Sure. Interesting idea for discussion but probably another thread.

Hmmm……

Given the irreducible condition of human reason, re: the propensity for inquiring after impossible results, how would it ever be concluded lesser animals exhibit congruent reason? Not so much that lesser animals, e.g., inquire of infinite things, but rather, that they construct a conception antecedent to the inquiry, hence establishing its possibility.

Given that human reason is the only reason possible for a human to examine, insofar as such reason must be self-reflective necessarily, under what possible conditions would lesser animals be determinable as possessing it, or anything like it, insofar as the self-reflective necessity, is impossible?

Pretty silly, methinks: dog says to himself….humans don’t even know how their own rationality works, but they wonder nonetheless whether I have any. Best they are equipped to affirm is, they have an intelligence of their own, and for them to grant we dogs have an intelligence of our own, is at least not susceptible to such idle speculations, should one of them inquire why we don’t climb mountains just because one of them happens to be there, and we can. You know…..in between burying bones, destroying sofa cushions and whatnot.

(Sigh)

Scientific American 2014 - What Makes Humans Different Than Any Other Species

Scientific American 2018 - What Made Us Unique — Ludwig V

I've read those. I also read
2 Mental Abilities Separate Humans from Animals.

Much is made of learning from each other. Here's a good quote about it, from What Made Us Unique:

The emerging consensus is that humanity’s accomplishments derive from an ability to acquire knowledge and skills from other people. Individuals then build iteratively on that reservoir of pooled knowledge over long periods. This communal store of experience enables creation of ever more efficient and diverse solutions to life’s challenges. It was not our large brains, intelligence or language that gave us culture but rather our culture that gave us large brains, intelligence and language. For our species and perhaps a small number of other species, too, culture transformed the evolutionary process. — Kevin Laland

I don't agree for two reasons. First, because, at least in humans, language is a huge part of a culture. How can we say either lead to the other?

Second, many species live in groups, and many have been doing so for far longer than we have. But what other species has language that can express anywhere near the number of things human languages can (we can make an infinite number of sentences), or the variety of kinds of things (infinity; the future; death; fiction; etc., etc.) Despite being in groups longer than us, and having us as models for a long time now, no other species has managed it. They do not have the mental capacity to develop it themselves, or even copy it. Which makes sense. Why would they have a language that allows them to talk abouy things they don't think about?

I do, however, agree with the importance of our interactions with each other for the development of our thinking and language. (Also consciousness.)

And I'm not claiming I an incredibly special. We all are. Yes, even you. No member of any other species would be reacting the way you are now. One of the pitfalls of the ways we think that no other species does.
— Patterner
I'm not denying what you say. But it's more complicated than that. If everybody is special, then nobody is special. So some explanation of what "special" means here is necessary. — Ludwig V

I am not saying any human is special compared to any other human. I'm saying humans are special compared with any other species. We are doing things no other species does, and changing the face of the world as we do it, because we are thinking about things, and in different ways, than any other species does. Any number of species may be special for one reason or another. This is the way that humans are special. And, in my opinion, the way we are special is of more value, and has greater impact, than the way any the other species is special. (Also, The Incredibles?)

Do you suppose the mother of a wildebeest that has watched it's child, perhaps more than one over the years, murdered, torn apart, and eaten, suffers the horrors I would?
— Patterner
Do you suppose that I have any way of "really" understanding how any mother, never mind the mother of wildebeest, feels about the loss of a child - even though I have lost a child. The balance between understanding and projection is very difficult. To be more accurate, we can be pretty certain of our understanding at a general level, but when you get down to details it gets much, much more difficult. — Ludwig V

Well, I'm so glad i brought up that particular example.

I'm more sorry than I can possibly express. I cannot imagine.

I would be surprised if you think a parent in any other species has ever gone through the depth or duration of emotional pain that you have.

