(although I am a little perplexed as to exactly what you are claiming bats don't do. It started off as 'think', then changed to 'have language' and seems to now be 'speak'). — andrewk

I of course never said this was about "thinking" because that is an ambiguous term in the context of comparative cognition. Can animals problem solve or form anticipatory imagery? Of course they do.

But I'm puzzled that you seem to think talking about language capacity and speaking are two different things. You might have to explain what is going on there.

OTOH if it's just a working belief then there's no need to debate it. We all have plenty of working beliefs, but don't elevate them the status of philosophical theories. — andrewk

It's hardly just a working belief when it is the result of an understanding of the relevant scientific literature. And this is an empirical question, not really a philosophical one - although clearly it is a foundational point for the speculative metaphysics of Peircean semiosis.

Would it be correct to infer that your definition is that there is a 'difference in kind' between two species if one of them does at least one of the things on your list and the other does none of them? — andrewk

What I said was, there is a difference in kind between beings that use language, science, technology and so on, and animals, who don't. I can't see what is difficult to grasp about that distinction.

What I said was, there is a difference in kind between beings that use language, science, technology and so on, and animals, who don't. I can't see what is difficult to grasp about that distinction. — Wayfarer

It's not difficult to grasp. It's just impossibly vague. What does the 'and so on' mean? Walking sticks perhaps? If it was clear, it wouldn't need the 'and so on'.

The boundaries of language, science and technology are also unclear. Many life forms communicate, even coral, so language will need to be much more tightly defined if we want to exclude that (and why should we want to exclude it?).

Use of technology is not confined to humans either. There is a small minority of life forms that use inanimate tools. There is a far greater proportion that use live tools. For instance both parasites and symbiotes use other species to achieve their ends.

It seems to me to be a particularly Western-centric view of the world to say that we are special because only we do an arbitrary collection of things that only we do. It's special pleading.

My view is an amalgam of Eastern influences and pan-psychism. I see all life, and possibly all existence, as one. It is an enormous, rich, unfathomable mystery. For me it is life and consciousness, that are the great mysteries, not the fact that humans just seem to be smarter and more articulate than the other life forms we've encountered thus far.

I'm not saying that's the 'right' view. I don't think there is such a thing as a 'right view'. But I can point out that human exceptionalist positions tend to be either as foggy as Victorian London, or completely lacking in supporting evidence.

elephants and whales have much bigger brains than man. — Cavacava

Elephants and whales have big brains because they have a lot of body, and the brain runs the body. Voles and sparrows can get along with much less brain, because they have much less body to run. A good share of our vaunted brains have little to do with philosophizing. Large hunks of our brains keep us upright and taking nourishment. We have some hunks of brain that specialize in thinking. Canaries have enlarged lobes concerned with singing. Dog brains have quite a bit of territory devoted to smell. I would expect that whale brains have enlarged lobes dealing with sound imaging.

(But then, horses are a lot bigger than us and they don't have bigger brains. Ditto for hippos. Elephants and whales are, of course, thought to have more extensive mental lives than horses or hippos.)

On being:

I think a dog is a being. It experiences all of the bodily sensations (more, actually) that we do; it feels the same unreflective emotions we feel; it has memories. It anticipates future events (like your arrival at the front door every day at 5:30 p.m.) An old arthritic dog won't respond with its former enthusiasm to the prospect of a walk, but it's still glad to see you. When they have had a stroke, they display the same confusion and uncertainty that people display.

This isn't to humanize the dog. It's to 'animalize' the human. It's in the realm of the body and the way our body enables us To Be that we find common ground with other animals. People who place an over-emphasis on their mental existence, and devalue their physical existence are likely to see less continuity with the rest of the animal kingdom.

Dogs don't/can't worry about the meaning of life? Lucky them, maybe.

It's clear that many animals are like us, at least in behavior. And if it's any indication from our own studies of our own species, it's that mental activity is largely behind behavior.

Check our /r/likeus for cute gifs and whatnot of animals doing things that humans do. It's cute but also very thought-provoking. Some of the things these animals do are astonishingly human. Had it not been for their physical difference in appearance, they would have passed as humans or near-humans.

