So what we call reflective self-awareness which some would say elevates us above the other animals I would say is not anything different in any phenomenologically immediate sense than simple awareness of or sense of difference between self and other, but merely the post hoc narrative about our self-awareness which language enables us to tell. — Janus

Is there anything we think that no other species thinks? Or do we think nothing that is uniquely human, but we're the only ones who have the language to express it all?

Is there anything we think that no other species thinks? Or do we think nothing that is uniquely human, but we're the only ones who have the language to express it all? — Patterner

I assume every species has thoughts that no other species share, since the equipment with which we perceive, experience and interact with the world, and the capabilities we bring to life are so varied. I assume every individual also thinks thoughts that are unique to itself alone.

We can get some notion - sometimes a pretty clear one - of what another species is thinking by its actions, to the degree those actions are similar to what we would do in their place. But as long as we are individual, the precise content of each mind must remain a mystery to all others.

Self-reflection seems to me to depend on human language so I'm willing to let that go. — Ludwig V

I've often heard that language shapes our thinking, and is literally responsible for aspects of how our brains become wired. If that is so, then there must be thinking humans do that no other species does, and our brains must become wired in ways no others species' brains are. No?

I assume every species has thoughts... — Vera Mont

Don't you think there might be just a smidgen of anthropomorphic projection there?

Oh, you mean because some species can't be assumed to have thoughts? The ones that have no brains, I admit to not having allowed for them. The ones who do, whatever passes through those brains is very probably different from what passes through the brains of any other species. If you don't choose to call it thinking, that's your prerogative... with maybe just a smidgen of anthropocentrism.

But how does it alter rational thought, problem-solving or navigating the physical world? — Vera Mont

I'd say the most significant thing is that it enables collective learning. History and art and literature and music and science and so on.

Is there anything we think that no other species thinks? Or do we think nothing that is uniquely human, but we're the only ones who have the language to express it all? — Patterner

It seems to me that abstract thought, thought about generalities may be impossible without langauge. Perhaps animals of various kinds think some things that we cannot.

I'd say the most significant thing is that it enables collective learning. History and art and literature and music and science and so on. — Janus

Human history does not indicate - at least to this observer - that all that science and culture have contributed significantly to our collective ability to make rational decisions.

It seems to me that abstract thought, thought about generalities may be impossible without langauge. — Janus

Could be. Is it possible that human language couldn't exist if we were not capable of abstract thought?

It seems to me that abstract thought, thought about generalities may be impossible without langauge. — Janus

What sort of generalities? Like : "All wolves are evil." or "If the angles of one triangle add up to 360 degrees, the angles of all triangles must also."? Because lamas do believe the former and crows know that a stick skinny enough to go into a one hole in a tree will go into the hole in another tree. Or do you mean something more like : "Events in the universe are sequential, so there must have been a prime mover to get it started."? I don't think other animals think like that.

Llamas believe all wolves are evil?

The angles of triangles add up to 360 degrees? (Just bustin' on your for this one. :grin: )

I don't see what your problem is. If my question is "Why can't S tell red from green?", I will want to work out my answer rationally, because that guarantees that my answer will be reliably correct. — Ludwig V

I don't have problem. You seem to have. I am just pointing out your example is not reflecting what rational thinking is. When you are asked, "Why can't S tell red from green?", if you explained the reason is S is colour blind, then your answer is based on your guessing, or just parroting what you read or heard from other sources, not from your rational thinking.

You explanation must be based on either from deductive or inductive reasoning for it to be qualified as a rational thinking. Not just because you explained something based on your guessing or parroting what you have heard or read from other sources.

Contrast to your example, my answer to the question how do you know it is autumn, because I see the leaves are falling from all the trees, is based on my previous observation that whenever leaves were falling from all the trees, it was autumn, which is an inductive reasoning, hence it is a rational thinking.

"ground" is a bit vague. I hope you mean "justification". I notice you include explanations in your list. I'm especially happy with that. — Ludwig V

Why is "ground" vague? Why does it have to be "justification"?

Llamas believe all wolves are evil? — Patterner

They make excellent guards for sheep, I've heard and will spit and kick at predators. But they can become accustomed to dogs in a domestic setting.

