Animal-watching is as fascinating to me as, if not more than, child-watching. Desmond Morris watched babies, but I find 4-8 year-olds more interesting. You have to be circumspect: everyone behaves differently when they know you're watching.

First Question. No. Meaning certainly not like we do. Many animals can complete complex instinctual tasks and solve complex mathematical problems. They, for the most part, cannot abstract anything like we can. That said, some clearly display creativity and cooperation which does often require a degree of 'rationality' ... but that is likely a stretch of the term.

Second question. Yes. They can clearly communicate. If you mean 'language' then, not really. Many animals share common features that humans possess but not share the whole collection.

Third question. Intuitive thinking is part and parcel of rational thinking - in the sense that reason with out emotions is naught.

Animals only appear to use reason and to communicate their minds because WE reasoning communicating creatures see ourselves in them, NOT because we see them. — Fire Ologist

And that thought is a very big consideration for researchers. From college lectures to books based on research, I am amazed by the scrutiny of the research. These guys are real nit pickers tearing apart each others work, in an effort to be very sure the conclusion of research is based on fact and not wishful human thinking.

Humans insert “reason” and deliberate some responses. We draw these deliberations out by communicating our reasons with other humans. — Fire Ologist

So true. This could be different for apes though. We shared genes with Chimpanzees but they do not have the ability to speak. They can sign and make jesters but they can not talk so they can not share their reasoning and deliberate the thoughts of others. They can follow this leader or that one, but they are not going to debate the reasoning. Females will defend their aged male leader from some young upstart. They do have emotional bonds and this is so close to reasoning, it is hard to draw the line.

Wouldn't if be fun to be a researcher and do a study about what feeling has to do with reasoning?

It sounds to me like you are projecting your own fears. In any case, you are demonstrating a lack of insight into the perspectives of others.
— wonderer1

Thanks! and to you also. — Wayfarer

The thing is, quite apropos to this topic, I've brought up the subject of pattern recognition a lot on the forum. It's a quite useful concept in understanding the way people think.

There are patterns that can be recognized in the thinking of people. One such pattern I've unintentionally developed a strong recognition of is narcissism. (Grandiose and covert/vulnerable types primarily, there are other labels for types of narcissism and the characteristics associated with those particular types that I'm not very familiar with.)

This is a pattern I can't unsee.

A result of such pattern recognition is some understanding on my part, of your need to see yourself as particularly special, and how that influences the thinking that goes into your posts. This need to see yourself as particularly special isn't something I think you have made a free willed choice to have, and not something I see you as to blame for. In fact I appreciate your skill at keeping keeping your rage covert. And of course, we are all narcissistic to some extent.

So getting back to the thread topic, I'd say there is an extremely good scientific case for animals having very strong pattern recognition in certain regards, and in many cases pattern recognition that is not available to us for various physiological reasons. And such pattern recognition is foundational to rationality. Human language/logic is kind of icing on the cake, on one hand. On the other hand, it allows humanity to do things way beyond the capabilities of any other species on Earth.

Perhaps relevant topics for this thread are, "What role does having language play, in the development of narcissism in humans?" and, "Is there any evidence for narcissism in animals?"

Animals don’t need any of it. We personify animals when we call their behavior rational like our behavior is rational. — Fire Ologist

How do you know that their behaviour is not rational "like our behaviour is rational"? Is there some other kind of rational that it could be?

Why do you say that animals don't need any of it - do you mean, language, communication and math? Many of them certainly have communication skills and can do things that seem to require mathematics, like catching Frisbees. Whether they have language or not is unanswerable until we agree our definition of language.

Fortunately, human beings can also communicate without language and do things that seem to require mathematics without having learnt the necessary mathematics. If we can do it, they can do it - or it is at least possible.

The foundation of our recognition of human beings as (sometimes) rational people is our relationship with them and their relationship with us. The same foundation is the basis of our attributing or withholding perception emotion and reason to them.

You can "see" an animal as a bunch of reflexes if you choose to. You can see an animal as a person if you choose to. That choice is a decision how far to extend your paradigm of a person in the context of your interactions with them. It is a hinge for how you see them and how you interpret what you see. I can try to persuade you that either extreme doesn't really make sense, but a conclusive demonstration either way is not to be expected.

Humans insert “reason” and deliberate some responses. We draw these deliberations out by communicating our reasons with other humans. — Fire Ologist

They can follow this leader or that one, but they are not going to debate the reasoning. — Athena

Well, let's allow, for the sake of the argument, that animals do not and cannot debate in the way that humans do. I'll accept also that debating is a skill that demands a capacity for rational thought. But you seem to think it is a necessary (probably not sufficient?) skill for rational thought. But does that really make sense?