In any rate, when we're talking ethics, we can't assume we know what it's like to be a bat, or an antelope, or a cockroach. We have to assume they can experience things, particularly suffering or a wish to survive, the things that make something of ethical value.

It seems to me to be a particularly Western-centric view of the world to say that we are special because only we do an arbitrary collection of things that only we do. It's special pleading. — AndrewK

OK, then.

I think a dog is a being. — Bittercrank

I agree - dogs and some other mammals, and birds. But they're not usually referred to as 'beings'. There is some sense to the term 'being' in that it communicates, or connotes, something about the nature of lived experience, which is essentially different to whatever kind of 'being' inanimate objects have. Actually something that comes to mind is Sartre's distinction between being 'in itself' and 'for itself', where the former refers to objects and the latter to beings.

I suppose the ontological distinction I am making is between 'beings' and 'objects'. I think all sentient beings are subjects of experience, but it seems to me only humans are capable of language, techology and abstract thought (although apparently that is an impossibly vague assertion).

I quite like the summary ontological scheme in E F Schumacher's Guide for the Perplexed:

There are four kingdoms: Mineral, Plant, Animal, Human. He argues that there are critical differences of kind between each level of being. Between mineral and plant is the phenomenon of life. Schumacher says that although scientists say we should not use the phrase 'life energy', the difference still exists and has not been explained by science. Schumacher points out that though we can recognize life and destroy it, we can't create it. Schumacher notes that the 'life sciences' are 'extraordinary' because they hardly ever deal with life as such, and instead content themselves with analyzing the "physico-chemical body which is life's carrier." Schumacher goes on to say there is nothing in physics or chemistry to explain the phenomenon of life.

For Schumacher, a similar jump in level of being takes place between plant and animal, which is differentiated by the phenomenon of consciousness. We can recognize consciousness, not least because we can knock an animal unconscious, but also because animals exhibit at minimum primitive thought and intelligence.

The next level, according to Schumacher, is between Animal and Human, which are differentiated by the phenomenon of self-consciousness or self awareness. Self-consciousness is the reflective awareness of one's consciousness and thoughts.

Schumacher realizes that the terms—life, consciousness and self-consciousness—are subject to misinterpretation so he suggests that the differences can best be expressed as an equation which can be written thus:

'Mineral' = m
'Plant' = m + x
'Animal' = m + x + y
'Human' = m + x + y + z
In his theory, these three factors (x, y and z) represent ontological discontinuities.

People who place an over-emphasis on their mental existence, and devalue their physical existence are likely to see less continuity with the rest of the animal kingdom. — BitterCrank

Well, all due respect, everything in the animal kingdom - everything in nature! - ends up dead. It was in respect of this that the Renaissance Platonist Ficino said, if man has not an immortal soul, then he is the most miserable of animals. Why? Because unlike my dog, I can contemplate my mortality and grieve for what I have lost, and will loose.

I know you're probably not going to respond to that, but I think it is what the higher philosophies are pointing towards, and I think it's something that is barely understood or mentioned it, so as long as I am around, I am always going to mention it.

My view is an amalgam of Eastern influences and pan-psychism. I see all life, and possibly all existence, as one. It is an enormous, rich, unfathomable mystery. — AndrewK

However, that is a rather romanticised view of nature or of the 'animal'. Buddhist lore has always said that one might indeed be 'reborn in the animal realm', but that to do so is a very unfortunate fate, because the chances of being reborn again in the human realm - which is a distinct realm - are exceedingly slight, and because animals are not able to exercise their intelligence, but are bound to follow their instincts. (Not saying any of that is true, but it is 'Eastern'.)

I think a dog is a being

I think anything that is alive is a being, one that is different in kind from all inert objects. All life reacts in some manner that is not entirely predictable. Life is either an emergent phenomena of matter or the product of some intervention.

I entirely agree about what you said about dogs.

Animals feel and so do people, some animals are more sensitive than others, the same with people. I think there is an emotional aspect to intelligence.

Thanks for the replies. I'd like to refute Adler's claims with some evidence. But, as of now, I'm not sure there is any.

It is my intuition that animals are on a continuum with humans, when it comes to the intellect (as defined by Adler). But, I'm not sure how to prove that my intuition is correct.