The angles of triangles add up to 360 degrees? (Just bustin' on your for this one. — Patterner

Deservedly so! My mind's eye was looking at a square, but my fingers only got half the message. :sad:

They make excellent guards for sheep, I've heard and will spit and kick at predators. But they can become accustomed to dogs in a domestic setting. — Vera Mont

I don't see how this, or anything else, makes them evil. I also don't know how we know what llamas believe about them.

Deservedly so! My mind's eye was looking at a square, but my fingers only got half the message. :sad: — Vera Mont

"half the message" is an excellent response! :grin:

As long as we have theories and centuries-old Eurocentric philosophical maxims regarding the nature of nature, we can deny the less adamantine evidence of direct observation, direct interaction. — Vera Mont

I am feeling a little frustrated in part because I am aware of a serious family problem and it seems next to impossible to get my mind to focus on anything else. The next piece of frustration is conveying the fact that our reality has almost nothing to do with nature. We are not consciously living in a world created by nature or a god. Our reality is 100% man-made. When we walk along the river enjoying the beauty, we are escaping from our man-made reality. No other animal experiences life in this way and we do not experience nature as an animal does. Aborigenies that never had contact with modern man experience life as the animals do but once they have contact with modern man, they too are thrown out of Eden. Adam and Eve enjoyed Eden until they tasted the forbidden fruit.

Brown realized that the oysters had corrected their activity according to the local state of the moon; they were feeding when Evanston—if it had been by the sea—would experience high tide. He had isolated these organisms from every obvious environmental cue. And yet, somehow, they were following the moon.

Might that mean oysters are sensitive to the gravitational pull of the moon?

Researchers have also found some specialized cells in birds' eyes that may help them see magnetic fields. It is thought that birds can use both the beak magnetite and the eye sensors to travel long distances over areas that do not have many landmarks, such as the ocean.
https://ssec.si.edu/stemvisions-blog/how-do-birds-navigate#:~:text=Researchers%20have%20also%20found%20some,landmarks%2C%20such%20as%20the%20ocean.

We do not experience nature as the animals do.

I don't see how this, or anything else, makes them evil. I also don't know how we know what llamas believe about them. — Patterner

To herbivores, predators are the greatest threat. Many herbivores simply accept that they will be chased and possibly killed by wolves or other predators, but a few species, such as llamas, don't: they regard the predator as an enemy, and fight one if it comes near, even when it doesn't attack first. They may not conceive of 'evil' in human monster terms, but they do classify entire other species as 'bad'. That's a generalization.
A herbivore that always runs when it sees its major predator would also be generalizing: "All lions are a threat." But, in fact, most of the grazing herds are watchful but relaxed around lions that are not actively hunting, so I imagine their concept of 'lion' is more specific: 'lion at rest over there' and 'lion moving toward us' are two different categories. I don't know whether that's a generalization.

When we walk along the river enjoying the beauty, we are escaping from our man-made reality. — Athena

Even when the river has cement banks... Yes. There have always been movements in civilized societies, of a small number of people who lived, or attempted to live, a more genuine, nature-grounded lifestyle.
I wouldn't call the fugitive subsistence of the Mashco Piro Eden, exactly, though they look pretty healthy. I see no reason we couldn't strike a compromise between the destruction of nature and our own needs. But humans tend to run at everything at full tilt.

They may not conceive of 'evil' in human monster terms, but they do classify entire other species as 'bad'. — Vera Mont

No, certainly not 'evil.' But I think even 'bad' is a stretch. I wouldn't think we are safe with anything more than 'threat' and 'not threat.'

I don't have problem. You seem to have. I am just pointing out your example is not reflecting what rational thinking is. When you are asked, "Why can't S tell red from green?", if you explained the reason is S is colour blind, then your answer is based on your guessing, or just parroting what you read or heard from other sources, not from your rational thinking. — Corvus

Sorry. I wasn't clear enough. My explanation is "S is colour-blind", but I thought that

I will want to work out my answer rationally, because that guarantees that my answer will be reliably correct. — Ludwig V

...excluded guessing and parroting.

