crow remark reminds me of Adrian Tchaikovsky’s novel: Children of Memory, which has birds who have managed to evolve an apparent sentience when they're pared together in the right combinations. But there's a debate about whether the pairs are really sentient, or just parroting. At one point in the story one of the bird pairs provides their own opinion.
I agree that awareness feels like a distinct state. But I wonder if it isn't really just an ability to construct an episodic memory of that state. If so, what should we say about cases where the memory is gap ridden, filled with errors, or a complete hallucination? It might be more accurate to say our retrospective *judgment* about whether we were conscious at a particular time is what's distinct.
The 'feels like' and 'seems to' does a lot of heavy lifting in my statements. And you're comment on it being our retrospective judgment is a great one. These are the sorts of questions that fascinate me.
Thanks for the book (recommendation??). From your description, it's the type of book I might enjoy.
If you enjoy science fiction, I definitely recommend Tchaikovsky’s books. His Children series in particular is worth checking out for anyone interested in philosophy of mind thought experiments. I'd start with the first book, Children of Time, which explores uplifted spiders, mind uploading, and how trapped humans might be by our nature.
I’m most interested in the neural correlates for consciousness testing here. My interpretation is that the initial neural activity from the light detection suggests a consciousness of it. But then the activity just a moment later suggests a memory of the light as well as an understanding that the button needs to be pecked. So that’s why I think similar readings were obtain moments later regardless of light intensity. Here there should be neural correlates of a sort of memory and a sort of task.
Also while there may be certain brain areas that are more associated with memory than others, it’s been my understanding that memory tends to be more distributed throughout the various brain areas which are associated with consciousness. To me this makes sense because certain neurons which had fired to create a given bit of consciousness, should thus have stronger synapse connections in order to fire again later to at least provide a sense of that initial consciousness, or thus a memory of it. Furthermore as I understand it the best neural correlate for consciousness found so far, lies in a synchrony to neuron firing. I suspect that this is because it’s not the firing itself that exists as consciousness, but rather the electromagnetic field associated with such neural firing that exists as consciousness. From this perspective we aren’t bodies or even brains, but rather we exist as an electromagnetic field associated with highly complex synchronous neural firing that creates all consciousness, such as what we see, hear, feel, think, and decide to do.
Regarding NCCs, it's difficult to pull things apart here. And there's some nuance with NCCs that I didn't cover in this article (but plan to in an upcoming one). But yes, you're onto something. The delay could mean a few things, memory, decision making, attention... There isn't really any way to pull this apart with these experimental results.
Interestingly, though, they recorded from 262 different neurons and not all those neurons did the same thing. Some neurons responded more in line with the report even during the light presentation. So, on trials where the crow reported 'yes' those neurons fired strongly during the presentation of the light for both bright light and threshold light. But on trials where the crow reported not seeing the light (no light and half of the threshold trials) these same neurons did not respond strongly. But again this might not be an NCC. The differences in responses could be reflecting other processes like attention.
Synchrony of neural firing is a common theory, although it has lost some favour in recent years. 40 Hz oscillation was a particularly popular idea there for a while, but it's not talked about much these days.
Observing the function of only 262 neurons doesn’t sound like all that many to me for a crow. So maybe offering potential explanations for what was found (as I just did), shouldn’t be considered all that valid? Still I would like you and others to understand McFadden’s consciousness proposal for general assessments when convenient. While standard proposals seem complex, vague, and unfalsifiable, this one is simple, specific, and testable.
A reasonable case can be made that our eyes are somewhat like the camera eyes of a robot. Here our brains accept light information, process it algorithmically through the “AND”, “OR” and “NOT” way that neurons are synaptically wired up with each other, and then this processed information may instruct our bodies to do various things automatically, which is to say without consciousness.
Beyond that however we also presume that light information gives us phenomenal vision. So after being algorithmically processed through appropriate neural firing, what does this processed information inform to exist as the experiencer of an image? Functional computationalists say that this processed information needn’t inform anything to exist as such. I don’t consider this to be a causal explanation however since information should only exist as such to the extent that it informs something appropriate. Beyond an electromagnetic field, however, I can’t think of anything brain related that seems appropriate.