Perhaps this is could be considered to be evidence... "When sorting photos of humans and apes, he placed his own photo among the humans." "he" refers to Nim, a chimpanzee (thank you Wayfarer, for the link).

Studies in animal behavior (including emotions, cognition, memory, perceptions, etc.) will either validate your intuition or they won't. Personally, I bet that it will be shown that your intuition is correct: Animals (including humans) occupy a continuum of capacity and performance in both emotion and intellect.

The details of the continuum probably won't be fully elucidated in the lifetime of any readers here, but the subject is being studied now and results, like Nim's picture sorting, trickle in.

(There is a lot of background noise, like discussions about whether computers are capable of sentience, that needs to be filtered out.)

@andrewk
The capacity to break the world down into conceptual units might be considered a radical break from other animals. The generative capacity that language engenders creates an enormous amount of information that can be stored in memory capacities that only exist with language. It also provides for a generally generalist-type brain which is decoupled from the usual instinctual response to environmental stimuli.

Thus language capacity provides for more survival strategy options. Instead of just associative learning, imitation, reflexes, and fixed-pattern responses, an "inner mental theater" whereby thought can arrange and rearrange the world in this "theater of the mind" is employed as a more generalist approach. This theater of the mind helps us survive by using a vast number of generalist methods such as learning complex tasks, synthesizing conceptual knowledge, sharing complex memes of information, allowances for imagination and novel concept generation, self-talk (which leads to more novel survival strategies) etc. In other words, the immediacy of the world is removed (less if then) and replaced with a complex imagination generating world of mental abstraction.

Further, the abstraction capacity which creates with it a sense of relation of self to others also creates with it deliberate (aka volitional) acts. We choose to do something among a variety of options. We may deliberate in the best way to get it, or what we even really want, but there is at least the sense that we can choose various goals, figure out how to pursue them, debate whether or not we will actually go through pursuing something, etc. In other words we at least feel we know why we are doing something and can plan it out.

Studies in animal behavior (including emotions, cognition, memory, perceptions, etc.) will either validate your intuition or they won't. — Bitter Crank

Of course studies in animal behaviour have turned out to vary a lot in their conclusions depending on the presuppositions of the human enquirers. Studies of animals in their natural habitats often give quite different findings to those of captivity studies.

More generally, if we become ecologists rather than economists we will look at how everything relates to everything else, Gibsonian 'affordances' and all, instead of seeing how everything relates to human costs and benefits.

Studies in animal behavior (including emotions, cognition, memory, perceptions, etc.) will either validate your intuition or they won't. — Bitter Crank

Not particularly telling, given that's true of every study humans have ever carried out. I think we sometimes have a tendency to misuse this sort statement to dismiss relevant stuff in the context of consciousness-- but then I suppose that's really an extension of our inability to the our own consciousness seriously as a state of the world. So much philosophy is devoted to saying how consciousness is not a state of the world or doesn't make sense as one.

Studies in animal behavior (including emotions, cognition, memory, perceptions, etc.) will either validate your intuition or they won't. Personally, I bet that it will be shown that your intuition is correct: Animals (including humans) occupy a continuum of capacity and performance in both emotion and intellect. — Bitter Crank

Here is a quote from Ten Philosophical Mistakes
Is the human mind a single cognitive power, however complex, one that involves the functioning of our senses and whatever follows from their functioning, such as memory and imagination, or should the human mind be divided into two quite distinctive cognitive powers-sense and everything to which sense gives rise, on the one hand, and intellect, able to understand, judge, and reason, on the other?

And another that explains what Adler means by the intellect:
To the second group [the intellect] belong all purely intelligible objects, such as the objects as purely spiritual beings, for example, souls, angels, and God. It also includes such objects of thought as liberty, justice, virtue, knowledge, the infinite, and even mind itself. None of these can ever be perceived by the senses. None is a sensible particular. — anonymous66

No one is arguing that animals aren't capable of cognition. Adler is saying that there are 2 distinct kinds of cognitive powers. Sensible and intellectual.

If there is a bunch of evidence that shows that animals aren't merely using their senses (perception is obviously in the realm of the sense, imagination is in the realm of the senses, memory is the realm of the senses, ), and are also capable of intellectual activity (are they capable of thinking about purely intelligible objects... do they think about justice, virtue, knowledge, souls, angels, God, the infinite, mind itself? Can they understand, judge and reason?), then I haven't seen it. If someone else has, please list that evidence.