I'll go further and say that although it is tempting to think that articulating one's reasons is what rationality is about, it is simply wrong. Articulating one's reasons for a rational action is an optional extra, distinct from the capacity for rational action. In the first place, people often find it quite difficult to explain why they did what they did when you ask. They have to stop and think about it immediately after they carried out the action. In the second place, we often act very fast when we need to. There simply isn't time to say to oneself "The traffic light has changed, it is dangerous and illegal to cross against the light, I had better stop". Indeed, the same applies when I look up at the sky and pick up an umbrella as I leave the house. I may say to myself or another that it looks like rain and I'll take an umbrella, and I may not.

They do have emotional bonds and this is so close to reasoning, it is hard to draw the line. — Athena

Yes. Even psychologists are abandoning the old conception of emotions as (purely subjective and irrational "feelings") and recognizing that cognition is part and parcel of the concepts.

I've brought up the subject of pattern recognition a lot on the forum. It's a quite useful concept in understanding the way people think. — wonderer1

Am I right to think that we are somewhere near the old-fashioned concept of a Gestalt? I think there is a lot to be said for it. It is not been a good thing that the atomistic methodology of empirical philosophers has not been helpful for philosophy or psychology. Patterns of behaviour.

Am I right to think that we are somewhere near the old-fashioned concept of a Gestalt? I think there is a lot to be said for it — Ludwig V

Absolutely, and I think it is probably reasonable to think of much animal rationality as a matter of gestalts, without animals having as much capacity for analyzing mutually contradictory gestalts for consistency, as we have with our linguistic capabilities.

Being correct or knowing the truth is not required for rationalization. Back in ancient times, a person who conclude that the sun goes around the earth by using their observations, is being rational. — night912

I must argue against that statement. Knowing truth is essential because things go very wrong when people act on incorrect ideas and bad information. Primitive people knew that problem well. They did not have bank cards to repair all the damage of bad decisions. And democracy, like scientific research, is people working together to get things right. True Aristotle made mistakes and Greek logic defined by him was lacking. But the truth is, if we don't get things right, they can go very wrong. This is true in our private lives and public lives.

How do you know that their behaviour is not rational "like our behaviour is rational"? Is there some other kind of rational that it could be? — Ludwig V

Animals have behaviors, many of which humans share (eating, sleeping, hunting, etc.). One of the behaviors humans exhibit is reasoning, or being rational. This involves language and communication with other reasoners.

I see no need to explain the behavior of animals as involving the human behavior we call reasoning.

There is no reason to think the sun is communicating with Mercury when the sun heats it up. The sun never says “look at me, see how hot I am.” We could use that metaphor, but we would be silly to assume that Mercury could be conscious of the sun or its communication, or that the sun is conscious of itself as bright and hot or that the sun now conscious of this would try to communicate it.

I think because animals have consciousness and because reason pervades human consciousness so deeply, we just assume (personify) that all higher consciousness involves an inner life of reasoning and communicable conceptualizing. I disagree.

Animals make sounds and other other animals react to those sounds. Humans see this as communication. But the animal that made the sound may have been forced to make that sound by some conditions, just like the other animal that responded to that sound was forced to respond. Nothing need be in between them called a “communication” - we reasoning humans make that relationship and call it a separate thing called “communication.” These are just on-off switches.

Because of the debate between free will and determinism, we might say that humans are not actually rational either, incapable of communicating a single communication clearly. Equating human behavior with animal behavior along the lines that none of us are using reason or making communications seems an easier argument than saying human and animal behaviors are equal in that they both involve levels of reasoning and communication.

Dog barks to warn the pack? Or a dog sees something and just bursts into a bark? Pack hears one of its members making barking sounds and thinks “what is wrong?” Or pack just hears barking sounds and moves directly towards whatever range of responses have survived the evolutionary process?

Dogs may be better off because they don’t reason. No such thing a paralysis by analysis for any other than a rational being.

It’s very romantic to personify things. Like the warm embrace of the dawn after the night’s unrelenting assault of darkness and cold. But not necessary to explain it. There is no dawn or night who is communicating anything.

Lastly, this doesn’t mean reason didn’t arise in the universe from physical causes. That’s a different question too. Again, who cares whether dogs or humans live better, or worse, or higher or lower - I’m not attributing reason to a higher, immortal soul or something - but saying humans and dogs both reason and communicate makes no sense to me. (Although the vast, vast majority of people today talk like this and believe this.)