Here a synchrony to neural firing should get certain elements of the field into a zone that’s not only phenomenal, but provides colors, shapes, edges, textures, and so on associated with various areas of the brain, into one unified field which itself exists as the experiencer of the light information. So it’s not any specific sort of synchrony, like 40 hertz, but rather a vast symphony of it which evolved to get the physics right. Then this singular consciousness field that does things like see, hear, remember, and think, may also go on to decide what to do. For this the field causes neurons to operate in a way that animates muscles as desired.
I hear you! Finding some time to get my head around McFadden's ideas is on my list.
And I agree there's an 'meaning' problem with the way that the brain is usually explained. Neuronal spike patterns are considered 'information', but to whom is that information useful? The homunculus? Without more information, neuronal spike patterns are meaningless. I'm drafting an article that touches on these issues. I'll be interested to read your thoughts once it's done.
Sounds like I’ll enjoy your coming article Suzi! I think it would be wonderful if we here could help straighten academia out regarding its quite open modern conception of “information”. Doesn’t integrated information theory posit that as long as sufficient integration occurs, consciousness somehow results? Or in global workspace theory that affecting enough of the brain creates consciousness? It seems to me that many theories today fundamentally misunderstand what it takes for “potential information” to become “actual information”. This is to say, something appropriate should need to be informed by information in order for it to exist as such in any true sense. So what sort of physics does processed brain information need to inform in order for what’s informed to exist as consciousness? If notable people in this business were to finally begin asking this question, it seems to me that they might finally begin thinking about the matter effectively. Here an empirically explorable question could result, which is to say, which aspect of the brain might consciousness be made of?
I've been fascinated with crows for a long time. I've been feeding them for years. Mine are more skittish than yours seem to be but that could be because of the suburban environment and their experiences with humans. We also have cats, but the crows generally don't have a big problem with them, sometimes even feeding while one of our cats is near. The other two cats draw more alarm.
My thought is that we have anatomical and neurological structures associated with consciousness. These likely are related:
1- Existence of place and location neurons.
2- Multiple complex sensory capabilities that must be integrated.
3- Existence of memory structures such as the hippocampus or something that serves a similar function.
The sharing of information across multiple senses and with memory structures leads to a mapping of organism in its environment. On this basis, vertebrates, most arthropods, and cephalopods are likely conscious.
Oh wonderful! Do you think your crows recognise you? What do you feed them?
I think the crows in my neighbourhood are pretty skittish. They get spooked easily. I can be sitting inside and just look up from my computer and they will scatter! I'm hoping they get more comfortable around me. As well as the crows, I have a kookaburra, a few magpies, some honey eaters and a bush turkey (as well as some bearded dragons) that visit everyday. They all seem fairly comfortable with me as long as I don't move too quickly. The crows are always the first to get spooked.
I feed them dry cat food predominately. Occasionally leftover bread or cornbread. Many like to soak the larger, dryer pieces in our bird bathes, but I've also seen them dip small dry food pieces. Water would be welcome to them, I'm sure.
They must recognize me. Occasionally one has perched on a tree and fussed at me when there wasn't any food in the spot where I usually feed. After I put some food out, the crow immediately went to it. Some of them have also let me get fairly close recently.
Corvids wake me daily-(probably rooks - I don’t get up to look). They are almost melodic cf herring gulls. Clever birds. Thanks for giving them a shout.
That sounds like a lovely way to wake up everyday.
I must admit, now that I know a little more about crows, I'm finding that I am enjoying hearing their calls more. It's amazing how a little understanding so often leads to appreciation.
