All people are human beings. All human beings are people. Two names for the same thing. If animals are like all human beings in certain respects, then all people are like animals in certain respects.
Makes sense.
— creativesoul
I'm so glad you think so. I'm afraid it is a rather boring conclusion and so seems to be of little interest here. — Ludwig V

It barely scratches the surface of the interesting parts. In what ways are we similar enough to correctly claim that this or that nonhuman is capable of something we are without being guilty of the personification of the world and/or anthropomorphism?

It has nothing to do with our word use. Language less animals have none. The question becomes which sorts of things are humans capable of doing that are not existentially dependent upon language use? What are they existentially dependent upon, and do any other creatures satisfy this bare minimum criterion? Do they have what it takes?

On my view, all thought based upon prior belief is rational thought. All action based upon one's own thought and belief is caused - in part at least - by rational thought.

…..thereby legitimizes the death of the “meaning is use” nonsense,
— Mww

SO what kind of nonsense are you going to replace it with? — Ludwig V

HA!!! Hopefully that of somewhat less nonsense?

Hey Mww...

This thread is very much along the lines of our ongoing discussion.

We are the only one who invented knowledge and concepts and base our actions on these. — Fire Ologist

Well, sometimes....
That's the extreme end of the cognitive spectrum. Unfortunately, this also leads to the highest rate of cognitive dysfunction. The narwhal is at the extreme end of ecolocation. The mantis shrimp is at the extreme end of colour discernment. The leaf-tailed gecko is at the extreme end of camouflage use. The peregrine falcon is at the extreme end of speed. Every spectrum has ends and somebody has to occupy at each end.

We know that no other known creature is capable of knowingly looking forward to Thursday. — Wayfarer

Why does a human look forward to Thursday? Does he celebrate Thor? Or is it because something pleasant usually happens on Thursdays? Suppose that pleasant even were moved to Tuesday? Would the human still look forward to Thursday because of its name, or would he change his anticipation to Tuesdays? What if the pleasant thing once happened on a Monday? Would he reject it because it's on the wrong day, or would he say: "You're early!" and be happy?
What he's actually looking forward to is the particular event that usually takes place. Do we also know that no other animal can guage the interval at which a routine pleasant event usually occurs? To a small child, to whom Thursday means nothing, one would say: two more sleeps until Grandpa comes to dinner. And a dog who never gets to ride in the car when his human is going to work, and doesn't even ask, looks forward to weekends.

What would such a dog's thought, belief, and/or anticipation/expectation consist in/of? — creativesoul

Dodi kept hoping his beloved master would arrive on the train at the time he used to arrive. When the train stopped at the platform, he would watch the doors eagerly as long as the train was in the station. When it pulled out, he went home.

I see no ground whatsoever to conclude that dogs know what time their humans are expected home from work or school. — creativesoul

Other than getting there at 4:45, or positioning themselves by the front window 10 minutes before their human normally gets home, or waiting on the lawn for the schoolbus? These are standard behaviours, not anomalies.

A 2018 study at Northwestern University found that an area located in the brain's temporal lobe associated with memory and navigation may be responsible for encoding time much like it does episodic memories. The experiment used mice, but results have been extrapolated to other animals and it seems that many animals do have a true sense of elapsing time, even if they can’t actually read a clock. Neurons in their brains are activated when they expect a certain time-dependent outcome. If the expected outcome doesn’t occur at the expected time—for instance, a pet is normally fed at 5PM. If the pet is not fed at 5PM—the pet may display agitated behavior.

I thinking pulling oneself from flames is not rational or deliberated or reasoned or thought about at all. It's just done.

Believing that touching the fire caused pain is. Applied, that belief becomes operative in the sense that it stops one from doing it again.

I see no ground whatsoever to conclude that dogs know what time their humans are expected home from work or school.
— creativesoul
Other than getting there at 4:45, or positioning themselves by the front window or door 10 minutes before the loved human normally gets home, or waiting on the lawn for the schoolbus? These are standard behaviours, not anomalies.