Adler also suggests that animals are nominalists.... the fact that Nim was able to group certain pictures together by placing a picture of himself with a group of pictures of humans, suggests that there may be some abstract thought going on. But, that's the only example I can think of.

But, perhaps your (Bitter Crank) point was that there isn't much evidence now, but if people actively look for it, they might derive ways to find it?

I might not be heartbroken if it turns out that there is no evidence.... and that we are in a completely different category. Perhaps there is something to the idea that rational thought is god-like and special.

... do they think about justice, virtue, knowledge, souls, angels, God, the infinite, mind itself? Can they understand, judge and reason?), then I haven't seen it. If someone else has, please list that evidence. — anonymous66

You can't think like that without the grammatical structuring of human language. So evidence that animals can't master grammar is enough to bolster the strong case they don't think this way - based on the wider fact that there is no behavioural evidence they do think this way.

You also have evidence from humans who have never learnt grammatical language - like the Victorian deaf-mutes who were considered brain-damaged and animal like. Of course, as soon as the deaf have a access to signing - a fully grammatical language - then the think just as well as everyone else.

So given you seem to be involved in some religious argument, it seems sensible to concede a discontinuity between humans and animals on this basis - grammatical language capability. Humans are intellectualising for this biologically-based reason. And not because they are God's creatures partaking of the divine nous, or whatever.

I might not be heartbroken if it turns out that there is no evidence.... — anonymous66

I might not be heartbroken either, if it turns out that there is no evidence. And in any case, I don't expect ever (well, not in the next 2,000,000 years anyway) to find a wolf or a whale thinking about God, angels, infinity, souls, the great chain of being, or such topics.

Apokrisis point about grammar makes sense. A grammatical language seems to be required to think and talk about abstractions. Dogs do seem to live in the present--something people practicing Yoga strive to do. "Be present in the moment...." Hey, my golden retriever was an ace at that. At least as far as I could tell. For all I know, she wasn't just laying on the couch staring out the window;; she may have been communing with the Mind of God, or reviewing the various resentments I am sure she harbored. But I can't say.

Oliver Sacks wrote a book about sign language, and the dramatic impact it had on adults, particularly, adults who had recently learned it. Concepts that had been invisible before suddenly became possible. Their experience of time, for instance, was greatly enriched.

But, perhaps your (Bitter Crank) point was that there isn't much evidence now, but if people actively look for it, they might derive ways to find it? — anonymous66

Well yes, that was my point. My conception of "animal thinking" is that their thinking is rather simple. I'm well aware how easy it is to assign more "thought" to a pet than their behavior requires. As we establish our relationship with a puppy, for instance, dog and human are each learning how the other one operates. Dogs make good pets because their species interacts in groups just by nature. They have to learn how to do it, but they are well equipped. They are sensing, learning, and remembering, the same way a young child senses, learns, and remembers.

Some dogs, parrots, and primates have learned word lists, for instance. They can learn that the word "shoe" matches a shoe-shaped object. This genius border collie in Germany managed to learn 1000+ words (each for a unique object, which it was able to fetch on the basis of the spoken word]. This is outstanding performance for a dog, but it is the sort of things dogs do all the time. Include the world "walk" in a sentence, and the dog is likely to pick that word out and start agitating to go for one.

One of the things about animals learning language is that it doesn't seem to do anything for them. WE like teaching them, and WE think it is exciting to watch them learn and perform, and since the animals are rewarded frequently, they like it as long as the rewards last. But knowing 1000+ German nouns probably didn't enrich the dog's mental life. (Just guessing.) What our dog found life enhancing (going by body language) was getting fed, drinking water, being let outside on demand, going for walks, playing, and being scratched and petted. She had a stiff knee so she started soliciting scratching from us--which she found superior, apparently. She liked our furniture and our food a lot, and appreciated heating and AC. That's about it. She refused to learn commands (aside from speaking for food, sit, lay down, and shut up). No paw shaking, no rolling over, no sitting up, etc.