Humans bother to seek and communicate reasons and ideas through language with other humans. Dogs don’t bother with all of that. Neither does the sun. Every sound isn’t a word. Every response of a conscious animal isn’t born out of a self-reflective process of reasoning.

I don’t know this for sure.

But seems to me, if any thing in the universe used reason, it could make that ability clear to me by communication. Nothing else bothers to communicate a reasonable idea besides other humans.

Well, let's allow, for the sake of the argument, that animals do not and cannot debate in the way that humans do. I'll accept also that debating is a skill that demands a capacity for rational thought. But you seem to think it is a necessary (probably not sufficient?) skill for rational thought. But does that really make sense? — Ludwig V

I do not believe we are thinking rationally unless we are using higher-order critical thinking skills. Each critical thinking skill is important but maybe this one is the most challenging..

2. Open-mindedness
Open-mindedness is the willingness to consider new ideas, arguments, and information without prejudice. This critical thinking skill helps you analyze and process information to come to an unbiased conclusion. Part of the critical thinking process is letting your personal biases go, taking information at face value and coming to a conclusion based on multiple points of view .

Open-minded critical thinkers demonstrate:

Willingness to consider alternative viewpoints

Ability to suspend judgment until sufficient evidence is gathered

Receptiveness to constructive criticism and feedback

Flexibility in updating beliefs based on new information

Example: During a product development meeting, a team leader actively considers unconventional ideas from junior members, leading to an innovative solution.

https://asana.com/resources/critical-thinking-skills

Telling me why I should become a Christian, or join the Ku Klux Klan, is not the result of higher-order thinking skills, and how we behave as a society depends on how good our critical thinking skills are. And that depends on our education. Critical thinking skills do not come with our genes, only the potential to use our brains comes with our genes.

I don’t know this for sure. — Fire Ologist

H'm. In a way, I'm glad to hear it. I do agree that it is not an easy matter to identify what beliefs and what desires motivate animals. A general, perhaps rather vague, view is the most we can expect. Can a dog feel guilty or embarrassed? I'm not sure. Can a dog feel fear and anger? Oh, yes, definitely.

Humans bother to seek and communicate reasons and ideas through language with other humans. Dogs don’t bother with all of that. Neither does the sun. Every sound isn’t a word. Every response of a conscious animal isn’t born out of a self-reflective process of reasoning. — Fire Ologist

Perhaps better "Humans sometimes bother.... but not always". When they don't, we still read off their reasons from their behaviour. So what's so odd about reading off dogs' reasons from what they do?

It’s very romantic to personify things. Like the warm embrace of the dawn after the night’s unrelenting assault of darkness and cold. — Fire Ologist

Yes. Not a very persuasive argument. Perhaps the view of animals as machines is a welcome coolness of the evening after a hot day.

Dog barks to warn the pack? Or a dog sees something and just bursts into a bark? Pack hears one of its members making barking sounds and thinks “what is wrong?” Or pack just hears barking sounds and moves directly towards whatever range of responses have survived the evolutionary process? — Fire Ologist

OK. You know how one reads something and remembers the content but not the details or where you read it. I have an example like that, which I'll present as a thought experiment, although I believe it is an observation of actual behaviour.
I expect you know that many birds will warn the whole flock when intruders appear. Is the bird warning the flock or just shouting in fear when it spots an intruder? Hard to tell. But then you notice that some birds will shout an alarm when there is no intruder. All the other birds fly off, but the noisy one stays, with free access to all the food. Ah, no, you think. That's just reflex responses. But then the other birds, having learnt that the shouty bird is a liar will ignore future warnings from that bird. Is it really plausible to interpret that is "just reflexes" and not rational responses to a developing situation?

Because of the debate between free will and determinism, we might say that humans are not actually rational either, incapable of communicating a single communication clearly. Equating human behavior with animal behavior along the lines that none of us are using reason or making communications seems an easier argument than saying human and animal behaviors are equal in that they both involve levels of reasoning and communication. — Fire Ologist

You are right to think of this. I think you are choosing the harder path and I'll try to show you why.

Animals make sounds and other other animals react to those sounds. Humans see this as communication. But the animal that made the sound may have been forced to make that sound by some conditions, just like the other animal that responded to that sound was forced to respond. — Fire Ologist

How does this sound? "Humans make sounds and other humans react to those sounds. Animals see this as communication. But the human that made the sound may have been forced to make that sound by some conditions, just like the other human that responded to that sound was forced to respond." It's a question of interpretation, of employing a model, not an empirical fact.