Yet there is no spark of understanding. They somehow simply happened to stumble upon using X to accomplish Y, and they kept doing it.
— Patterner
I don't understand you.
If a pigeon stumbles on the fact that pecking a specific item in their cage produces food and keeps on doing it until it has eaten enough, that it doesn't understand what is going on? It may not understand about the aims of the experiment or what an experiment is, but it understands what is important to it. In any case, human beings also stumble on facts and have no hesitation in exploiting them to the limit of their understanding (which is often quite severe and detrimental to their long-term interests). — Ludwig V

What I mean is, once they have it, they don't run with it. They do not use tools for new purposes, and don't apply ideas to new situations.

I'm just saying we are unique in that we think in ways no other species thinks.
— Patterner
I'm guessing that mathematics and perhaps ethics are examples of what you have in mind. Yet people seem quite happy to ask whether dogs can do calculus and to insist that they can make and execute a plan of action to achieve a common end. And then, attributing values to them seems inherent in saying that they are alive and sentient and social - even in saying that evolution applies to them.
I think you would question whether dogs can do any mathematics, never mind calculus, or really make and execute a plan. I also think you would question whether dogs really understand ethics, even if they have desires. There's a common theme, because it would not be unreasonable to think that (human) language is essential for both. Am I wrong? — Ludwig V

You are not. Who doesn't think in words? I've heard that some people hear the words of what they're thinking. I don't "hear" the words in my mind, although i think in words. Others say they see the words in their mind. Some say neither of those are happening when they think. But does anyone think without words?

No, dogs don't do math. I know many animals recognize groups of objects of certain sizes. That doesn't mean they count them, and it doesn't mean they can add and subtract.

Nor do I think they have any concept of ethics. Does an alligator, lion, or eagle think it's wrong to kill and eat whatever its prey is? Does a fisher think it's wrong to kill someone's little dog? Have we ever seen any behavior that suggests the any animals have such thoughts?

Yes - His Treatise though not his True Intellectual System.

And also Richard Burthogge - extremely, extremely interesting - An Essay Upon Reason. A mix of Locke and Kant. Superb.

You know of Cudworth and More. Music to my ears. :cheer:

Chimps are more aggressive than Bonobo. They look the same but they are totally different creatures, as are wolves and domesticated dogs different. Also, a sample of one does not represent the group. Only some wild dogs tolerated human beings and became domestic.
OMG what has happened to my brain? :lol: My brain is starting to work like a researcher checking out a peers idea of a good research project. I think the professor I have watched and the books I read have effected my thinking process.

When it comes to learning the learner's relationship with the teacher is very important. Oh dear, I just started to make a statement that would be untrue. I was going to say we would never leave a human child to be raised by several people, but today we don't even think about it, as Mom goes to work. I do not think that is a good idea. Leaving a child to be raised by multiple people, is not that far from denying animals have feelings and relationships and can be hurt if we ignore that. I wish I could complete a book about this subject because I believe this subject includes walking into a school fully armed and killing as many people as possible. Shame on the researchers for being so careless. I doubt if the young men who shoot up people in a school, were good students either.

Burthogge - “An Essay Upon Reason…. — Manuel

Interesting indeed. Thanks for it, “….and the Nature of Spirits” notwithstanding.

Correct! :cool:

I am trying to figure out how to reply to you in a way that is congruent with the subject.

Can we say learning how to get what we want is important to fit in the social group? Humans are emotional and they create their own stories about their lives and everyone else. They may create stories that increase emotional problems and disrupt normal social bonding. How different is this from other social animals?

As for judging if someone is narcissistic, I don't think that is our job. Trust me my family can tell you how judgmental and controlling I am. The bad reaction I have gotten from my family and people online makes me try very hard to avoid those unpleasant reactions. And this brings us back to what do animals learn. What are the best conditions for learning?

As a child, I always went to the defense of a peer who was being rejected and it is interesting to see that I am still doing that. I was a very lonely child and didn't want others to suffer this pain. Aren't we interesting, and how different are we from other social animals? Can a forum be a good place for people struggling to be accepted and maybe even appreciated? Can we make the world a better place in small ways? Does a bonobo think like this? I think that is possible.