You explanation must be based on either from deductive or inductive reasoning for it to be qualified as a rational thinking. Not just because you explained something based on your guessing or parroting what you have heard or read from other sources. — Corvus

If I look up the time of the next train on the company web-site (which I have chosen because there is good reason to trust it) and tell everyone that the next train is at 12:00 and the next train is at 12:00, I would claim that I knew the next train was at 12:00 and deny that I'm just parroting. Guessing, I agree, is not rational basis for claiming knowledge, though trial and error as a way of discovering truth is a good basis.

we that possess symbolic language are able to reflectively tell ourselves that we are doing that distinguishing and even tell ourselves that we are directly aware of doing that distinguishing. I tend to think the latter is a kind of illusion though. — Janus

Well, I certainly agree that there is no need for a distinct phenomenological experience as a basis for telling ourselves that we are aware of a distinction as opposed to simply reporting or noting it. "Illusion" suggests that I am not aware of the distinction I am aware of, so it seems the wrong classification to me.

I've often heard that language shapes our thinking, and is literally responsible for aspects of how our brains become wired. If that is so, then there must be thinking humans do that no other species does, and our brains must become wired in ways no others species' brains are. No? — Patterner

Very good. But then the brains of bats and dolphins must be wired differently from ours, because they have specialized abilities that we do not - and just as their specialized abilities have evolved from ancestors that did not have those abilities, so our specialized skills must have evolved from ancestors that did not speak human languages. But again, in both cases, we would expect to find precursors or simple beginnings in those ancestors and we cannot exclude similar skills that have developed differently in other creatures.

It seems to me that abstract thought, thought about generalities may be impossible without language. — Janus

Well, Pavlov's dogs were capable of generalizing from the bell ringing yesterday before food to the bell is ringing to-day, so there will be food. "Abstract thought", to me, means something different. Mathematics is abstract thought, because it is about abstract objects.

Could be. Is it possible that human language couldn't exist if we were not capable of abstract thought? — Patterner

I'm more inclined to argue that abstract thought couldn't exist if we were not capable of language. The truth most likely is that the two developed together.

Yes. all that. So what we call reflective self-awareness which some would say elevates us above the other animals I would say is not anything different in any phenomenologically immediate sense than simple awareness of or sense of difference between self and other, but merely the post hoc narrative about our self-awareness which language enables us to tell. — Janus

Yes. The bit about "post hoc" is important. That underlies many (possibly all) our explanations of what language-less creatures do and even of a lot of what we do. "Rational post hoc construction" is a good description. We model those on the pattern of the conscious reasoning that we sometimes engage in before and sometimes during executing an action.

(I imagine the dog's record of his internal life as a reel of virtual reality - like a 6D movie. Is it story-telling? Without grammar and syntax, it's hard to tell - in fact, at the time, it's impossible to communicate - but that's the way children with limited verbal skills view their own life.) — Vera Mont

The phenomenology of language-less creatures is extraordinarily difficult. I don't think it is reasonable to expect the level of accuracy and detail we can get from creatures that can talk to us.

Human history does not indicate - at least to this observer - that all that science and culture have contributed significantly to our collective ability to make rational decisions. — Vera Mont

The trouble is that human capacities have not eliminated the things we share with animals. They still motivate us in exactly the same ways - the will to survive, to reproduce, to eat, drink, seek shelter and company.

No, certainly not 'evil.' But I think even 'bad' is a stretch. I wouldn't think we are safe with anything more than 'threat' and 'not threat.' — Patterner

We can never eliminate the possibility of being wrong - even safe conclusions can be wrong. So long as we can recognize when we are wrong and do better next time, it's not a catastrophic problem.

No, certainly not 'evil.' But I think even 'bad' is a stretch. I wouldn't think we are safe with anything more than 'threat' and 'not threat.' — Patterner

Okay. Humans have hyperbole that other species probably don't. I don't know the language of alpacas or zebras. I can't even picture the symbology in their heads. But generalization is generalization. Threat, non-threat, benefit and detriment are categorizations and generalizations: i.e. abstract thought.

I don't think it is reasonable to expect the level of accuracy and detail we can get from creatures that can talk to us. — Ludwig V

Or course not. But since we ourselves were languageless creatures early in our lives, and our large brain has an extensive archive of memories, we can recall and describe some of our pre-verbal experiences, feelings and sensations. Not everyone has the same retrieval capability, and we can't always be sure that another person's - or even our - recollection is accurate. Still, we are able to translate non-verbal events into language. When you stand at a scenic lookout, are you really describing the vista to yourself in sentences - or do your eyes and mind take it in and transcribe it later - maybe only a few seconds later? Do you look at a painting or hear a concerto in words?