Animals have behaviors, many of which humans share (eating, sleeping, hunting, etc.). One of the behaviors humans exhibit is reasoning, or being rational. This involves language and communication with other reasoners. — Fire Ologist

Rational behaviour is not just a set of behaviours distinct from everything else - talking, pondering etc. Rationality is on display in nearly everything that we do. Taking the umbrella when leaving the house is a rational behaviour. Going into the kitchen when hungry is rational behaviour. The dog's sitting staring at you when hungry is also rational behaviour.

But seems to me, if any thing in the universe used reason, it could make that ability clear to me by communication. Nothing else bothers to communicate a reasonable idea besides other humans. — Fire Ologist

Had you perhaps thought that the animals are communicating, but you're not hearing, because you don't believe that they communicate?

At least some animals learn from each other (likely by means of mimicry) and even pass on (some of) what they have learnt to succeeding generations. (Don't lionesses and wolves teach their cubs to hunt?) That is simply an extension of the ability to adapt one's behaviour in a changing environment. — Ludwig V

I think on this thread, we keep missing the point when we say ..."but animals also do this or that.."
Like us, animals can and do learn from each other.

I do not believe we are thinking rationally unless we are using higher-order critical thinking skills. Each critical thinking skill is important but maybe this one is the most challenging.. — Athena

Yes, you are right. But you are setting a very high bar. Most of what we do does not involve critical thinking. Left to ourselves, we will only think critically when something is going wrong or in new and unfamiliar circumstances. You may have seen my story about the birds. Here's another. (I can't give you my source for this either, so treat it as a thought-experiment).

Meerkats actually post sentries who do not join in the feeding, but keep watch and raise the alarm when an intruder turns up. The other meerkats keep some food for the sentry, who feeds when all the others have finished. New members of the group are not permitted to act as sentries for a while. Eventually, they are allowed to stand sentry, but at first, when they raise the alarm, the others check it out before everyone rushes to their burrows underground. Eventually, when the sentry has been proved reliable, they are not checked out.
Is that not critical thinking? Or maybe critical thinking is less advanced than you think?

I think on this thread, we keep missing the point when we say ..."but animals also do this or that.."
Like us, animals can and do learn from each other. — L'éléphant

I don't doubt it. But I'm not clear what point you think we are missing. The key question is what, if anything, distinguishes humans from other animals. The issue is whether there is not merely a difference, but a difference so significant that it represents a difference in kind. So "but animals do this or that... " is the point.
It might be the case that a wider range of questions would be of interest. Why not try something out?

we still read off their reasons — Ludwig V

Because we use reason. Animals don’t read reasons. Otherwise we read off of smells and visions and feelings. Like other animals. And “read” in this context is metaphor for sensation. We read reasons, Animals don’t read anything (except metaphorically).

Rational behaviour is not just a set of behaviours distinct from everything else - talking, pondering etc. Rationality is on display in nearly everything that we do. — Ludwig V

Barking is a behavior.
Dogs and humans might sense the loudness of the barking and so you might say as a metaphor that dogs and humans sense the loudness of this behavior. A dog doesn’t wonder if he is barking loud enough, if the volume of his barking is a reasonable volume to convey its fear of the cougar to the rest of the pack. The dog sees the cougar, and the dog barks.

Dogs don’t read the rationality of this behavior. We humans alone exhibit reason and rationalize about it. Dogs just react accordingly. We humans can judge a dog’s reaction as a rational response or not, but I see no evidence that a dog is using reason prior to any response or after the fact, or during a “communication.” A dog is built to receive certain sensations and built to respond to those sensations. We watch a bunch of dogs and start to see patterns and then say “that dog is barking for a reason, that reason being there is a cougar in sight.” But really, the dog’s body sees the cougar and the dog’s body starts to bark (all the dogs that saw cougars and don’t bark were eaten and weeded out of the gene pool). The dog didn’t see the cougar and use reason to know barking loudly makes the most sense is the most rational behavior among a list of other behaviors. The dog just barks, making no choice, having no thought behind it, utterly unaware of the rationality that can be found in this by humans.

I see reason and thinking and willing and judgment and language all tied up together. You have one of these, you say one of these words, you also conjure up the others. Reason involves logical inference, representational language, judgment and choice. We have to use reason to deliberate and make a choice. We have to use judgment to choose what objects are the most reasonable objects to deliberate about. When we focus our reason on a subject, we are choosing that focus. These are all human things.

Dogs don’t need any of that to exhibit all of the behaviors they exhibit.

