When we see animals doing remarkable things, how do we know if

In the thought-provoking words of Neil deGrasse Tyson, "When we see animals doing remarkable things, how do we know if we're simply seeing tricks or signs of real intelligence? Are talented animals just obeying commands, or do they have some kind of deeper understanding? One of the biggest challenges for animal researchers is to come up with tests that can distinguish between the two," we are invited to wrestle with profound questions about consciousness, intelligence, and the nature of awareness. Tyson’s inquiry not only touches on the nature of animal cognition but also challenges our understanding of what it means to be truly intelligent. Are animals merely sophisticated beings following learned behaviors, or do they possess a deeper, more autonomous intelligence that is not immediately obvious?

The pursuit of this understanding is not new. In ancient times, philosophers and scientists alike wrestled with questions about the nature of intelligence and whether it extended beyond humans. The great philosopher Aristotle, in his work De Anima (On the Soul), proposed that animals possess a different kind of soul than humans, one that is primarily concerned with sensation and movement, yet still remarkable in its own right. Aristotle recognized the complexity of animal behavior, acknowledging that while they may not share human reasoning, they demonstrated a form of intelligence suited to their needs. Yet, as Tyson points out, the line between instinctual behavior and true intelligence is often blurred. Are the actions of an animal, whether in the wild or in a controlled environment, driven by innate instinct, or do they represent a more sophisticated form of problem-solving?

Consider the example of Koko, the famous gorilla who learned sign language and could communicate with humans. For many, Koko’s ability to sign words like “water” and “play” raised profound questions: was Koko truly expressing thought, or was she merely reacting to training and conditioning? The question of animal intelligence in this context challenges us to look beyond surface behaviors and ask deeper questions about what constitutes awareness and understanding. Is Koko simply following learned commands, or is she engaging in self-expression, a form of communication that goes beyond instinct and training? In this way, Tyson’s quote compels us to reconsider how we define and recognize intelligence—not just as humans understand it, but as it may manifest across the animal kingdom.

This inquiry into animal intelligence also echoes the ancient belief in the complexity of nature’s creatures, as seen in the stories of Aesop’s Fables, where animals were often endowed with human-like wisdom. Though these tales were allegories, they reflected the ancient belief in the connection between humans and animals, and the notion that animals were not mere automatons, but beings with their own forms of wisdom. Aesop often depicted animals in situations where they exhibited cleverness or insight—the fox who outwitted others or the crow who used a stone to raise water in a pitcher. These fables, like Tyson’s reflection, challenge the assumption that animal behavior is simple or merely instinctual. They suggest that there may be a deeper form of intelligence at play, one that we may not fully understand or appreciate.

In our own time, as we observe animals like dolphins, elephants, and even crows demonstrating problem-solving skills, using tools, or showing signs of empathy, we are confronted with the reality that intelligence may not be confined to human beings alone. Crows, for instance, have been shown to create tools to retrieve food, demonstrating an ability to plan and problem-solve in ways that mirror human intelligence. These behaviors suggest that intelligence is not a fixed trait, but a dynamic and evolving ability that can manifest in various forms across species. As Tyson suggests, we must acknowledge that intelligence may not be so easily categorized, and that we are only beginning to scratch the surface of what it truly means for a being to be intelligent.

The lesson we can draw from Tyson’s insight is that intelligence, whether in humans or animals, is multifaceted and should be understood as a spectrum rather than a singular, rigid concept. Just as Aristotle explored the idea that different creatures possess varying kinds of souls or intelligences, so too must we recognize that the behaviors we observe in animals are not always the result of mere instinct. We must learn to appreciate the depth of their capabilities and the ways in which they navigate the world around them. Tyson’s challenge to scientists and thinkers alike is to move beyond simplistic definitions and to develop new ways of testing and understanding intelligence—ways that account for the many forms it can take across species.

In practical terms, we can apply this lesson in our own lives by questioning the assumptions we make about others—human or animal—based on limited definitions of intelligence. Whether in our interactions with people from different cultures or in our observations of animals, we must be open to diverse forms of intelligence, recognizing that the capacity for understanding and problem-solving is not confined to one expression. Just as Tyson challenges us to explore the intelligence of animals in new ways, we should also approach human intelligence with a spirit of curiosity and openness, appreciating the myriad ways in which people can demonstrate their wisdom and insight. In doing so, we foster a deeper respect for the complexities of life, both human and animal, and unlock the full potential of what it means to be truly intelligent.