That's what I've been arguing for, and also, why is it that it seems such a hard thing to grasp. Apparently that makes me a pathological narcissist... — Wayfarer

This is straw manning/gaslighting. No one has claimed that arguing for human exceptionalism is associated with narcissism. Gaslighting however, is strongly associated with narcissism.

It's patterns to your behavior which I have observed over the course of the last year and a half, including observations of your responses to deliberate probing on my part, that result in me recognizing the narcisstic pattern to your thinking. For example, things I have said to you, that I would expect to result in a raging response if directed towards a grandiose narcissist, have coincided with you taking long breaks from the forum. Such behavior on your part fits the characteristics of covert narcissism, rather than grandiose narcissism.

However, I don't want to layout all the evidence, and those interested in developing a recognition of the pattern can look into it for themselves.

...although of course I don't possess the insight to see it. — Wayfarer

Also characteristic of narcissists.

There's a feed-back loop. Human doesn't respond to dog's greeting. Dog is confused and unhappy and withdraws. Human thinks that dog dislikes them, which is not wrong, so gets prickly - body language, looks away. Dog gets further upset. It's about a dynamic relationship. — Ludwig V

Exactly the kind of relationship you can't have with an automaton. Experiencing this mutual animosity, he yet insisted that dogs don't think and feel the way we do.

Humans are not the only animal that can hold a grudge, carry on a spiteful feud, suffer PTS or become disoriented and frustrated when confronted with contradictory data. But they can't be insane in the same way as humans because their relationship with their environment is direct and uncomplicated.
We are the only animal that can hold two or more mutually exclusive convictions at the same time, because we compartmentalize concepts, roles, feelings, other persons. (e.g. the sanctity of life .... reinstate the death penalty...) We can believe the opposite of what the evidence presents (see politics) and desire what is harmful to us (obsession, greed, ambition...) We are also intensely self-conscious, validation-dependent; we dramatize our emotions and aggrandize our ideas; our relationships with society and other persons are never simple. And that is why we are so prone to mental illness: the walls between compartments take a great deal of effort to maintain in good repair. When they leak, we are conflicted; when they break down, we become psychotic.

Much is made of learning from each other. — Patterner

Yes. Not just in formal teaching/learning situations, but in everyday interaction. At that age, everything is a learning opportunity.

... because, at least in humans, language is a huge part of a culture. How can we say either lead to the other? — Patterner

We can't say either leads to the other. The ability to speak and to interact with people are intertwined with each other.

Second, many species live in groups, and many have been doing so for far longer than we have. — Patterner

Good point. And why not? you may ask. But I'm pushing the point that our way of like is developed from animal ways of life and, in my opinion, cannot be down to just one factor, but to many interacting factors. All of which may have existed independently in the animal kingdom, but "took off", so to speak, when they developed together.

And, in my opinion, the way we are special is of more value, and has greater impact, than the way any the other species is special. (Also, The Incredibles?) — Patterner

I don't see how you can possible make that judgement. Given that our specialness is as much a curse and a blessing, to the rest of the planet and ourselves as well.

I would be surprised if you think a parent in any other species has ever gone through the depth or duration of emotional pain that you have. — Patterner

One is always tempted to think that it is worse for me than anyone else. I don't believe in comparing these things - "My grief is greater/lesser than yours" does not help anybody. It was a while ago, but it is, of course, very far from forgotten.

But does anyone think without words? — Patterner

Well, I once encountered someone (on another forum) who claimed that he planned how to pack his suitcase by imagining various arrangements of the things he had to pack - visually. He said it worked for him. How could I argue with him? I can't be dogmatic about it. If he could think in images, why can't dogs? Suggestive thought - Dogs do appear to have dreams.