The trouble is that human capacities have not eliminated the things we share with animals — Ludwig V

Oh, sure, don't give our ancestors credit for acting with common sense, but then blame them for the evil narratives that intelligence and imagination - all that vaunted unique cogitation - have wrought. Somehow, bison and whales and hares can cope with lust, anger, fear, territorialism and aggression, without causing their own extinction. It's not the primal instincts that invent slavery, espionage, thumbscrews, supertankers, mustard gas and corrupt supreme courts.

Human history does not indicate - at least to this observer - that all that science and culture have contributed significantly to our collective ability to make rational decisions. — Vera Mont

I agree. Collectively we are by and large fucking hopeless.

Could be. Is it possible that human language couldn't exist if we were not capable of abstract thought? — Patterner

Chicken or egg? I think pattern recognition accounts for being able to see things in general terms rather as bare unrelated particulars. I have no doubt animals can do this too, but I would see their understanding as concrete, visceral rather than abstract. To my way of thinking abstraction requires symbolic thought. I acknowledge that it comes down to how one defines 'abstract'.

What sort of generalities? Like : "All wolves are evil." or "If the angles of one triangle add up to 360 degrees, the angles of all triangles must also."? Because lamas do believe the former and crows know that a stick skinny enough to go into a one hole in a tree will go into the hole in another tree. Or do you mean something more like : "Events in the universe are sequential, so there must have been a prime mover to get it started."? I don't think other animals think like that. — Vera Mont

See my answer to Patterner above. I don't think lamas think of wolves as "evil". They would see them as a threat to be sure.

Well, I certainly agree that there is no need for a distinct phenomenological experience as a basis for telling ourselves that we are aware of a distinction as opposed to simply reporting or noting it. "Illusion" suggests that I am not aware of the distinction I am aware of, so it seems the wrong classification to me. — Ludwig V

The word "illusion" was referring to the notion that we have direct awareness of awareness as opposed to what it seems to me we do have which is post hoc awareness or 'after the fact' noticing that we have been aware. We can do the latter when we can remember events. I don't doubt that (some) animals can remember events in terms of 'images' variously visual, olfactory (including taste), auditory and motor. But I doubt they think anything along the lines of "Oh, I was aware of being aware" or " I am capable of self-consciousness". It seems to me we can think such thoughts only on account of possessing symbolic language.

Yes. The bit about "post hoc" is important. That underlies many (possibly all) our explanations of what language-less creatures do and even of a lot of what we do. "Rational post hoc construction" is a good description. We model those on the pattern of the conscious reasoning that we sometimes engage in before and sometimes during executing an action. — Ludwig V

Yep. Nice explication!

Oh, sure, don't give our ancestors credit for acting with common sense, but then blame them for the evil narratives that intelligence and imagination - all that vaunted unique cogitation - have wrought. — Vera Mont

I'm sorry. I wasn't clear enough. I don't blame animal instincts for the super-damage that we have done. There's nothing wrong with them. I thought that was obvious. I was blaming the super-rationality which enabled us to develop super-powers but has not enabled us to develop some super-self-control to go with them. Quite similar to what you are saying, I think.

When you stand at a scenic lookout, are you really describing the vista to yourself in sentences - or do your eyes and mind take it in and transcribe it later - maybe only a few seconds later? Do you look at a painting or hear a concerto in words? — Vera Mont

No. The verbal description is quite distinct from the experience. Though the people who seem to think that the photograph is more important than enjoying the scene may be missing out - substituting the fuss with the camera for the event itself.

I don't blame animal instincts for the super-damage that we have done. There's nothing wrong with them. I thought that was obvious. — Ludwig V

A couple of other people have just recently told me that llamas can't generalize something that threatens them as being evil or even bad. I didn't say you blamed animals for anything. It's not even you, specifically, that I should have aimed that remark at. It's the double-think we humans do so well.

