There is a situation reported by the media, when a whole flock lost its navigation map and remained stranded. In this situation, a plane resembling a bird was used to guide the flock.

Cats

Cats can communicate to some extent with humans. Another characteristic is that a cat hardly adapts to an environment after getting used to another. A house cat is jumpy at sounds to which it should be familiar. When a cat is disturbed, it is very likely that PSM was activated.

At first sight, cats have a brain with a reduced capacity to build new models. At the same time, due to a weak instinct of defending its territory (some cats accept mice around them), one can suppose that the cat's model of the territory is very primitive. The most probable situation is that a cat can build new models only when very young. After some time it looses the capacity to build long-range models and uses mainly short-range models, guided by primitive long-range models and many solutions based on the action of PSM.

In fact, all predators having few enemies have the tendency to use more short- range efficient models, than long-range models. Thus, intelligence, which is an indicator of the capacity to build and operate long-range models, is not stimulated in predators. Animal intelligence is stimulated by the presence and interaction with humans, and also by an aggresive environment.

It is important to note that in spite of the fact that the lack of external danger is not a stimulus to develop the functions of the brain, the potential of the predators brain is relatively high. This is why, even if predators do not look too intelligent, they can surprise us in critical situations.

Dogs

Dogs seem to build very precise models of the external reality, including sensing the mood of the master. Their relatively high capacity to build models, gives them a possibility to communicate based on these models, including with humans.

Let's a.n.a.lize now a situation, as it was reportd in the newpapers. A shepherd was walking with his dog in the forest. A mother bear with cubs attacked him. The bear attacked the shepherd, but the dog attacked the cubs. The bear left the shepherd, to save its cubs.

The theory can explain this behaviour in several ways. A first possibility is that the master is integrated in the dog's PSM. The dog builds a defence model of the master, which, at the simulation of the bear attack, fails to find a successful solution. Simulating the attack of the cubs, the prediction appears that the bear will save the cubs and forget about the shepherd. This explanation is clearly a sign of intelligence (long-range model). It is a bit too complex for a dog (it is even surprising even for humans).

Another variant is that after the model to attack the bear failed, the dog attacked the cubs because it was less dangerous. This means that the master was not in the PSM.

Another variant exists in which the dog has partic.i.p.ated previously in an attack of several dogs against a mother-bear, and in that attack, it saw that the bear runs with the cubs when the cubs are attacked. This variant again does not consider the shepherd. This seems to be the most probable explanation.

Another variant exists in which the shepherd is not considered, and the dog attacks anything weaker than itself.

Let's continue the a.n.a.lysis of dogs. It is known that dogs are very faithful to their master. This suggests that they can introduce the master into their PSM. However, the fact that some dogs can be faithful to several masters (successively) suggests that they can rewrite the PSM. This is really unusual.

The fact that dogs introduce the master in the PSM is clearly demonstrated by the observation that some dogs die to save their master (they are not afraid of death). According to the theory, this can happen only if the masters are on the same priority level with their own being.

There are fights with dogs, when dogs fight to death. It is interesting to see if the motivation can or can't be given by a protection model of the master, or by an instinct, which does not take the master into account.

The elephant

The brain of the elephant could be bigger than the human brain. From this follows that its organization is primitive. A way to explain this is the reduced capacity of the elephant brain to build concept models. If this is true, he uses a huge capacity of the brain to build pure image models. The term "elephant memory" can be a.s.sociated with this feature. Thus, if it built concept model, the elephant should be able to identify only limited landmarks of the places it pa.s.ses by. Using pure image models, it memorizes each tree and each branch. This is a totally inefficient mode of brain functioning.

Monkeys

Experiments show that, in a controlled environment, some monkeys build and operate some primitive symbolic models. They might implement this function by software, based on image models. However, these very singular examples prove their incapacity to evolve towards a symbolic model, in fact.

One of the most striking characteristics of these animals is their lack of stability in a model. The most intelligent monkeys are those which have the capacity to stay in a model, when the external reality gives them many opportunities to change the active model. If the monkeys had stability in a model, then they could have better performance at building symbolic models, under the human control.

In spite of the fact that MDT does not sustain the evolution of man from monkey, the behaviour resemblance of monkeys and humans, on image models of course, is striking.

The dolphin

The dolphin is considered a very intelligent animal, next after humans. The dolphin can not only immitate the signs made by humans but they can integrate them into a larger context.

For instance, when the gestures of the trainer suggest a jump followed by a salute, the dolphin understands that it has to jump, and then, to greet the public.

However, even if dolphins seem to understand easily gestures, they do not seem to have abilities to a.s.sociate an action to a symbolic message.

The dolphin builds easily normal long-range models, not only story-type models as some other animals.

At the same time, they could reach even level 2 of conciousness, if it could be proven that they build their own correlation models with the group to which they belong (as it seems to be the case for captive dolphins).

Note: many species of animals hunt in packs. Usually, the model of correlation is situated in PSM. The superiority of an animal is given by the capacity to build its own correlation model with the pack or with other beings, human or animals, (level 2 of consciousness). It is not easy to see this essential difference, as the apparent behaviour can be the same.