A 2018 study at Northwestern University found that an area located in the brain's temporal lobe associated with memory and navigation may be responsible for encoding time much like it does episodic memories. The experiment used mice, but results have been extrapolated to other animals and it seems that many animals do have a true sense of elapsing time, even if they can’t actually read a clock. Neurons in their brains are activated when they expect a certain time-dependent outcome. If the expected outcome doesn’t occur at the expected time—for instance, a pet is normally fed at 5PM. If the pet is not fed at 5PM—the pet may display agitated behavior. — Vera Mont

Interesting. So, they have some intuitive sense of time passing, as I mentioned earlier... perhaps accompanied by pattern recognition? I'm still not sure that that counts as knowing what time their humans are expected to arrive home. Although, it seems clear that different time periods are meaningful to them. Correctly believing/anticipating the arrival time.

Yeah. That's relevant. I'll need to adjust my belief, perhaps.

One of my favorite dogs met my school bus often. I cannot remember all those days, but the driver loved the way he looked, and remarked often as I exited.

Dodi kept hoping... — Vera Mont

How is that different from being excited about the train's arrival based upon the historical pattern? The dog clearly connects the five o'clock train with the master's arrival... but hope? That might be a stretch too far. Disappointment may not.

Why does a human look forward to Thursday? Does he celebrate Thor? Or is it because something pleasant usually happens on Thursdays? Suppose that pleasant even were moved to Tuesday? Would the human than still look forward to Thursday because of its name, or would he change his anticipation to Tuesdays? What if the pleasant thing once happened on a Monday? Would he reject it because it's on the wrong day, or would he say: "You're early!" and be happy?
What he's actually looking forward to is the particular event that usually takes place. Do we also know that no other animal can guage the interval at which a routine pleasant event usually occurs? To a small child, one would say: two more sleeps until Grandpa comes to dinner. For a dog who never gets to ride in the car when his human is going to work, and doesn't even ask, looks forward to weekends. — Vera Mont

No one has claimed that humans look forward to Thursday because of it's name. I claimed, not Wayfarer, that looking forward to Thursday requires knowing how to use the word.

As far as the rest goes, there's not much I would disagree with. Looking forward to something that happens, whatever and whenever it does, is very different than looking forward to Thursday.

Looking forward to weekends?

What does "looking forward to going for a car ride on days the human doesn't drive away on" miss?

Do we also know that no other animal can guage the interval at which a routine pleasant event usually occurs? — Vera Mont

Gauge?

That's a good question.

Hey back.

Yeah, we been around this block a few times, or one like it, over the years. Been fun too, for the most part, despite our dissimilar grounding presuppositions.

Our conversation in my thread is a good one. It's my turn, actually. I just reread it tonight. Apologies for the delay. Been super super busy for the last year and a half. I liked what I read from your last response.

We've learned to be more appreciative and considerate over the years. At least, I think I have. I've certainly been trying... writ large. Be the change... and all that.

Cheers!

So, they have some intuitive sense of time passing, as I mentioned earlier... perhaps accompanied by pattern recognition? I'm still not sure that that counts as knowing what time their humans are expected to arrive home. — creativesoul

Dogs surelook expectant! You get clues off the standing up, prancing and sitting down every two minutes, tail wagging every time a car goes by and slobber all over the glass.

The dog clearly connects the five o'clock train with the master's arrival... but hope? — creativesoul

Why else would he keep going there every day for three years? The train had nothing for him. He never accepted treats from the staff or made friends with anyone on the platform. He just waited. (The priest gave special dispensation to bury him beside his master. Unmarked, of course. I wish I'd had time to know that man; he must have been remarkable to be loved and respected by so many.)

What does "looking forward to going for a car ride on days the human doesn't drive away on" miss? — creativesoul

I don't know. I suppose the fact that he didn't leave after breakfast. But why would they start getting excited at breakfast - which would take place later than on weekdays? Time sense, probably.

I claimed, not Wayfarer, that looking forward to Thursday requires knowing how to use the word. — creativesoul

Sure, the name of the day is needed to convey your anticipation to another human. But what you're actually anticipating is not the day, or its name, but the event. You could as easily say, "I look forward to seeing my father every week." They don't really need to know that he comes to dinner on Thursdays, it's just quicker and less self-revealing to say the day and not the event.

