The question of consciousness is a good one … Hypothetically, one could imagine that it was a single brain center shared by all mammals that lights up when we think of something as playful, as in the Bateson example. (It is probably way more complicated.)

If so, it’s more something that tints our experience of the world, but whose mechanisms we are not conscious about – we only see the effect?

By the way, one of my former colleagues has a blog about games for animals:
http://ludusanimalis.blogspot.com/

When I have mentioned to colleagues that we could ask our students to do this as an exercise, they look at me like I am crazy. “Where is the business case?” they ask. Well what if pork ended up tasting better if the pigs had some kind of game to play with in their pens? We know that cows which are allowed to ‘play’ with an automatic back-scratcher (certainly a kind of interactive multimedia) tend to produce more milk, and are more co-operative.

I’m glad to see Bateson’s description of animal play has entered the discussion (“the playful nip denotes the bite, but does not denote what would be denoted by the bite”). It’s very relevant, and cases outside the world of mammals seem to be rare and are of special interest. But the play of mammals is clearly based on instinct, as is the tongue-extension response of the lizard or amphibian. Almost certainly a reflex action. The question is whether the play of a kitten with a piece of string is more ‘genuinely’ playful than the play of a lizard with the ant crusher game.

Certainly, consciousness plays an important part, but I wonder how conscious is the kitten (or even the adult cat) of the boundary of play when some long mouse-tail like object skitters by its peripheral vision. Perhaps the satisfaction that comes of play is just an instinctive response too, even in humans. Perhaps any consciousness we may have of the experience is irrelevant, or just a way to rationalise the ‘wasting’ of time on something which may be trivial or unnecessary.

Another class of behavior Bateson mentioned (apart from play) was threat, which is also a case where the bared tooth or the snarl denotes the bite, but does not – yet – denote what would be denoted by the bite. Now, there’s no doubt that the threat is real, perhaps more real than a game, although the combat is still fictional – projected into a contingent future. Lizards are not known to play quite like mammals, but they do engage in threat behavior, as do birds and even some invertebrates. Threat appears to be more widespread than play in the animal kingdom, but employs the same kinds of fictional shifts.

Also bullying may be mentioned. When confronted, a bully will often say something like “it was just a joke”. And for them, a joke is probably exactly what it was. But the point is that for the victim, it’s not “just a joke” at all. Just like the real live mouse played with -apparently for fun – by the cat is not enjoying himself at all.

i have never been a lizard pretty much like most of you i guess. so im not 100% sure, but i really doubt that the lizard knows about what an ipad is. so after the first ant that tastes more like glass than ant – does he start to play or simply act out a genetic program for lizard survival? judging from the video i would guess he does what he has to do. theres no way of knowing since we cant communicate with him, but from our point of view there is nothing here other than a lizard getting sour. or do you think he looks like hes having fun in a game about lizards and ants? ;-)

looks to me the lizard is having fun!
Also, it evidently recognize that the images are (“surrogate stimuli” of) insects, given that the lizard responds to them with its tongue-extension behaviour, in a pretty coherent pattern. So it understood the goal, and knows the rules by instict.
The interesting question, would be to what extent it perceives the ants as fictional (many studies in ethology use zimbellos, and somehow prove they are perceived as “real” by the animals).

@Aaron: I couldn’t disagree more with your first statement. How would the owner be playing *the videogame*? Probably s/he’s having fun, but of looking at her lizard playing, exactly in the same way s/he could have fun staring at her cat.

One of the funniest videos ever!

Frog Plays Ant Crusher

In terms of the meta-game the end response of the frog (it bites the owner’s thumb when he tries to reset the game) the different response suggests there may be something to this perspective.

Although, however, I really don’t know (because I’m in no way, shape, or form a Ludologist or even pretend to be one on TV) the difference between the experimentation in the spirit of the scientific method on one hand, and a game on the other.

As for the criteria, (5) in specific: “Relaxed field” is more an empirical precondition for play (as an activity and mindset) to happen. Yes, serious consequences beyond the game itself can be a stressor, but relaxed field means more something like “animals *usually* don’t start playing if there is another imminent danger around.” Same goes for child’s play: They must perceive the situation as a trusted safety zone – not in the sense that failure has no serious consequence (see below), but that there is also no danger around the situation.

As for consequences: Coming from a more psychological perspective on this myself, I see it all revolving around “autonomy” (criterium 2). And if you look into the psychology of autonomy, “serious/tangible consequences” attached to an activity by *others* is what thwarts the experience of autonomy. So lack of serious/tangible consequence is *in general* conducive to perceiving an activity as autonomous, hence playful, but I *can* also perceive gambling for money as playful, if *I chose* to engage in it, and feel I can disengage if I want to; but if it is forced on me, then it stops being play. What makes “negotiable consequences” playful is that I feel I could freely choose to enter and leave a situation that has them attached. This is a property of play-as-activity/mindset/situation, not a property of games-as-designed-artifacts. But that’s another story :).

@Sebastian Ah, the Genesis of Animal Play is on my bookshelf, unread.

Interesting criteria for play – they do match most game definitions in various ways.

The standout is 5), which seems to correspond to traditional descriptions of play as non-productive (someone who “plays” for a living is likely to be stressed on occasion, hence not playing in this definition). My personal game definition is a little broader, allowing the same game (activity) to be potentially used with and without tangible consequences.

If you mean “performing the actions entailed in playing a game”, then by that definition, of course, obviously.

If you mean “engages in the kind of activity/mindset psychology and ethology denote as “playing”, then the answer seems “it depends”. Take Burghardt’s five defining features of play (from “The Genesis Animal Play: Testing the Limits”, MIT Press 2005, 81):
1. The activity has limited immediate function
2. The activity has an endogenous component – it is voluntary and autotelic
3. The activity differs structurally and/or temporally from the “real” activity it is based on.
4. Repeat performance
5. The activity happens in a relaxed field – the animal is not stressed or frightened.

Burghardt documents several instances of object play in lizards, especially big Komodo warans (284-290).

So: Criteria 3, 4, 5 – check
Criteria 1, 2 – it depends.

Does the lizard engage with the game *for the sake of it*, without wanting to actually catch and eat the ants, or is the lizard duped by the mimicry/fabrication of the virtual ants? If a fly falls for a mimicry flesh-eating plant, the fly is not “playing” or “pretending” to want the nectar/believe it is entering a regular flower. Same goes for the lizard in this video – and people unaware they are participating in a pervasive game/LARP.