The theory does not exclude the possibility of level 2 consciousness, on image models (of course) for the dolphins.

This would mean e.g. that a dolphin antic.i.p.ates the action of another and will act in advance, based on prediction, in the frame of a normal model, imposed by the trainer (not a model of the PSM, as the ones a.s.sociated to instincts). There could be some difficulties to understand what happens, due to the reason shown in the note above.

Some other things result from the theory. Thus, the basic characteristic of the environment where the dolphin lives, is the lack of landmarks. Whatever the capacity of interaction with external reality is, the dolphin in the ocean cannot build models of the environment in which it lives, due to the lack of landmarks. It can't mark the territory to use marks in building models of the territory. Even if it might make maps of the magnetic field of the Earth, these maps are not precise enough to have good landmarks. Even if it had precise landmarks (near the coastline), they could be used only for local navigation.

Using the terminology of my theory, one could say that the dolphin has schizophrenia induced by the environment.

Captivity should increase the level of intelligence of the dolphins, due to an environment with landmarks. These can stimulate it to use its brain to a higher capacity closer to its theoretical possibilities. However, experiments up to date do not show abilities to build symbolic models, as in the case of some monkeys, even if on image models, dolphin brain seems to be very advanced for an animal.

Observations about the limited survival of dolphins in captivity can be related to the fact, that, in captivity, they build very fast the exact model of the s.p.a.ce available. After a while (see "stress") the s.p.a.ce is known very well and this could be a cause of stress. A strong brain needs always new information. The solution could be a larger environment, in which, additionally, the configuration should be changed every now and then. Contrary to general belief, animals, including dolphins, should feel better in interaction with man in a controlled environment, in the above conditions, than in liberty.

The shark

The shark has the same environmental problems as the dolphin. It behaviour is so primitive that, based on the theory, it should have only PSM, with extremely few models, given by the interaction with the external reality. Water seems to be a relatively hostile environment for the development of the intelligence.

The whale

The whale can navigate at thousands of kilometers of open see and return to its start point. It is also known that they seem to communicate by sounds similar to a song.

It is believed about whales that they can use the magnetic field of the bottom of the ocean to build a map (image model). If so, they could find their position on this primitive map. However, if this map becomes incorrect, due to changes of the magnetic field, they could navigate in a wrong direction, including landing on ocean sh.o.r.es. Moreover, if taken back to the open see, they will repeat the path that lead them to trouble, because their navigation system indicates the same direction as before. Simply, the whales get lost, and have no means to find again their position in the ocean.

We can take a risk and say that, if the information of navigation a.s.sociated with the magnetic field were recorded in a story-type model (equivalent to a map), then the whale would know how to return to the starting point by "rewinding the tape". Thus, it has to compare the story-type model with IR generated by the direct interaction with external reality.

If this is the method, a transfer of this itinerary model from a whale could be possible to another, which did not make this trip yet, through that "song". Seems fascinating, but also it is possible to check by experiment.

ETA 25: Very complicated operations on image models (walk, jumps, climbing trees) of humans

We will apply the theory to see the exact way of walking, jumping and tree climbing at humans. In accordance to MDT, an action on the external reality (e.g. walking) implies the existence of a long-range action model (ZAM). This model generates the approximate plan of the action. ZAM will build and activate a number of local models (ZAM and AZM) to reach its goals.

A local ZAM will simulate the movement of the leg for the first step. If the simulated step is successful, then ZAM will activate the action on the external reality. The leg will move in the same way as the leg 'moved' during the simulation. It is not possible to do any movement, if it had not been successfully simulated before.

Let's see the case of jumping. In front of an obstacle, which has to be jumped over, the brain will 'execute' a simulated jump. If the simulated jump succeeds, it can be done in the external reality as well, activating the model, which did the simulated successful jump. If the simulation does not succeed, there will be no model to activate the muscles of the body, and the being will be blocked to act. Any attempt to go against the internal decisison will fail.

The conclusion from the previous a.n.a.lysis is that a more or less elaborate simulation precedes any action on the external reality. The result is that an extremely complicated activity, like e.g. walking, is executed with remarkable precision and elegance.

At first sight, walking seems to be a relatively simple activity. At a closer a.n.a.lysis, one can see extreme complexity. The first problem is keeping the equilibrium during walking. The stability of humans and animals during walking is a dynamical stability. This means that, if we "froze" the body in an intermediate position, the body would not be stable and would fall. During walking, the models antic.i.p.ate the movements of the body through simulation and send suitable commands in advance. If there was no antic.i.p.ation of the evolution and we counted only on the stability and position sensors, the information would get delayed to the device taking the decision and such, the system would have a reduced stability. This is how all the electronic stabilizer systems work: they wait for something to happen to make a correction.

In the case of the brain, the information from the stability and position sensors is used to antic.i.p.ate the possible future problems and act before the problem arised. This is the dynamical stability and, I think, this problem cannot be solved in real time by any existing computer due to the low power of the present computers.

From here we can see the huge capacity of information processing of any brain, starting with mammals. The most primitive mammals, with brains of a few grams or tens of grams, are able of higher performance than humans, in running and jumping.