Man sees a cougar and instead of yelling “look out!” he deliberates how best to save the people that don’t yet see the cougar. Should the man consider the bird flying overhead? Should the man be thinking about whether yelling at the cougar will trigger it to pounce? Should the man be thinking about chocolate ice cream? If he is trying to help those other people, some of those thoughts are reasonable. Some aren’t. Should the man be thinking that he is wasting time thinking and he should react right now instead? “Look out for that cougar!!!”

Dogs don’t bother with all of that. They always bark, which works good enough for the majority of dogs.

The very fact that we humans see “rationality” in the universe at all, and then talk about it, is behavior exhibited nowhere else besides humans.

It may be rational in a human being’s eyes for a dog to feel fear and bark at the sight of a cougar. We humans can make these connections and see this rationality in the dog’s behavior. But it does not appear to be “rational” to the dog. Is see no evidence that the dog itself used reason or had a reason for barking. The dog never appears aware of the rationality or irrationality of anything (or the dog might start trying new things or discussing options and choices with his pack mates, or the barking would have to become language and more complicated “communication”.)

Yes, you are right. But you are setting a very high bar. Most of what we do does not involve critical thinking. Left to ourselves, we will only think critically when something is going wrong or in new and unfamiliar circumstances. You may have seen my story about the birds. Here's another. (I can't give you my source for this either, so treat it as a thought-experiment).

Meerkats actually post sentries who do not join in the feeding, but keep watch and raise the alarm when an intruder turns up. The other meerkats keep some food for the sentry, who feeds when all the others have finished. New members of the group are not permitted to act as sentries for a while. Eventually, they are allowed to stand sentry, but at first, when they raise the alarm, the others check it out before everyone rushes to their burrows underground. Eventually, when the sentry has been proved reliable, they are not checked out.
Is that not critical thinking? Or maybe critical thinking is less advanced than you think? — Ludwig V

Thank you so much for working with me on this effort to understand rational thinking and human/animal differences. I am not done looking for information because I don't think my understanding is complete. I keep hoping someone will jump in and say what I am trying to say.

I think your story is close to the story of how dogs became domesticated. A few wild dogs dared to come close to humans and over time those dogs became comfortable with humans and these dogs naturally did selective breeding, breeding with the dogs with a high tolerance for humans. This led to genetic changes that made domestic dogs domestic. Interestingly they are the only animals that will investigate where we point. Domestic dogs have learned to read us and how to manipulate us as well as how to be excellent hunting partners and service dogs. The bottom line this is genetic. Do not bring a wolf home and expect it to play fetch with you because there is a genetic difference between wild dogs and domestic ones. In the dogs or meerkats change happened over time. The animal in question became comfortable with the other and we could say built trust (has a different feeling response). This is feeling and reacting not reasoning. Chimps needing a new troop will approach very carefully and hang around the fringes until invited in.

But when it comes to rational we are speaking of something different and the problem in talking about it is how we use the word rational. Someone who believes the Bible is the word of God, has rationalized a lot to not see some problems with that belief. Someone prejudiced of people who look different and can even believe the other is not fully human have wrongly rationalized their feelings and thoughts. I wish we didn't use the same word for rationalizing a myth and other false beliefs and think this rationalization is equal to scientific, or higher-order thinking. Believing a myth or other wrong thoughts does not take critical thinking skills. Grasping science and having justice and liberty for all, does take critical thinking skills.

The difference is about HOW we think, not WHAT we think. And the difference is being as an animal or as an evolved human being.

Tangentially related anecdote:
I once had an acquaintance who steadfastly denied that animals other than man had intelligence or any form of thought; he maintained that they are little more than automata that respond to stimuli without any understanding. Then he told me that his neighbour's German Shepherd hated him. (Gee, I wonder why!)

Rational behaviour is not just a set of behaviours distinct from everything else - talking, pondering etc. Rationality is on display in nearly everything that we do.
— Ludwig V

Barking is a behavior.
Dogs and humans might sense the loudness of the barking and so you might say as a metaphor that dogs and humans sense the loudness of this behavior. A dog doesn’t wonder if he is barking loud enough, if the volume of his barking is a reasonable volume to convey its fear of the cougar to the rest of the pack. The dog sees the cougar, and the dog barks. — Fire Ologist

I came home from Hawaii early because my sister with a timeshare in Hawaii was stressed to the breaking point and could no more be rational with me than a barking dog. She is a highly educated and successful woman, but under the circumstances, she was like a barking dog towards me. It was insane! She would talk with others like a rational human being and in a flash attack me like a dog.