Here, you've veered into what we are doing with the word "rational". I'm more inclined to critically examining whether or not any single notion of "rational" is capable of admitting that language less animals are capable of learning how to open gates, open doors, make and use tools for specific purposes, etc. — creativesoul

From another perspective, the question is what notion of "rational" enables us to explain the fact that some animals are capable of learning how to open gates, etc. I mean that the starting-point is that they can, and that stands in need of explanation.
Here's how I look at it - for what it's worth.
We know how to explain how humans learn to do these things. But humans are our paradigm (reference point) of what a rational being is. So that's what we turn to. It involves a complex conceptual structure (think of it as a game - a rule-governed activity). The obvious recourse, then, is our existing practice in explaining how people do these things. We apply those concepts to the animals that learn to do these things. Our difficulty is that animals are in many ways different from human beings, most relevantly in the respect that many of the things that human beings can routinely do, they (apparently) cannot. So some modification of our paradigm is necessary.

That's not a desperately difficult problem, but it is where the disagreements arise, though in the nature of the case, determinate answers will not be easy to arrive at. But we are already familiar with such situations, where we apply the concept of interpretation. The readiest way of explaining this is by reference to puzzle pictures, which can be seen (interpreted) in more than one way. There is no truth of the matter, just different ways of looking at the facts. So, competing (non-rational) interpretations cannot be conclusively ruled out. However, in this case, the same interpretations can be applied to human beings as well. They are found lacking because they do not recognize the kinds of relationship that we have with each other. The same lack is found with, for example, the application of mechanical (reductionist) accounts of animals.

It has nothing to do with our word use. Language less animals have none. — creativesoul

Well, it has and it hasn't. It hasn't because we are considering actions without language. But we are used to applying our concepts of action without language, since we happily explain what human beings to even when we do not have access to anything that they might say. (Foreign languages, for example) Indeed, sometimes we reject what the agent says about their own action in favour of the explanation we formulate for it. That is, agents can be deceptive or mistaken about their own actions.

The catch is that we have no recourse but to explain their actions in our language. But this is not a special difficulty. It applies whenever we explain someone else's action.

I intended to post this after I had made some comments. So now I am adding them.

I thinking pulling oneself from flames is not rational or deliberated or reasoned or thought about at all. It's just done. — creativesoul

That doesn't mean it is not a rational response, does it? But one could argue that although it is rational qua response, it is not the animal's response and so not an action in the sense that we are talking about. (Think about that first gasp for air when you have been underwater for too long.) That is a possible view.

Believing that touching the fire caused pain is. Applied, that belief becomes operative in the sense that it stops one from doing it again. — creativesoul

That is the animal's response - something that it does. Since it is rational and something the animal does and there for an example of animal rationality.

What he's actually looking forward to is the particular event that usually takes place. Do we also know that no other animal can guage the interval at which a routine pleasant event usually occurs? To a small child, one would say: two more sleeps until Grandpa comes to dinner. For a dog who never gets to ride in the car when his human is going to work, and doesn't even ask, looks forward to weekends. — Vera Mont

There's a complication here, that how the animal thinks about it may not be how we think about it. But, if we are to understand the animal, it needs to be expressed in terms that we can understand. To a small child, one would say "Two more sleeps...", but we would report to Grandpa that the child is really looking forward to him coming for dinner on Thursday.

In the case of the dog, we would have trouble saying to anyone on Wednesday that they are looking forward to the week-end. (How would that manifest itself? I'm not saying that there couldn't be any signs, only that I can't think of any). We might say they are looking forward to the week-end by extrapolation from the enthusiasm that we see on Saturday, but that would be risky in a philosophical context.
Still, when the signs appear, there is no doubt and we well might say the dog is excited because it's the week-end, while acknowledging that that does not reflect how the dog thinks about it. It could be "the day breakfast is late" - but even then, we don't suppose that's what the dog is saying to itself. Perhaps it is more like the response to the fire. I don't think there is a clear answer to this.

It is not difficult to find a unique feature or features in any species. (That's largely how we identify them). The interesting question is what is the significance of those unique features. — Ludwig V

So, your argument is that all species are unique - after all, uniqueness is what makes them identifiable as separate species. The ability to speak, think rationally, plan, create science and technology, and so on, is unique to humans. But as uniqueness is a characteristic of every species, then our uniqueness is not unique, and so we're really no different to to other species.

Do I have that right?

Perhaps the point is that uniqueness is not a particularly good basis for jumping to anaturalistic conclusions?