Excellent genre bender Suzi. The approach you took in the Out of Body post works like gangbusters in this post. Grounding science in personal experience as you’ve done brings so much energy and joy to the read. Curiously, though I know your voice as a scientist in your posts is impeccable in terms of credibility, clarity, and confidence, when you made the shift from Suzi putting treats on a stone and training the birds (which crow was domesticated? tgat was a very cool detail) to Suzi the brain scholar your science voice kicked up a notch. I think it happens hear because of the level of detail and space you allocated to the autobiographical material. Very comfortable, valuable, and enjoyable writing. My two cents:)
This is amazing feedback, thanks so much, Terry! I did enjoy researching and writing this one. Your observation about the shift in voice is interesting. I hadn't consciously noticed I did that, but it makes sense. There's the "I'm at home in my backyard me" and then there's the "I'm in work mode me". It's wonderful to get this kind of insight from a reader's perspective. Thank you for taking the time to share.
As for the crows in my backyard -- they are very much wild, but I'm sure they feel like it's their home too.
In my line of work we call it “feedback”:) the joyful part of teaching writing. My approach is to point out what a writer has done really well. Articulate it clearly even if it seems obvious. Good writers often don’t know what they did that was effective. You have a touch of the poet. Have you written any poetry or short stories?
hahaha! Yes, feedback! You're very good at giving feedback.
No, I haven't written any poetry or short stories. There's not too many things I like better than a really well written book. But I think I'm better at admiring talented creative writing than trying to replicate it.
In Indian calender, we have 11th month (presently ongoing) dedicated to paying homage to ancestors who have departed to another world. As part of the annual rites, we pay the tribute in the form of food. How does it reach them in the other world?
We put the food on the terrace. Crows come and devour it. They are the personification of the departed souls. They know it, and they perform this dutifully, never allowing other birds to claim their right.
That's so interesting! I had no idea about the 11th month in the Indian calendar being dedicated to paying homage to departed ancestors. What a wonderful ritual. Do you put a specific type of food out for the crows? Is this something that is done every day of the month, but only for the 11th month?
Hi Suzi! Yes, the ritual is at a rare intersection of astrology + anthrozoology + psychic practices. It falls in the month of Bhadrapada (mostly during September) of HIndu calendar. Latter half of this month is dedicated to connecting with deceased ancestors.
During that 16 day period, every day correlates to the exact day of month they died during any month of the year.
I cannot find much apart from what scriptures dictates about the ritual, and the crow's connection:
Nontheless, this says there are way more fascinating things ancients knew about other intelligent creatures, and we inherit that knowledge in the form of religious rituals.
Excellent article and thanks for including videos—they were great fun to watch. I recall on one architecture project I was on n Los Angeles a flock of crows would come and roost every evening in this one old tree on the north end of the site. As we dug into the soil we discovered an old tar pit which had trapped a Colombian wooly mammoth and a saber tooth cat—among other creatures. Made me wonder if the crows had been coming to the trees at the perimeter for the last ten thousand years waiting for animals to get stuck in the muck. Clearly they are wicked problem solvers—especially when it comes to food. Perhaps crows are just much more patient and once they discover an opportunity for free food their ‘scavengers will’ kicks in and they are relentless in puzzling their way through it. Hard to separate the scavenger from the cleverness. A murder of crows waiting in trees on a field of battle for every bit of free carrion. Perhaps we are their pets and our purpose is to create amusement and food for crows?
I like how you started chatting about crows in LA and then casually dropped wooly mammoth and saber tooth tiger! That must have been an extraordinary find! Did the project have to be altered to accommodate this archaeological discovery?
Was this near the La Brea Tar Pits? When my daughters were little, that was one of their favourite places to visit. We spent a lot of time there!
The crows' cleverness and patience in problem-solving, especially when it comes to food, never ceases to amaze me. You might just be right, we might be the pets in this relationship.
Yes, on the west side of the La Brea tar pits is LACMA museum. (So glad to hear you and your family enjoy this place). We were the executive architects for the two Renzo Piano expansions. It was when we had closed a street, removed the old above ground parking structure and began excavation for the underground parking garage—now beneath the Resnick pavilion—which was the second phase. Construction was delayed as we boxed and removed the animals for later complete archaeological excavations. The hydrogen sulfide gas in the bottom of the excavation was probably the bigger challenge to construction. We were getting dizzy and one construction worker passed out in the bottom of the excavation before we realized what was causing this—the weird smell wasn’t very strong at first.