I think our ability to behave as rational human beings may be fragile. I think education focused on technology and not our development as good family members and good citizens, may have led to a much higher rate of irrational behavior. I think this happened to Germany and became the Nazi phenomenon. A social value shift that may come with threats of social breakdown.

I once had an acquaintance who steadfastly denied that animals other than man had intelligence or any form of thought; he maintained that they are little more than automata that respond to stimuli without any understanding. Then he told me that his neighbour's German Shepherd hated him. (Gee, I wonder why!) — Vera Mont

That acquaintance may have underrated the value of emotion and its part in thinking. Do you remember the original Star Trek show? In one episode Captain Kirk became two individuals, one was all bad and the other all good. The point is that we need to be balanced to have good judgment.

Meerkats actually post sentries who do not join in the feeding, but keep watch and raise the alarm when an intruder turns up. The other meerkats keep some food for the sentry, who feeds when all the others have finished. New members of the group are not permitted to act as sentries for a while. Eventually, they are allowed to stand sentry, but at first, when they raise the alarm, the others check it out before everyone rushes to their burrows underground. Eventually, when the sentry has been proved reliable, they are not checked out.
Is that not critical thinking? Or maybe critical thinking is less advanced than you think? — Ludwig V

That's very interesting to think about. It suggests to me that not only pattern recognition, but pattern seeking plays an important part in meerkat rationality. I.e. that being attentive to the pattern of behavior consistent with a junior sentry having attained sentry expertise (or lack thereof) plays an important role in meerkat behavior.

I don't know how we might test if logic is much involved on the part of the meerkat. Perhaps some so strongly associate critical thinking with logic, (and not without good reason) that they wouldn't grant that this suggests critical thinking on the part of meerkats. However, I'm inclined to think this points to meerkats having at least some aspects of what could be considered criitical thinking.

She is a highly educated and successful woman, but under the circumstances, she was like a barking dog towards me. — Athena

When the air in my house is above 75 degrees, the air conditioning goes on and the house is cooled and the thermostat reacts to the cooler temperature and shuts off the air conditioner.

I could say that my air conditioner uses its thermostat to sense the temperature and then desires to cool the house so it rationally engages the air conditioner until the house reaches the system’s desired temperature.

Or I could just say it’s all a system of stimuli and responses with no inner life, self-awareness, decision-making capability or rational capability.

We could say the same thing about animals.

Determinists (use reason) to say the same thing about humans.

Maybe the better question is do humans have the ability to reason? My answer would be that formulating a question like that displays behavior of a being capable of reason.

Animals don’t ask questions. Ever.

I have two dogs. I love them. But they aren’t using reason. They are predictable because of their structure, not because of their adherence to reason. My dog is sitting at my foot leaning on me right now. He’s not communicating or hoping I like what he’s doing. He just feels good enough to pass out at my feet right now. When he begs at the dinnner table, there is no plan or thought or reason behind how his ear flops and looks cute enough to convince me to give him a treat. He’s just does what he does, and benefits from it working. If it didn’t work, he wouldn’t wonder how it didn’t work because it was perfectly reasonable to him and try to improve the reasoning. He would just be pushed into the next posture and position. Probably licking something.

We can’t even understand the nature of our own behavior when we use reason or make a choice or reflect on our own minds, but for some reason, because we love them I suppose, we see so much reason and choice and mental activity in animals.

result of such pattern recognition is some understanding on my part, of your need to see yourself as particularly special, and how that influences the thinking that goes into your posts. This need to see yourself as particularly special isn't something I think you have made a free willed choice to have, and not something I see you as to blame for. In fact I appreciate your skill at keeping keeping your rage covert. And of course, we are all narcissistic to some extent. — wonderer1

Thank you, I do try to be civil and avoid coming off as condescending. I think we all need a sense of being special and having something of value to offer. To me, this isn't a bad thing compared to sitting at home and doing nothing and making no effort to think or engage others. Overeating in a futile effort to end the feeling of hunger caused by unmet emotional needs. So I hope people do continue to do their best and feel that s/he is making a valued contribution. Making the effort is better than not making the effort, right? But it ain't easy.

This need to see yourself as particularly special isn't something I think you have made a free willed choice to have, and not something I see you as to blame for. In fact I appreciate your skill at keeping keeping your rage covert. And of course, we are all narcissistic to some extent. — wonderer1

Nonsense. I don’t see myself as ‘special’. I have presented a specific argument based on a number of sources in this thread. I understand the argument I’m pursuing is a difficult one to both articulate and understand, especially in the kind of fragmented format that forum conversations tend to assume. I don’t see any indication that you (and for that matter other participants) have understood the gist of the argument. It is not because I’m ‘special’, it has nothing whatever to do with it. Your statements here are ad hominem, how about you try and respond the actual specifics of what I’ve been arguing for, if you want to take issue with them.