So, your argument is that all species are unique - after all, uniqueness is what makes them identifiable as separate species. The ability to speak, think rationally, plan, create science and technology, and so on, is unique to humans. But as uniqueness is a characteristic of every species, then our uniqueness is not unique, and so we're really no different to to other species.
Do I have that right? — Wayfarer

Sort of. To save a lot of words that may or may not be unnecessary, here's my edited version, and then you can ask about any changes that you like.

My argument is that 1) all species are unique - after all, uniqueness is what makes them identifiable as separate species and that 2) all species are similar - after all, they are all living beings. The ability to create science and technology, art and social institutions and so on, is unique to humans. But as uniqueness is a characteristic of every species, then our uniqueness is not unique, and so being unique is not unique to any species.

The unstated but critical question is whether the things that human are unique for are developments of abilities that other species have or are a radical break from all other species. My answer is the former alternative. I do not deny that radical breaks have occurred during evolution but I do not see anything that makes me think that we are such a break. (Radical breaks - eukaryotid cells, multicellular organisms, fish, plants, reptiles, mammals - off the top of my head. There could be others.)

Perhaps the point is that uniqueness is not a particularly good basis for jumping to anaturalistic conclusions? — wonderer1

I've been trying to re-direct people from what I think is a pretty fruitless debate to the question, why does it matter? It's not the distinction, it's why it matters.

I'm not sure what anaturalistic conclusions are. But there is an interesting point here. In our discussion, I think we would happily say that everything that we do is natural to us. Yet, we spend much of our time "artificially" separating ourselves from nature. That distinction - between the natural and the artificial - was popular in 18th century philosophy, and served to draw a line. But that wouldn't hold water for us now, would it?

That part attributed to me, isn’t mine.
— Mww
Yes, you are right. — Ludwig V

WHEW!!! Thanks. I was wondering how I was gonna get myself out of that personal self-contradiction, if it was something I actually said.

I will only add that I don't see how a word can be a representation of a concept. They exist in different categories. There can be no structural similarity between them that would justify calling the relationship a representation. — Ludwig V

One can do with a word what cannot be done with a concept, and vice versa. Thing is, if one wishes to not do what is conditioned by a word, he can still do what is done with concepts. If one wishes to not do what is conditioned by concepts, he can do absolutely nothing at all, which includes not wishing what he wished to not do.

No structural similarity? Isn’t “concept” a word? Isn’t ”word” a concept? In that respect, they are in the same category, but I agree that does not in itself justify calling the relationship a representation. I think it the prerogative of a specific theoretical metaphysic that establishes that justification.

If it is the case a specific theoretical metaphysic can establish a justification, it is not contradictory pursuant to that same metaphysic, to then declare, and perhaps even prove, it is not a concept from which meaning is determinable. And if THAT is the case, your “a concept is the meaning of a word” cannot be true, insofar as concepts, again pursuant to that same metaphysic, are only that by which particular cognitive functionality is possible. In other words, concepts enable function but are meaningless in and of themselves. Meaning is determinable only from the relation of conceptions to each other, but not necessarily from any conception on its own. Best, or easiest, way to comprehend this idea is, it is absolutely impossible to cognize any object whatsoever, if it is represented by a single conception. You cannot say what an object is, if all you think of it, is “round”. Or, “green”. Or, “upright”.

Which goes a great distance in limiting the notion, hence the very possibility, of rationality in animals, I should hope.

On my view, all thought based upon prior belief is rational thought. All action based upon one's own thought and belief is caused - in part at least - by rational thought. — creativesoul

At least with respect to my experience, cutting through the clutter, has always been your philosophical modus operandi.

Gotta appreciate that bottom-up approach you instigated back on pg.7, which drew precious little relevant response, I thought. I’d have to go check, but I don’t recall anyone actually answering the question, but instead gave questionable examples of individual notions of it. Or wandered off into disciplines from which no relevant answer would ever be sufficient.

Anyway, as you say…..cheers!!!

Still, when the signs appear, there is no doubt and we well might say the dog is excited because it's the week-end, while acknowledging that that does not reflect how the dog thinks about it. It could be "the day breakfast is late" - but even then, we don't suppose that's what the dog is saying to itself. Perhaps it is more like the response to the fire. I don't think there is a clear answer to this. — Ludwig V

It was a clumsy example of how dogs sense time. I subsequently found an article about it that does a better job. Yes, they know how long it should be between when you leave for work and when you return, between when each child leaves for school and when they return, between breakfast and dinner, between walks or rides. My clever German shepherd would go fetch her leash (no mean feat in itself, since it hung on a coat-hook) at a 11:15 on days my mother was on evening shift, so we could go meet her at the subway station, so she didn't have to walk home alone. When my mother worked days, we took our walk right after supper, and she didn't ask again.