And the murder of crows tree was at the edge of the site where the Academy museum is now—I’m not sure it’s there anymore. The tree would change color from green to black in the evening when the crows came to roost. Looking at them as the sun was setting and they stared down at us, I wondered how many centuries had they been doing this? Since the time of the mammoth? What a perfect spot for scavenging over millennia. (We did find a few birds with the animals. I just don’t remember the exact names.). Since crows are so social, do they have generational territory or historical memory from generations ago? Makes me wonder as I can hardly remember last week.
I remember reading many of these studies about crows. Cool to see conducting your own experiments!
There's a good Simpsons episode where Homer befriends a bunch of crows after destroying a scarecrow. It has some of my favorite Simpsons moments of all time, including one where Marge, annoyed that the crows are living in their bedroom points out that the gang of crows is making her uncomfortable. To which Homer replies, "It's a murder, Marge. A group of crows is called a murder."
Also, I am hereby petitioning world governments to replace all canned laugh tracks with the kookaburra cackle. The world will instantly be a better place.
Great and wide ranging piece! I recently read the book "The Parrot in the Mirror," which argues that humans and birds have been shaped by similar evolutionary pressures despite being quite physiologically different. These constraints have led to interest commonalities between humans and birds, including babies that are born relatively underdeveloped and high levels of intelligence. The book mentions the same experiments with crows you covered here. It's definitely written for the general reader, but just wanted to recommend it here to you (or anyone else) interested in bird brains 🧠
You write, "Crows can also recognise individual human faces."
For the record, squirrels can do this too. My wife has raised at least 1,000 orphaned squirrels, and they know the difference between me and her. Ah, it might be smell instead of faces they recognize? But in any case, they know who is who.
My favorite example of animal "intelligence" is bacteria. Bacteria grab a bit of DNA from invading viruses, store the virus DNA in their own DNA, and then use that stored DNA to identify future invaders. If we did this we would label it a "data management operation" and a sign of intelligence.
The average bacterium is about 0.000039 inches long. Bacteria have no brain or nervous system.
Creatures may be like radios, receiving information from an external source, instead of generating it locally.
Thanks a bunch for writing this! I love crows.
I had a lot of fun writing this one. I think I love crows, too!
Fascinating post Suzi!
Having read my share on animal consciousness research, I've come to the conclusion that it's a mistake to ask if a particular species is or isn't conscious. Consciousness is too amorphous a collection of capabilities for those kinds of binary answers. The intuition that it must be there or not seems rooted in remnant Cartesian intuitions.
It's better, I think, to take an incrementalist view, and so ask, what level or kind of consciousness do they have: sensory, affective, episodic memory, theory of mind, etc. In that sense, crows are more conscious than, say, fish or arthropods, but maybe not as much as your typical monkey or great ape.
Of course, if someone insists that only recursive introspective capabilities count, then the number of species that make the cut are much smaller. In the end, consciousness seems like it's in the eye of the beholder.
I think so too.
It feels to me that someone long ago — Descartes maybe — decided that consciousness was a man-only ability and philosophers and scientists and been slowly working back from that ever since.
I think it makes much more sense to assume that some primitive form of consciousness has been around since the start of the animal kingdom and different abilities have been added — like Mike Smith said — as they became more sophisticated.
Descartes has a lot to answer for!
I agree. I think the interesting question is -- what is consciousness for? If we take an evolutionary perspective, then animals would have precisely the consciousness they need to help them survive and reproduce.
I agree! (although I might quibble about the idea of 'levels' of consciousness). I tend to think consciousness is a biological process, so it is best explained through an evolutionary perspective -- but not everyone will agree with us.
For most, it seems, the intuition is strong that consciousness is something added on top (so to speak). I think it was Kripke who said that God could have created a world without consciousness -- he could have created all the physical processes in our world, and stopped there, he had to do more work to ensure that it contained consciousness. This idea, which is similar to the idea that zombies are possible, seems to be a commonly held view. So, for many I think it seems reasonable to think that crows might be zombies -- zombie crows!! 👻
Also, when we think about our everyday experience, consciousness seems all-or-none. It really does feel like we see something or we don't. We are either awake or not. Each moment of awareness feels like a distinct state - we're either conscious of it or we're not. There doesn't seem to be a middle ground in our subjective experience.