What I mean is, once they have it, they don't run with it. They do not use tools for new purposes, and don't apply ideas to new situations. — Patterner

There is truth in that. We have hyper-developed various capacities. But I don't think we have hyper-developed just one capacity.

No, dogs don't do math. I know many animals recognize groups of objects of certain sizes. That doesn't mean they count them, and it doesn't mean they can add and subtract. — Patterner

No they don't. So how do they catch Frisbees? Actually, since we can also catch Frisbees without doing any math, we know that math is not critical to catching Frisbees. So articulate reason is not the only rationality. On the other hand, it seems pretty clear that we can locate sounds in space because of the time and volume differences between our two ears. But we are not aware of that difference, except as implied in knowing the location of the sound. This is not a simple issue.

Nor do I think they have any concept of ethics. Does an alligator, lion, or eagle think it's wrong to kill and eat whatever its prey is? Does a fisher think it's wrong to kill someone's little dog? Have we ever seen any behavior that suggests the any animals have such thoughts? — Patterner

They don't see anything wrong with killing their prey. Most humans don't either. Sure, there are complications in this case, but it is not the whole of ethics.

Chimps, apparently, and perhaps dogs do have a sense of fair play in that if they see another chimp/dog being fed better than they are, they will protest, vigorously. Their apparent sense of outrage when the pecking order is disrupted is another example.

Substitute 'soul' with 'mind' and I think Cudworth makes a valid point. — Wayfarer

I did enjoy that. I'll always be more tolerant of platonists in future.

that they construct a conception antecedent to the inquiry, hence establishing its possibility. — Mww

Dogs (I'll stick to the concrete example, if I may) have concepts, but not language. Their concepts are shown in their (non-verbal) actions - as are ours, if you recognize meaning as use.

under what possible conditions would lesser animals be determinable as possessing it, or anything like it, insofar as the self-reflective necessity, is impossible? — Mww

Well, you can watch a dog searching for a weak spot in a fence, and getting their companion to come and help open it up. That suggests how they might solve some problems - and that's a process that we can recognize as rational - in humans and in dogs.

They may not climb mountains because they are there, (is that rational??) but they can gallop across a field because it's there and eat a snack because it's there. There are lots of different connections, which we can only ever know if we engage with them sympathetically, setting aside presuppositions so far as possible, or at least being willing to question them.

I once watched a flock of sheep in a field. One of them had found a gap in the fence, and the whole flock was queuing to get through it, all lined up in a single file, clearly politely waiting for others to get through as opposed to all making a mad dash at the same time. What did they expect to find? Greener grass, possibly, but there was nothing wrong with the grass they already had. Perhaps just because it was there. Who knows? Did they know? (I had to ring the farmer, who turned up in short order and wrecked my philosophical moment.)

Pretty silly, methinks: dog says to himself…. — Mww

Very sensible, your dog.

(Sigh) — Mww

Oh yes, I know that sigh.

Exactly the kind of relationship you can't have with an automaton. Experiencing this mutual animosity, he yet insisted that dogs don't think and feel the way we do. — Vera Mont

Yes. I know it seems crazy. And you are right that animals don't seem capable of tolerating that kind of cognitive dissonance. They do seem wonderfully simple and direct by comparison with humans.

One does feel that something like that must have happened. But we don't have, and probably never will have any detailed evidence about what actually happened. It's important to keep hold of the proviso. Philosophers are very fond of "it must be that way, so it is that way" - and less fond of being proved wrong. — Ludwig V

Yes, we do have information that can support how dogs became domestic. By studying the DNA we know when wild dogs became fully domestic. Dogs are not the only animals that can be domesticated and we are not going to make a turkey a domesticated animal. Animals that can not be domesticated may get along with humans just fine until puberty.