Thank you, I do try to be civil and avoid coming off as condescending. I think we all need a sense of being special and having something of value to offer. To me, this isn't a bad thing compared to sitting at home and doing nothing and making no effort to think or engage others. Overeating in a futile effort to end the feeling of hunger caused by unmet emotional needs. So I hope people do continue to do their best and feel that s/he is making a valued contribution. Making the effort is better than not making the effort, right? But it ain't easy. — Athena

I don't disagree, and what you quoted wasn't directed at you.

Nonsense. I don’t see myself as ‘special’. I have presented a specific argument based on a number of sources in this thread.. I understand the argument I’m pursuing is a difficult one to both articulate and understand, especially in the kind of fragmented format that forum conversations tend to assume. I don’t see any indication that you (and for that matter other participants) have understood the gist of the argument. It is not because I’m ‘special’, it has nothing whatever to do with it. Your statements here are ad hominem, how about you try and respond the actual specifics of what I’ve been arguing for, if you want to take issue with them. — Wayfarer

What you call an argument amounted to your naive psychologizing regarding the thinking of lots of people. I'm not going to bother to detail the fallaciousness of all that.

Anyway, I suggest that if you want to avoid your psychology being under consideration, avoiding making such naive claims about the psychology of others might be a good idea.

We humans can judge a dog’s reaction as a rational response or not, but I see no evidence that a dog is using reason prior to any response or after the fact, or during a “communication.” — Fire Ologist

OK. So it turns out that you will accept that a dog's reaction is a rational response, but deny that the dog is rational because they don't "use reason". I take it that you mean that the dog doesn't say out loud "This is the situation, so I should do that." But humans often act without verbalizing their reasons out loud. Does that mean they aren't rational either?

This is feeling and reacting not reasoning. Chimps needing a new troop will approach very carefully and hang around the fringes until invited in. — Athena

Well, if the feelings are rational and the reactions appropriate, what's the problem saying the meerkats, chimps or crows are rational?

The difference is about HOW we think, not WHAT we think. And the difference is being as an animal or as an evolved human being. — Athena

Are you talking about the out loud verbalizing of your reasons for doing something - or the maybe silent process of planning an action? But if you have to plan each action to be counted as rational, then you have to plan to plan, and plan to plan to plan.... If you have to verbalize your reasons for doing something if you are to count as acting rationally, then you have to verbalize your reasons for verbalizing your reasons... No, No, that doesn't work. It has to be possible to act without verbalizing reasons and without advance planning and yet to act rationally.

I once had an acquaintance who steadfastly denied that animals other than man had intelligence or any form of thought; he maintained that they are little more than automata that respond to stimuli without any understanding. Then he told me that his neighbour's German Shepherd hated him. (Gee, I wonder why!) — Vera Mont

They always know. It's the body language. Kids are pretty good at it, too. But we lose the knack when we get grown-up. Pity.

I think our ability to behave as rational human beings may be fragile. I think education focused on technology and not our development as good family members and good citizens, may have led to a much higher rate of irrational behavior. I think this happened to Germany and became the Nazi phenomenon. A social value shift that may come with threats of social breakdown. — Athena

Oh, I'm quite sure that our ability to behave rationally is fragile. I'm sorry to hear about your sister's behaviour.

However, I'm inclined to think this points to meerkats having at least some aspects of what could be considered criitical thinking. — wonderer1

Well, I wouldn't attribute the whole gamut of human critical skills to meerkats. Just some basics.

We humans can judge a dog’s reaction as a rational response or not, but I see no evidence that a dog is using reason prior to any response or after the fact, or during a “communication.” — Fire Ologist

OK. So it turns out that you will accept that a dog's reaction is a rational response, but deny that the dog is rational because they don't "use reason". I take it that you mean that the dog doesn't say out loud "This is the situation, so I should do that." But humans often act without verbalizing their reasons out loud. Does that mean they aren't rational either? — Ludwig V

Once again, I think you misunderstood. I don't read Fire's comment as saying the dog's reaction is rational. This is the pitfall of propositional logic. Humans can judge (view) the dog's reaction as rational, not that it is rational. Fire's comment went on to explain that he does not see any evidence that the dog is using reason.