Good point on "levels". In retrospect, it may not have been the best word. Maybe "scope" or "capabilities".
Definitely there is a widespread sentiment that experience is unrelated to behavior. It's always seemed to me that if it is, then it's an unsolvable problem, a metaphysical proposition that we can't really do more than speculate about. But the other side of the coin is it wouldn't be able to make any difference in the world, including being unrelated to our discussions of it, a conclusion often resisted by those who advocate for the separation.
The zombie crow remark reminds me of Adrian Tchaikovsky’s novel: Children of Memory, which has birds who have managed to evolve an apparent sentience when they're pared together in the right combinations. But there's a debate about whether the pairs are really sentient, or just parroting. At one point in the story one of the bird pairs provides their own opinion.
I agree that awareness feels like a distinct state. But I wonder if it isn't really just an ability to construct an episodic memory of that state. If so, what should we say about cases where the memory is gap ridden, filled with errors, or a complete hallucination? It might be more accurate to say our retrospective *judgment* about whether we were conscious at a particular time is what's distinct.
The 'feels like' and 'seems to' does a lot of heavy lifting in my statements. And you're comment on it being our retrospective judgment is a great one. These are the sorts of questions that fascinate me.
Thanks for the book (recommendation??). From your description, it's the type of book I might enjoy.
If you enjoy science fiction, I definitely recommend Tchaikovsky’s books. His Children series in particular is worth checking out for anyone interested in philosophy of mind thought experiments. I'd start with the first book, Children of Time, which explores uplifted spiders, mind uploading, and how trapped humans might be by our nature.
Sounds amazing! Thanks for the recommendation.
I’m most interested in the neural correlates for consciousness testing here. My interpretation is that the initial neural activity from the light detection suggests a consciousness of it. But then the activity just a moment later suggests a memory of the light as well as an understanding that the button needs to be pecked. So that’s why I think similar readings were obtain moments later regardless of light intensity. Here there should be neural correlates of a sort of memory and a sort of task.
Also while there may be certain brain areas that are more associated with memory than others, it’s been my understanding that memory tends to be more distributed throughout the various brain areas which are associated with consciousness. To me this makes sense because certain neurons which had fired to create a given bit of consciousness, should thus have stronger synapse connections in order to fire again later to at least provide a sense of that initial consciousness, or thus a memory of it. Furthermore as I understand it the best neural correlate for consciousness found so far, lies in a synchrony to neuron firing. I suspect that this is because it’s not the firing itself that exists as consciousness, but rather the electromagnetic field associated with such neural firing that exists as consciousness. From this perspective we aren’t bodies or even brains, but rather we exist as an electromagnetic field associated with highly complex synchronous neural firing that creates all consciousness, such as what we see, hear, feel, think, and decide to do.
Hi Eric!
Regarding NCCs, it's difficult to pull things apart here. And there's some nuance with NCCs that I didn't cover in this article (but plan to in an upcoming one). But yes, you're onto something. The delay could mean a few things, memory, decision making, attention... There isn't really any way to pull this apart with these experimental results.
Interestingly, though, they recorded from 262 different neurons and not all those neurons did the same thing. Some neurons responded more in line with the report even during the light presentation. So, on trials where the crow reported 'yes' those neurons fired strongly during the presentation of the light for both bright light and threshold light. But on trials where the crow reported not seeing the light (no light and half of the threshold trials) these same neurons did not respond strongly. But again this might not be an NCC. The differences in responses could be reflecting other processes like attention.
Synchrony of neural firing is a common theory, although it has lost some favour in recent years. 40 Hz oscillation was a particularly popular idea there for a while, but it's not talked about much these days.
Thanks Suzi, I look forward to more!
Observing the function of only 262 neurons doesn’t sound like all that many to me for a crow. So maybe offering potential explanations for what was found (as I just did), shouldn’t be considered all that valid? Still I would like you and others to understand McFadden’s consciousness proposal for general assessments when convenient. While standard proposals seem complex, vague, and unfalsifiable, this one is simple, specific, and testable.