I have heard some pigs can make good pets and because you said (they may follow a human point), I looked for more information. https://www.nationalgeographic.com/animals/article/pigs-dogs-pets-communication . Some pigs bond with humans and may communicate with them like dogs do. Interestingly pigs need the social factor. I think they rather be with their own kind, but if their only choice is a human they will settle for making friends with a human.

because pointing (ostensive definition) is usually thought to be fundamental in learning language. — Ludwig V

That is so interesting! When teaching bonobo how to communicate with a picture board maybe this reaction of following a point plays into the learning? Do you have more information about this?

Can a forum be a good place for people struggling to be accepted and maybe even appreciated? — Athena

Absolutely.

Can we make the world a better place in small ways?

Sure. In light of Trump's presidency and candidacy, taking an opportunity to promote recognition of narcissism might be one small way.

Anyway, I think our pragmatic concerns are too different for us to reach aggreement anytime soon.

Given the irreducible condition of human reason, re: the propensity for inquiring after impossible results, how would it ever be concluded lesser animals exhibit congruent reason? — Mww

How it's normally done is: choose a dictionary definition of 'reason', rather than a philosophical stance.
Then, set a problem that requires awareness of cause and effect, rather than instinct or brute force.
Devise a test for the subject to solve this problem.
Observe how different species, including humans, go about confronting the problem, and whrether any species solves it successfully.

And you are right that animals don't seem capable of tolerating that kind of cognitive dissonance. They do seem wonderfully simple and direct by comparison with humans. — Ludwig V

Not unlike human children, until their culture teaches them not only to tolerate but to cultivate and promote double- and triple-think. Many of us cope with this extra complication with only a small amount of internal strife, frustration and substance abuse, but an inordinately large percentage become destructive, violent, turn against one another, fall into superstition and cult behaviour.

What counts as thinking? What counts as rational thinking? The answers need a minimal criterion, which in turn, requires the right sort of methodological approach. Do you have a minimum criterion which, when met by a candidate, counts as thinking? Rational thinking? If not, then upon what ground do you rest your denial that some creatures other than humans are capable of thought, rational or otherwise? — creativesoul

I agree. But I don't have the answers. The general idea I get from looking it up is that rational thinking and decisions are arrived at through logic and reason. Especially as opposed to through emotion.

I suppose thinking ora decision can be entirely wrong, even if done rationally. The information that the logic/reason works on could be wrong, after sll.

I don't see how you can possible make that judgement. Given that our specialness is as much a curse and a blessing, to the rest of the planet and ourselves as well. — Ludwig V

Still, I make that judgement. It's entirely subjective, after all. I think our intelligence and consciousness (I believe the two are very tightly intertwined) is the most extraordinary thing we are aware of, and capable of more wonders than we can imagine.

And the lack of our intelligence and consciousness is nature. Which includes billions of animals screaming as they're killed and eaten. Unless they're just eaten alive. There may be no malice involved, but there is plenty of pain and fear.

Good point. And why not? you may ask. But I'm pushing the point that our way of like is developed from animal ways of life and, in my opinion, cannot be down to just one factor, but to many interacting factors. All of which may have existed independently in the animal kingdom, but "took off", so to speak, when they developed together.
..................
There is truth in that. We have hyper-developed various capacities. But I don't think we have hyper-developed just one capacity. — Ludwig V

I agree. There may be ways some non-humans think that we do not. Every autumn, freakin' Monarch Butterflies migrate from Canada to the same tiny area in Mexico where they have never been, but where their great grandparents were born. They have senses and abilities we obviously lack, despite their much more limited ability to think. I don't know if they think at all. But if they do, it's bound to be in ways we don't. My point, though, is that, in ways of thinking that we share with other species, the capacity is more developed in us. Not just one thing.

And, we think in ways they don't.