There's a complication here, that how the animal thinks about it may not be how we think about it. — Ludwig V

If it looks like a duck, waddles like a duck, quacks like a duck, why would we assume it's something - anything! anything! - other than a duck? Because recognizing similarity and commonality with other animals violates the exclusively-human commandment? I don't worship at that altar.

Still, when the signs appear, there is no doubt and we well might say the dog is excited because it's the week-end, — Ludwig V

Not because it's the weekend; he can't think in the same terms as working and school-attending humans; he doesn't have that experience.* What he's anticipating are the events that take place at five-day intervals: family all present and relaxed, more playtime, activity, maybe the excitement of visitors or outings something of interest going on.

It's also because dogs are intelligent that they're easily bored. A chew-toy may keep a spaniel busy all morning, but a poodle needs more stimulation, lest he turn my friend's leather jacket into artwork. (She solved the problem by getting another dog to keep him company.)
That same shepherd would sometimes get bored when my mother slept late; a couple of times she woke up with her pillow and hair covered in autumn leaves that the dog had fetched from the back yard, one mouthful at a time. Why? A show of affection - both dogs and cats offer gifts to their people - or just something fun to do, like eating the roses - just the petals - from a vase way high on a dresser, or laying the items from the medicine cabinet in a neat row on the bathroom floor?

* Well, in fact, working dogs do have that experience. A security guard dog, for example knows when his shift begins and ends. A sheepdog knows when it's time to collect the flock. A cattle dog when his charges are supposed to be let out to pasture and when they should come home again. Guide dogs, tracking dogs and rescue dogs work unpredictable hours; they recognize duty (serious, pay attention, be disciplined and silent, don't fraternize with bystanders) and off duty (free to play, run, bark, make friends, accept treats) by what they're wearing.

That is a very popular quote - I'm fond of it myself. But Aristotle didn't mean by "political" what we mean by it; we took the Greek word and distorted its meaning. He meant that human beings live in cities - that's all. It's still a surprising thought for its time. — Ludwig V

Hum, this is the definition that Wikipedia gives-

Politics (from Ancient Greek πολιτικά (politiká) 'affairs of the cities') is the set of activities that are associated with making decisions in groups, or other forms of power relations among individuals, such as the distribution of status or resources.

Politics - Wikipedia

Being a Athenian means a little more than just living in the city.

This oath was recited by the citizens of Athens, Greece, more than 2,000 years ago. Learn more about this timeless code of civic responsibility.

“We will never bring disgrace on this our City by an act of dishonesty or cowardice.
We will fight for the ideals and Sacred Things of the City both alone and with many.
We will revere and obey the City's laws, and will do our best to incite a like reverence and respect in those above us who are prone to annul them or set them at naught.
We will strive unceasingly to quicken the public's sense of civic duty.
Thus, in all these ways, we will transmit this City not only, not less, but greater and more beautiful than it was transmitted to us.” https://www.dianekalensukra.com/post/take-the-athenian-oath#:~:text=%22I%20will%20never%20bring%20reproach,than%20when%20I%20received%20it.

That was a great video and so were the others that came with it. I will have to check them out again when I have nothing to do and look for more because the animal videos make me happy. Thank you.

And very interesting to me. Do you have more to share about animals and laughing? That surely involves a degree of thinking. But what is thinking without words?

But what is thinking without words? — Athena

Graphic and physical. It's what feral human children do to survive in the wild.

If it looks like a duck, waddles like a duck, quacks like a duck, why would we assume it's something - anything! anything! - other than a duck? — Vera Mont

Perhaps so. But it depend whether the dog is going to generalize in the same way that we do. Most of the time, they get it right, because they understand context. But that's not a given. Actually, your next comment illustrates the point perfectly.

Not because it's the weekend; he can't think in the same terms as working and school-attending humans; he doesn't have that experience.* What he's anticipating are the events that take place at five-day intervals: family all present and relaxed, more playtime, activity, maybe the excitement of visitors or outings something of interest going on. — Vera Mont

It's not whether it is Saturday, it's whether it's been five days since the last time. Perfect. But we are not wrong to explain to our in-laws that the dog is excited because it's the week-end.