A reasonable case can be made that our eyes are somewhat like the camera eyes of a robot. Here our brains accept light information, process it algorithmically through the “AND”, “OR” and “NOT” way that neurons are synaptically wired up with each other, and then this processed information may instruct our bodies to do various things automatically, which is to say without consciousness.
Beyond that however we also presume that light information gives us phenomenal vision. So after being algorithmically processed through appropriate neural firing, what does this processed information inform to exist as the experiencer of an image? Functional computationalists say that this processed information needn’t inform anything to exist as such. I don’t consider this to be a causal explanation however since information should only exist as such to the extent that it informs something appropriate. Beyond an electromagnetic field, however, I can’t think of anything brain related that seems appropriate.
Here a synchrony to neural firing should get certain elements of the field into a zone that’s not only phenomenal, but provides colors, shapes, edges, textures, and so on associated with various areas of the brain, into one unified field which itself exists as the experiencer of the light information. So it’s not any specific sort of synchrony, like 40 hertz, but rather a vast symphony of it which evolved to get the physics right. Then this singular consciousness field that does things like see, hear, remember, and think, may also go on to decide what to do. For this the field causes neurons to operate in a way that animates muscles as desired.
Food for thought…
Hey Eric!
I hear you! Finding some time to get my head around McFadden's ideas is on my list.
And I agree there's an 'meaning' problem with the way that the brain is usually explained. Neuronal spike patterns are considered 'information', but to whom is that information useful? The homunculus? Without more information, neuronal spike patterns are meaningless. I'm drafting an article that touches on these issues. I'll be interested to read your thoughts once it's done.
Sounds like I’ll enjoy your coming article Suzi! I think it would be wonderful if we here could help straighten academia out regarding its quite open modern conception of “information”. Doesn’t integrated information theory posit that as long as sufficient integration occurs, consciousness somehow results? Or in global workspace theory that affecting enough of the brain creates consciousness? It seems to me that many theories today fundamentally misunderstand what it takes for “potential information” to become “actual information”. This is to say, something appropriate should need to be informed by information in order for it to exist as such in any true sense. So what sort of physics does processed brain information need to inform in order for what’s informed to exist as consciousness? If notable people in this business were to finally begin asking this question, it seems to me that they might finally begin thinking about the matter effectively. Here an empirically explorable question could result, which is to say, which aspect of the brain might consciousness be made of?
I've been fascinated with crows for a long time. I've been feeding them for years. Mine are more skittish than yours seem to be but that could be because of the suburban environment and their experiences with humans. We also have cats, but the crows generally don't have a big problem with them, sometimes even feeding while one of our cats is near. The other two cats draw more alarm.
I wrote this a few years ago.
https://broadspeculations.com/2016/04/09/of-minds-and-crows/
My thought is that we have anatomical and neurological structures associated with consciousness. These likely are related:
1- Existence of place and location neurons.
2- Multiple complex sensory capabilities that must be integrated.
3- Existence of memory structures such as the hippocampus or something that serves a similar function.
The sharing of information across multiple senses and with memory structures leads to a mapping of organism in its environment. On this basis, vertebrates, most arthropods, and cephalopods are likely conscious.
Oh wonderful! Do you think your crows recognise you? What do you feed them?
I think the crows in my neighbourhood are pretty skittish. They get spooked easily. I can be sitting inside and just look up from my computer and they will scatter! I'm hoping they get more comfortable around me. As well as the crows, I have a kookaburra, a few magpies, some honey eaters and a bush turkey (as well as some bearded dragons) that visit everyday. They all seem fairly comfortable with me as long as I don't move too quickly. The crows are always the first to get spooked.
On consciousness in animals -- I agree!
I feed them dry cat food predominately. Occasionally leftover bread or cornbread. Many like to soak the larger, dryer pieces in our bird bathes, but I've also seen them dip small dry food pieces. Water would be welcome to them, I'm sure.
They must recognize me. Occasionally one has perched on a tree and fussed at me when there wasn't any food in the spot where I usually feed. After I put some food out, the crow immediately went to it. Some of them have also let me get fairly close recently.