I once had an acquaintance who steadfastly denied that animals other than man had intelligence or any form of thought; he maintained that they are little more than automata that respond to stimuli without any understanding. — Vera Mont

I started a thread a while back on something I had read that Descartes used to flay dogs alive, assuring onlookers that their cries of agony were due only to mechanical reactions, not any genuine feeling of pain. During the course of the thread, I did more research, and discovered that this was not true, and that at one point, Descartes had a pet dog which he treated with affection. However, the anecdote was not entirely devoid of fact, because students at a Dutch university who were followers of Descartes' mechanical philosophy did, in fact, perform those dreadful 'experiments', and it is true that Descartes believed that animals were automata without souls, as he identified the soul with the ability to reason. I think he was mistaken in this respect, but understanding why he would think such a thing is an important point.

I'll make clear, I believe intentional action is fundamental to all forms of life from the very inception, and also that feeling and sensation are fundamental to sentient organisms, even very basic ones. (I'm currently reading Mind in Life, Evan Thompson, which explores these subjects in depth.) I recognise the continuity between human life and animal life in an organic sense. But I argue that with language, rationality, and also the capacity for transcendent insight, h.sapiens have crossed a threshhold which differentiates us from other animals, and that this difference is something we have to be responsible for, rather than denying.

Presenting an argument on the cultural background of philosophical attitudes has nothing to do with discussing 'the psychology of others'.

I'll recap the arguments I've presented in this thread.

Aristotle's distinction between the vegetative, sensitive and rational soul. He distinguishes h.sapiens as 'the rational animal' on the basis that humans can recognise universal concepts through the faculty of intellect or 'nous' (a seminal word in the Western philosophical tradition.) I acknowledge that Aristotle's is an ancient philosophy, but point out that some of his foundational concepts remain part of philosophy of biology to this day, and also to the foundational role of the 'ideas' in Plato's and later philosophy (1)

I then go on to argue that the human abilities of language, abstraction, tool use, and so on, also introduce an existential dimension to the question of human reason (2). The existential dimension arises with the sense of self and self-consciousness in paleolithic culture, as illustrated by the passages quoted from Norman Fischer (3). He links this with the arising of religion, which is posited as a means to ease or rationalise the sense of 'otherness' and alienation that is part of the self-conscious condition. I also remark that the Biblical myth of the Fall is an allegory for this condition.

Finally I argue that the modern insistence that 'we are no different from animals', is based on a subconsious longing for return to one-ness. We want to see ourselves as part of nature, and believe that evolutionary biology shows that we are. Hence any suggestion of human exceptionalism is violently rejected, as it calls this belief into question.

If you want to demonstrate that these arguments are based on my 'narcissism', knock yourself out. ;-)

hey always know. It's the body language. Kids are pretty good at it, too. But we lose the knack when we get grown-up. Pity. — Ludwig V

My observation at the time was the contradiction in him, not the dog. The anthropo-exclusive part says "They're nothing more than machines", while the responsive human part recognizes another sentient, responsive being.
Hate is not a reflex; it's a complex state of mind, made up of several emotions, experience, and memory. Machines can't hate. (In reality, he was probably exaggerating, and the dog was simply annoyed at his attitude. People get very huffy when they're disliked or disapproved-of.)

Descartes had a pet dog which he treated with affection. However, the anecdote was not entirely devoid of fact, because students at a Dutch university who were followers of Descartes' mechanical philosophy did, in fact, perform those dreadful 'experiments', and it is true that Descartes believed that animals were automata without souls, as he identified the soul with the ability to reason. — Wayfarer

And he argued the proof as "they don't do philosophy". He argued the mechanistic view of animals against Cudworth over some period of correspondence. This is another example of the double-think my acquaintance exhibited.
It's not uncommon. A pathologist I knew had a pair of prized and pampered Siamese cats at home, and seemed to have no problem inducing tumours in laboratory cats.

Earlier:

I think the phrase 'for fear of reinforcing the idea of human exceptionalism put forward in religious doctrines' is actually a key driver for a lot of what is being argued in this thread, and I think I know why. — Wayfarer

Later:

Finally I argue that the modern insistence that 'we are no different from animals', is based on a subconsious longing for return to one-ness. We want to see ourselves as part of nature, and believe that evolutionary biology shows that we are. Hence any suggestion of human exceptionalism is violently rejected, as it calls this belief into question. — Wayfarer

Do you see how you keep making my point?

Is anyone in this thread "violently" rejecting human exceptionalism, or are people simply expressing various nuanced views?