Work that one out! — Wayfarer

:grin: I know of more than a few anecdotes of lesser animals giving all appearances of having a sixth-sense, as it's often termed. From cats finding their way back home after having been driven many many miles away and dropped off by themselves to dogs that (as was videotaped) start waiting for their owner's return home by siting in front of the window staring out of it, this at various times that synchronize with the variable time the owner leaves the workplace, etc. But, if there were to be any such sixth-sense, it would either never be empirically verifiable in a scientific manner - not for humans and certainly not for lesser animals - were it to be spiritual or, else, it would then become something physically explainable and therefore mundane. Cool quote though. And, yes, there are a number of anecdotes of elephants having at times incredible degrees of communication ability via the infrasound they make use of - which seems to possibly be part of what happened in the quote you've mentioned. Still, while some might give effort to interpreting what these anecdotes might or might not signify, there are some humans who'd still affirm that only humans are conscious beings, etc. :palmface:

Dogs (I'll stick to the concrete example, if I may) have concepts, but not language. — Ludwig V

A rather bold statement, is it not? Dogs, and other lesser animals sufficiently equipped with vocalizing physiology, seem to communicate with each other, albeit quite simply, which carries the implication of a merely instinctive simple skill. But it does not follow such skill necessarily involves conceptions, and, if conceptions as such are considered as abstract metaphysical objects, it becomes then a question of whether those lesser animals engage in metaphysical pursuits. And we end up kicking that can down a very VERY long road.

Their concepts are shown in their (non-verbal) actions - as are ours, if you recognize meaning as use. — Ludwig V

I do not so recognize. That which grounds the act of a dog howling and maybe even nipping your foot upon you stepping on his, has no more meaning than an altogether empirical measure of his relative well-being, which most of us are inclined to grant, rather than inviting non-empirical conceptual cause/effect relations he must form pursuant to his intellectual capacity, which some of us are not.
—————

….how would it ever be concluded lesser animals exhibit congruent reason?
— Mww

How it's normally done is: choose a dictionary definition of 'reason', rather than a philosophical stance. — Vera Mont

Nahhhh….I’m not doing that. Reason is already defined by whichever philosophical stance incorporates it, either by what it is, and/or by what it does.

There’s no need for experiment: there is only that reason as a human thinks of it, and thereby there is only that reason as belongs to intelligence of his kind. While it is justifiable to grant the possibility that lesser animals have a fundamental ground for their own intelligence, it must remain impossible to ascertain whether, and susceptible to palpable contradiction to merely assume, that ground in the lesser is in any way discernible by the higher. And with that, the notion of discursive rational thought, the construction of pure a priori logical relations as contained, theoretically, in the human intellect, falls by the wayside in those lesser, indiscernible, intellects.

A rather bold statement, is it not? Dogs, and other lesser animals sufficiently equipped with vocalizing physiology, seem to communicate with each other, albeit quite simply, which carries the implication of a merely instinctive simple skill. But it does not follow such skill necessarily involves conceptions, and, if conceptions as such are considered as abstract metaphysical objects, it becomes then a question of whether those lesser animals engage in metaphysical pursuits. And we end up kicking that can down a very VERY long road. — Mww

Language is a prerequisite to rational thought only according to one particular philosophical school of thought, not according to the meaning of the word. And what have metaphysics got to do with practical problem-solving? (or anything real, for that matter) got it.

Nahhhh….I’m not doing that. Reason is already defined by whichever philosophical stance incorporates it, either by what it is, and/or by what it does. — Mww

Right; got it. "Words mean what I want them to. If you don't speak my biased language, everything you say is wrong."

There’s no need for experiment: there is only that reason as a human thinks of it, and thereby there is only that reason as belongs to intelligence of his kind.

Nothing elliptical about that logic!

Right; got it. — Vera Mont

Yeaahhhhhno, you don’t. Not this time anyway.

For example, things I have said to you, that I would expect to result in a raging response if directed towards a grandiose narcissist, have coincided with you taking long breaks from the forum. Such behavior on your part fits the characteristics of covert narcissism, rather than grandiose narcissism. — wonderer1

You flatter yourself. You evince no evidence of learning in philosophy beyond a smattering of popular neuroscience.