Corvids wake me daily-(probably rooks - I don’t get up to look). They are almost melodic cf herring gulls. Clever birds. Thanks for giving them a shout.
That sounds like a lovely way to wake up everyday.
I must admit, now that I know a little more about crows, I'm finding that I am enjoying hearing their calls more. It's amazing how a little understanding so often leads to appreciation.
Excellent genre bender Suzi. The approach you took in the Out of Body post works like gangbusters in this post. Grounding science in personal experience as you’ve done brings so much energy and joy to the read. Curiously, though I know your voice as a scientist in your posts is impeccable in terms of credibility, clarity, and confidence, when you made the shift from Suzi putting treats on a stone and training the birds (which crow was domesticated? tgat was a very cool detail) to Suzi the brain scholar your science voice kicked up a notch. I think it happens hear because of the level of detail and space you allocated to the autobiographical material. Very comfortable, valuable, and enjoyable writing. My two cents:)
This is amazing feedback, thanks so much, Terry! I did enjoy researching and writing this one. Your observation about the shift in voice is interesting. I hadn't consciously noticed I did that, but it makes sense. There's the "I'm at home in my backyard me" and then there's the "I'm in work mode me". It's wonderful to get this kind of insight from a reader's perspective. Thank you for taking the time to share.
As for the crows in my backyard -- they are very much wild, but I'm sure they feel like it's their home too.
In my line of work we call it “feedback”:) the joyful part of teaching writing. My approach is to point out what a writer has done really well. Articulate it clearly even if it seems obvious. Good writers often don’t know what they did that was effective. You have a touch of the poet. Have you written any poetry or short stories?
hahaha! Yes, feedback! You're very good at giving feedback.
No, I haven't written any poetry or short stories. There's not too many things I like better than a really well written book. But I think I'm better at admiring talented creative writing than trying to replicate it.
I'm very nice to the crows in my neighborhood. I'm sure they'll be our eventual masters.
haha, wise move! I suggest we all start collecting shiny objects to be given as offerings.
This piece comes at an interesting point of time.
In Indian calender, we have 11th month (presently ongoing) dedicated to paying homage to ancestors who have departed to another world. As part of the annual rites, we pay the tribute in the form of food. How does it reach them in the other world?
We put the food on the terrace. Crows come and devour it. They are the personification of the departed souls. They know it, and they perform this dutifully, never allowing other birds to claim their right.
A fascinating and thought-provoking read!
That's so interesting! I had no idea about the 11th month in the Indian calendar being dedicated to paying homage to departed ancestors. What a wonderful ritual. Do you put a specific type of food out for the crows? Is this something that is done every day of the month, but only for the 11th month?
Hi Suzi! Yes, the ritual is at a rare intersection of astrology + anthrozoology + psychic practices. It falls in the month of Bhadrapada (mostly during September) of HIndu calendar. Latter half of this month is dedicated to connecting with deceased ancestors.
During that 16 day period, every day correlates to the exact day of month they died during any month of the year.
I cannot find much apart from what scriptures dictates about the ritual, and the crow's connection:
https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/life-style/soul-search/why-one-should-feed-black-crow-as-per-hindu-shastras/photostory/104703246.cms?picid=104703253
Nontheless, this says there are way more fascinating things ancients knew about other intelligent creatures, and we inherit that knowledge in the form of religious rituals.
Excellent article and thanks for including videos—they were great fun to watch. I recall on one architecture project I was on n Los Angeles a flock of crows would come and roost every evening in this one old tree on the north end of the site. As we dug into the soil we discovered an old tar pit which had trapped a Colombian wooly mammoth and a saber tooth cat—among other creatures. Made me wonder if the crows had been coming to the trees at the perimeter for the last ten thousand years waiting for animals to get stuck in the muck. Clearly they are wicked problem solvers—especially when it comes to food. Perhaps crows are just much more patient and once they discover an opportunity for free food their ‘scavengers will’ kicks in and they are relentless in puzzling their way through it. Hard to separate the scavenger from the cleverness. A murder of crows waiting in trees on a field of battle for every bit of free carrion. Perhaps we are their pets and our purpose is to create amusement and food for crows?