Our language makes anthropomorphizing almost inevitable. We ascribe thinking to animals when we say "she wants...", "she doesn't like...", "she looked disgusted about..." and so forth. Our language works on people, of course (reasonably well), and dogs are as anxious to please (more so, usually) as people. Interpreting their behavior as sentient just comes naturally. Hell, we ascribe sentience to our cars sometimes.

I might not be heartbroken either, if it turns out that there is no evidence. And in any case, I don't expect ever (well, not in the next 2,000,000 years anyway) to find a wolf or a whale thinking about God, angels, infinity, souls, the great chain of being, or such topics. — Bitter Crank

Here is a quote from Ten Philosophical Mistakes
Is the human mind a single cognitive power, however complex, one that involves the functioning of our senses and whatever follows from their functioning, such as memory and imagination, or should the human mind be divided into two quite distinctive cognitive powers-sense and everything to which sense gives rise, on the one hand, and intellect, able to understand, judge, and reason, on the other? — anonymous66

What about evidence that they can understand, judge and reason? What about evidence they understand they have and that there are other minds?

So given you seem to be involved in some religious argument, it seems sensible to concede a discontinuity between humans and animals on this basis - grammatical language capability. Humans are intellectualising for this biologically-based reason. And not because they are God's creatures partaking of the divine nous, or whatever. — apokrisis

I don't believe it can be said that Adler is making a religious argument in his book (at least not in the first 4 chapters). As far as I can tell from his book, he's just using theological terms to distinguish them from things for which there is sense evidence. I think the point is that even if it turns out there is no God, no angels, etc.. the fact remains that man can think about and communicate about things that may or may not exist in the first place, while animals are only aware of what they have sensed (vs intellectualized about). I think it's very possible that all theological concepts only exist in the minds of men. The point is, man was able to conceive of them, even though they don't exist in the real world. As far as we can tell, animals don't have the capability to think about things that don't exist in the real world.

It almost looks like you're saying that you agree with Adler (man is not on a continuum with animals in regards to intellect, he is in a category by himself) because of the evidence, but if that's the case, you want to be sure that everyone knows it's not because "God created us that way".

Dogs do seem to live in the present--something people practicing Yoga strive to do. "Be present in the moment.... — Bitter Crank

However dogs (etc) are pre-rational; yogis (etc) trans-rational. 'Falling short' is not the same as 'going beyond'.

Humans are intellectualising for this biologically-based reason. And not because they are God's creatures partaking of the divine nous, or whatever. — Apokrisis

However, as you say, biological systems seem much more 'language-like' than 'machine-like', which suggests something very much like the idea of 'logos' (in the pre-Christian sense of a pervading order not a divine command.)

Is the human mind a single cognitive power, however complex, one that involves the functioning of our senses and whatever follows from their functioning, such as memory and imagination, or should the human mind be divided into two quite distinctive cognitive powers-sense and everything to which sense gives rise, on the one hand, and intellect, able to understand, judge, and reason, on the other? — anonymous66

I think the mind is a single power composed of cognition, emotion, sensing, memory, imagination, and what flows there from. We can parse out very specific capacities (like vision acuity or memory competence) but that doesn't mean the capacities aren't integrated.

The entity of each 'self' is a whole. How we perceive, think, feel, remember, and act is blended together.

We trip ourselves up all the time, but just right now we are talking about animals. What trips us up is that dogs--an animal people are very familiar with--are also whole entities, and we connect with them where there is common ground, like emotions, perception, memory, behavior. That's enough on which to build very strong bonds. Any signs of thinking are extra gravy.

The sense of "self' isn't the same as awareness of mind. A number of species pass the "self test"--elephants for instance. Dogs have not. Dogs are unique among animals in following our gaze. I don't think wolves are so abled. But following our gaze doesn't mean they recognize mindedness in us, or possess mindedness themselves. The ability of humans and dogs to follow each other's gaze is a fairly big deal, but it doesn't require "mindedness".

Many animals with whom people become very familiar (pigs, horses, cattle...) also reveal a package of capacities which not only allow us to work with domesticated animals, but provide rewards as well. Small herd dairy farmers (like 30 to 40 cows) really know their cows as individuals. Same thing for horse people, pig farmers, and the like. (Pigs are pretty bright animals, actually. That we raise pigs in rather inhumane conditions distracts us from the mental resources they possess.)