And also Richard Burthogge - extremely, extremely interesting - An Essay Upon Reason — Manuel

Listed on Michael R. Thompson Rare Books for US$4,600 :yikes: It would want to be interesting! (Although that is for a first edition.) Nevertheless I will persist in looking around for a bootleg copy.

Dogs (I'll stick to the concrete example, if I may) have concepts, but not language. Their concepts are shown in their (non-verbal) actions - as are ours, if you recognize meaning as use. — Ludwig V

I think a case can be made that concepts must be able to be expressed in symbolic form (e.g. linguistic or arithmetical) if they are to be considered as such. Certainly we (and dogs, cats, etc) have innumerable non-verbal skills and intuitions, but concepts proper are the prerogative of language-using beings. A dog might have a memory or association with an object or person and as a consequence be scared of it, but I would argue this is still explainable in terms of stimulus and response rather than with reference to conceptual thought. (This is why I presented the passage earlier from Jacques Maritain.)

concept /ˈkɒnsɛpt/ noun: an abstract idea.
"structuralism is a difficult concept"
Similar:
idea notion conception abstraction conceptualization theory hypothesis postulation belief conviction opinion view image impression picture
* a plan or intention.
"the centre has kept firmly to its original concept"
* an idea or invention to help sell or publicize a commodity.
"a new concept in corporate hospitality"

Language is a prerequisite to rational thought only according to one particular philosophical school of thought, not according to the meaning of the word. — Vera Mont

What, pray tell, is the school of thought that says that language is *not* a prerequisite to rational thought?

You flatter yourself. You evince no evidence of learning in philosophy beyond a smattering of popular neuroscience. — Wayfarer

I'm not here to win a contest for my knowledge of philosophy. At present I am discussing matters of psychology.

What, pray tell, is the school of thought that says that language is *not* a prerequisite to rational thought? — Wayfarer

Probably lots. I only checked Oxford, Collins and Webster and they don't mention language.

I'm not here to win a contest for my knowledge of philosophy — wonderer1

Probably just as well ;-)

What, pray tell, is the school of thought that says that language is *not* a prerequisite to rational thought?
— Wayfarer

Probably lots. I only checked Oxford, Collins and Webster and they don't mention language. — Vera Mont

C'mon. You're making the case, it requires more specifics, don't you think?

Chimps are more aggressive than Bonobo. They look the same but they are totally different creatures, as are wolves and domesticated dogs different. — Athena

That chimps are aggressive wasn't the point of the Nim Chimpsky experiment. It was an attempt to teach chimps language, and it failed. I now find the experimenter, Herbert Terrace, wrote a book on it, 'Why Chimpanzees Can't Learn Language and Humans Can'. The cover blurb says 'Initially, Terrace thought that Nim could create sentences but later discovered that Nim’s teachers inadvertently cued his signing. Terrace concluded that Project Nim failed—not because Nim couldn’t create sentences but because he couldn’t even learn words. Language is a uniquely human quality, and attempting to find it in animals is wishful thinking at best.' And that is directly relevant to this dicussion.

You're making the case, it requires more specifics, don't you think? — Wayfarer

The case I've been attempting to make is that words have ideology-neutral meanings, and are not defined by "philosophical stance". When that is not the case, the very communication that's supposedly a prerequisite for rational thought is degraded. Science cannot operate according philosophical bias.
(But then who needs science when you have metaphysics?)

The case I've been attempting to make is that words have ideology-neutral meanings, and are not defined by "philosophical stance". — Vera Mont

:chin: I thought the issue was what you are calling 'human exceptionalism', that is, you are contesting the view that the human capacity for reason and language entails a categorical distinction between humans and rest of the animal kingdom. Myself along with several others are saying that there is a real distinction to be made, that h.sapiens are fundamentally different in some basic respects to other creatures. The precise point we're at right now, is whether animals, such as dogs, can form concepts in the absence of language. I'm saying that conceptual thought is dependent on language. I thought you were saying that it is not dependent, and I was questioning you on sources for that contention.