I like how you started chatting about crows in LA and then casually dropped wooly mammoth and saber tooth tiger! That must have been an extraordinary find! Did the project have to be altered to accommodate this archaeological discovery?
Was this near the La Brea Tar Pits? When my daughters were little, that was one of their favourite places to visit. We spent a lot of time there!
The crows' cleverness and patience in problem-solving, especially when it comes to food, never ceases to amaze me. You might just be right, we might be the pets in this relationship.
Yes, on the west side of the La Brea tar pits is LACMA museum. (So glad to hear you and your family enjoy this place). We were the executive architects for the two Renzo Piano expansions. It was when we had closed a street, removed the old above ground parking structure and began excavation for the underground parking garage—now beneath the Resnick pavilion—which was the second phase. Construction was delayed as we boxed and removed the animals for later complete archaeological excavations. The hydrogen sulfide gas in the bottom of the excavation was probably the bigger challenge to construction. We were getting dizzy and one construction worker passed out in the bottom of the excavation before we realized what was causing this—the weird smell wasn’t very strong at first.
And the murder of crows tree was at the edge of the site where the Academy museum is now—I’m not sure it’s there anymore. The tree would change color from green to black in the evening when the crows came to roost. Looking at them as the sun was setting and they stared down at us, I wondered how many centuries had they been doing this? Since the time of the mammoth? What a perfect spot for scavenging over millennia. (We did find a few birds with the animals. I just don’t remember the exact names.). Since crows are so social, do they have generational territory or historical memory from generations ago? Makes me wonder as I can hardly remember last week.
Excellent
Thanks!
I remember reading many of these studies about crows. Cool to see conducting your own experiments!
There's a good Simpsons episode where Homer befriends a bunch of crows after destroying a scarecrow. It has some of my favorite Simpsons moments of all time, including one where Marge, annoyed that the crows are living in their bedroom points out that the gang of crows is making her uncomfortable. To which Homer replies, "It's a murder, Marge. A group of crows is called a murder."
Also, I am hereby petitioning world governments to replace all canned laugh tracks with the kookaburra cackle. The world will instantly be a better place.
Brilliant! I had to look it up -- I love how Homer says "Murder". Homer at his best!
https://youtu.be/uSl8kxMSEzs?si=8C5KaWDNWSdZK04O
It’s a great episode. Later he gets medical marijuana for his injuries and things get hilariously trippy.
Now I just want to spend the rest of the day watching The Simpsons!
It'd be a day well spent!
Crows have always been my favorites. Even before my love introduced my to bird watching
Great and wide ranging piece! I recently read the book "The Parrot in the Mirror," which argues that humans and birds have been shaped by similar evolutionary pressures despite being quite physiologically different. These constraints have led to interest commonalities between humans and birds, including babies that are born relatively underdeveloped and high levels of intelligence. The book mentions the same experiments with crows you covered here. It's definitely written for the general reader, but just wanted to recommend it here to you (or anyone else) interested in bird brains 🧠
Wonderful! It sounds like a great book. Thanks for the recommendation :)
Absolutely great work, science and composition. Birds and their people, what an amazing combination.
Thanks Jack!
I’ve always wondered how scientists might test animals for some form of consciousness. Thanks for the breakdown, and really cool backyard experiment!!
Thanks Jacob!
You write, "Crows can also recognise individual human faces."
For the record, squirrels can do this too. My wife has raised at least 1,000 orphaned squirrels, and they know the difference between me and her. Ah, it might be smell instead of faces they recognize? But in any case, they know who is who.
My favorite example of animal "intelligence" is bacteria. Bacteria grab a bit of DNA from invading viruses, store the virus DNA in their own DNA, and then use that stored DNA to identify future invaders. If we did this we would label it a "data management operation" and a sign of intelligence.
The average bacterium is about 0.000039 inches long. Bacteria have no brain or nervous system.
Creatures may be like radios, receiving information from an external source, instead of generating it locally.