We choose our words to balance the understanding of the dog and the understanding of the people that we are speaking to. Your in-laws would likely be a bit puzzled if you told them that the dog is excited because it's been five days since the last time everyone was at home, don't you think? I realize that's not very philosophically correct, but it's a tough world if one can't be a bit incorrect occasionally.

Hum, this is the definition that Wikipedia gives-
Being a Athenian means a little more than just living in the city. — Athena

Thanks for this - and for the oath, which I have not seen before. Aristotle puts a huge emphasis on "public affairs" (which I think is closer to what he intends) as part of the good life, and says it is one of the higher good things that constitute the good life, along with friends.

You/Wikipedia are quite right. I don't necessarily trust my memory of these things, so I have double-checked. "politikos" does include what we call politics, but has a wider range and includes "public" or "municipal" and "community". The standard translation of the relevant sentence in Aristotle is "Man lives in a community".

[Oops!. I can't let this mistake go, so I'm adding an edit. That sentence should have read "Man is an animal that lives in a community/city.]

That surely involves a degree of thinking. But what is thinking without words? — Athena

Some people say they think in images. (Planning how to pack a suitcase, for example). I don't, but how could I contradict them?
Sometimes, when we are improvising, we are thinking by doing.
Then there's all the thinking that goes on that we are not aware of. This is more controversial, philosophically speaking. My favourite example is our echo-location. Phenomenologically, we just know where a sound is. But the scientists tell us that we work out where sounds are by the difference in the sound between one ear and the other - it arrives later on the side furthest from the source.
This is sometimes called "tacit knowledge". There's a lot of it about, but philosophy regards it as secondary to conscious thinking. Short story. It's a bit of a mystery.
And @Vera Mont is quite right to cite feral human children. When found, they are often completely without language, yet can clearly respond appropriately to what's going on. (They also, I understand, find it very difficult to learn language at all.) But that only demonstrates that it is possible to think unconsciously and without language. So it is important for this thread.

But it depend whether the dog is going to generalize in the same way that we do. — Ludwig V

Why would they need to think exactly the same way we do in order to be considered rational?

We choose our words to balance the understanding of the dog and the understanding of the people that we are speaking to. — Ludwig V

And only to communicate with other people. In fact, when we refer to the weekend, what we actually mean - exactly like the dog does - are two days of leisure. You would enjoy them even if your days off were Wednesday and Thursday and not at the end of the named week. It's not a vacation you're longing for - that's just a word. You're longing for two weeks on a hot beach, or on a ski slope, or in a hotel room with a desired other, or on the road with your Harley. The names are a convenient way to refer to a whole package of experience. All of that experience can be unbundled, laid out in sequence and lived in fantasy or memory without labeling the images and sensations.

But that only demonstrates that it is possible to think unconsciously and without language. — Ludwig V

Consciously, but without having any verbal labels either on the physical environment or on the processes of dealing with it. If they're over about 10 years of age when found, they've missed language acquisition during those three years years when the most intensive neural network formation takes place. And they've developed a non-verbal set of symbols and patterns that work for them. That style of thinking may not be able to encompass abstractions like "What is the purpose of life?" or "How do we look deeper into the macro and micro universe?", but it still contains a vast amount of information about his accustomed environment and how to operate it in it safely - things that don't clutter up the heads of people who can always look things up in a book.

Why would they need to think exactly the same way we do in order to be considered rational? — Vera Mont

Perhaps "rational" is being equated with "the way I think"? (If only subconsciously.)

Perhaps another issue worth considering in this thread is, do animals think critically? Do humans think critically? What percent of humans?

Is rationality the result of having culturally acquired skills that improve the reliability of one's thinking?

The ability to create science and technology, art and social institutions and so on, is unique to humans. But as uniqueness is a characteristic of every species, then our uniqueness is not unique, and so being unique is not unique to any species. — Ludwig V

That’s what I thought you would say, although I still say there’s a fundamental distinction you’re not recognising.

Perhaps another issue worth considering in this thread is, do animals think critically? Do humans think critically? — wonderer1

To think critically one first has to have abstract reasoning skills, which I don’t believe is possessed by animals, for the reasons stated.

:up: