The article by David Premack and Guy Woodruff explores whether chimpanzees possess a "theory of mind," which involves inferring mental states such as purpose, intention, knowledge, belief, and doubt. They conducted experiments where an adult chimpanzee, Sarah, was shown videotaped scenes of a human actor struggling with various problems, followed by photographs of potential solutions. Sarah consistently chose the correct photographs, suggesting she understood the actor's purpose and selected solutions compatible with that purpose. The authors discuss three interpretations of Sarah's behavior: physical matching, associationism, and theory of mind. They argue that physical matching is insufficient, associationism cannot explain the future-oriented aspects of problem-solving, and theory of mind is the most plausible explanation. The article also discusses experiments to distinguish between these interpretations, including tests on problems not restricted to physical inaccessibility and modalities like "would," "should," and "would like." The authors conclude that Sarah's choices are influenced by the actor's identity and suggest further tests to explore agent-specific knowledge and belief. They propose an embedded videotape test to directly assess whether Sarah can infer positive or negative attitudes between different agents. The article highlights the importance of understanding chimpanzees' cognitive abilities and their implications for theories of intelligence and mind.The article by David Premack and Guy Woodruff explores whether chimpanzees possess a "theory of mind," which involves inferring mental states such as purpose, intention, knowledge, belief, and doubt. They conducted experiments where an adult chimpanzee, Sarah, was shown videotaped scenes of a human actor struggling with various problems, followed by photographs of potential solutions. Sarah consistently chose the correct photographs, suggesting she understood the actor's purpose and selected solutions compatible with that purpose. The authors discuss three interpretations of Sarah's behavior: physical matching, associationism, and theory of mind. They argue that physical matching is insufficient, associationism cannot explain the future-oriented aspects of problem-solving, and theory of mind is the most plausible explanation. The article also discusses experiments to distinguish between these interpretations, including tests on problems not restricted to physical inaccessibility and modalities like "would," "should," and "would like." The authors conclude that Sarah's choices are influenced by the actor's identity and suggest further tests to explore agent-specific knowledge and belief. They propose an embedded videotape test to directly assess whether Sarah can infer positive or negative attitudes between different agents. The article highlights the importance of understanding chimpanzees' cognitive abilities and their implications for theories of intelligence and mind.