However dogs (etc) are pre-rational; yogis (etc) trans-rational. 'Falling short' is not the same as 'going beyond'. — Wayfarer

I wasn't being serious about dogs and yoga.

Some dogs, parrots, and primates have learned word lists, for instance. They can learn that the word "shoe" matches a shoe-shaped object. This genius border collie in Germany managed to learn 1000+ words (each for a unique object, which it was able to fetch on the basis of the spoken word]. — Bitter Crank

1000+ words is more than sufficient to ask many questions. In all animal "studies" of language acquisition, despite the most fervent bias among researchers, no animal has ever been reported to have asked a question.

This is because, despite their "skill", none possesses the idea that the researcher exists as an individual being, let alone could she be a repository of knowledge. The animal does not even know it exists.

Birds show some fairly complex thinking skills. If they can truly understand the concept of 0, I think that is evidence of an intellect that would satisfy even Adler.

I wonder if the evidence of logical reasoning that is mentioned in the study above would satisfy Adler as being evidence of animal intellect.

1000 nouns won't get anyone very far; one needs verbs, particularly forms of TO BE and TO HAVE.

none possesses the idea that the researcher exists as an individual being, let alone could she be a repository of knowledge. — tom

A dog might know that someone is an individual (has a unique set of odors). But no, I wouldn't think a dog would recognize anyone as a repository of knowledge. (Dogs, and some other animals, will solicit assistance from others, though. But doing so doesn't require verbal knowledge.)

1000 nouns won't get anyone very far; one needs verbs, particularly forms of TO BE and TO HAVE. — Bitter Crank

Can't have been a sheepdog then, or any normal dog who knows how to sit, stay, fetch etc.

My opinion is that the difference between human beings and (other) animals is qualitative rather than quantitative (continuum). It seems obvious based on behaviour alone that no other species is capable of the kind of thinking human beings can do. Some animals might be self-aware to some extent but I highly doubt that any other species is capable of abstract thought or moral reasoning etc. Animals seem to be stuck at the present moment and immediate concerns such as eating, mating and protecting themselves.

They act on impulse and based on what kind of stimulus is currently concerning them. Some animals such as chimps can learn little bit of language but I remember coming upon a nice quote about chimps and their language ability saying that while they can learn some language, they never seem to have anything to say. This is exactly what one would expect if chimps (and other less intelligent animals) are merely living in the moment and from one impulse to the next. They have no actual thoughts. Humans are truly special and I have no idea why this happens to be so.

This article suggests that Orangutans can make judgments about whether or not they will like the taste of a new drink.

Orangutan able to guess a taste without sampling it, just like us.

Some animals such as chimps can learn little bit of language but I remember coming upon a nice quote about chimps and their language ability saying that while they can learn some language, they never seem to have anything to say. This is exactly what one would expect if chimps (and other less intelligent animals) are merely living in the moment and from one impulse to the next. They have no actual thoughts. Humans are truly special and I have no idea why this happens to be so. — Prisoner of Love

Chimps and apes. Don't forget Koko.
What I see is disagreements about whether or not they have anything to say. But, nothing conclusive. One group says "yes , they do", another says "no, they don't". I don't know who to believe.

whether or not they have anything to say — anonymous66

Not many primates have been taught sign language (or some other system) but it seems to be that at least one that had learned did initiate communication. The first thing Koko said was "Heidegger sucks." Then it asked for things that it liked: scratches, tickles, pieces of apple.

I would expect a primate to have rather simple concerns, like wanting something pleasurable, be it food or getting tickled. The life of a wild primate, probably a lab primate too, is fairly complex. How would it talk about any of it's complexity until it had learned words that described this? We have to learn the right words and concepts before we can describe our experiences. We generally need some sort of motivation to talk. (Yes, I know, this sounds contrary to fact since a lot of people seem to need no motivation whatsoever...) We don't just start talking about the difficulty of finding good and affordable rental units when we live on a farm and have no plans to move. Or, we don't start talking about the details of our feces while at a fancy dinner (or, probably, anywhere else except at the gastroenterologist's office). A verbal animal would probably also need a reason to talk about the unpleasantness of one's mate, for instance (its mate, not your mate).