We're special because we have all these extra capabilities that raise us above the other animals, but when we dig ourselves into trouble, it's because the special capabilities are unequal to the animal instincts. I'm saying neither the animal instincts nor yet our helplessness to control them, are responsible for our messes. We do control them. We make laws, practice monogamy, have celibate monastic orders, teetotalers and anorexic teenaged girls.
Instincts don't lead to genocide. It's the extra special faculties, the facility for narrative, that creates the evil that we do - and the very concept of evil.

I've often heard that language shapes our thinking, and is literally responsible for aspects of how our brains become wired. If that is so, then there must be thinking humans do that no other species does, and our brains must become wired in ways no others species' brains are. No?
— Patterner
Very good. But then the brains of bats and dolphins must be wired differently from ours, because they have specialized abilities that we do not - and just as their specialized abilities have evolved from ancestors that did not have those abilities, so our specialized skills must have evolved from ancestors that did not speak human languages. But again, in both cases, we would expect to find precursors or simple beginnings in those ancestors and we cannot exclude similar skills that have developed differently in other creatures. — Ludwig V

I don't understand what you mean by "we cannot exclude similar skills that have developed differently in other creatures." What would be an example?

Could be. Is it possible that human language couldn't exist if we were not capable of abstract thought?
— Patterner

I'm more inclined to argue that abstract thought couldn't exist if we were not capable of language. The truth most likely is that the two developed together. — Ludwig V

Yeah, I imagine they fed off of each other. But it's interesting to think of someone who had no language thinking abstract thoughts.

A couple of other people have just recently told me that llamas can't generalize something that threatens them as being evil or even bad. — Vera Mont

Some relatives of mine acquired a dog. Three maiden aunts sharing an apartment/flat. When I first met this dog, it backed off, bared its teeth and growled at me. I was bemused. I had always lived with dogs, so thought I understood them. I was expecting the cautious, tentative approach and delicate sniffing, but not immediate hostility. It was explained to me that this dog had had some bad experiences in the past and hated/feared all human males. That seems a perfectly good explanation to me and it relies on attributing to the dog on an (inductive) generalization. I don't know what else to say.
I don't think isolated events like that one, or your case of the llamas, are capable of determining, on their own, whether "threat" or "evil" or "bad" is the "right" concept to apply. One would need a much deeper understanding of the animals - much bigger and more varied data-set, if you like - to differentiate between the three possibilities.
There's a cloud of philosophy sitting behind this - and philosophy is not well-equipped to deal with our topic. Our topic is about how far we can attribute belief/knowledge (and rationality) to animals. The difficulty is that a) our paradigm is what we do when we are talking to and about humans and b) that we will inevitably conduct our discussion in human language.

I didn't say you blamed animals for anything. It's not even you, specifically, that I should have aimed that remark at. It's the double-think we humans do so well. — Vera Mont

Well, the truth is that I'm pretty confused here. I suddenly found myself holding humans responsible for climate change etc. and not holding animals responsible for it. So I was faced with human exceptionalism.

We're special because we have all these extra capabilities that raise us above the other animals, but when we dig ourselves into trouble, it's because the special capabilities are unequal to the animal instincts. — Vera Mont

I would rather describe them as hyper-developed, rather than extra, capabilities, but that may be nit-picking. In general terms, one feels that it must be something to do with our animal instincts not being evolved to cope with the cultural world that we have developed. I don't quite see what you mean by "the special capabilities are unequal to the animal instincts".

I'm saying neither the animal instincts nor yet our helplessness to control them, are responsible for our messes. — Vera Mont

That is very plausible. Do you have a diagnosis of what is responsible? (Probably in a causal, not moral sense.)

We do control them. We make laws, practice monogamy, have celibate monastic orders, teetotalers and anorexic teenaged girls. — Vera Mont

Yes, that's true. (Anorexia and suicide are indeed examples of control of instincts, but control that has gone wrong. Control is a bit of a two-edged sword.) Though the scope of those controls seems to be too limited to deal with the threats that we are facing. It does seem to me that the arguments about the planetary threats are not really moral arguments, although they are often framed as such. They are arguments about our real, long-term self-interest. We're not very good at the long term. However, that framing might convince at least some of the people who are so resistant.

Instincts don't lead to genocide. It's the extra special faculties, the facility for narrative, that creates the evil that we do - and the very concept of evil. — Vera Mont

Yes, I do accept that narratives are crucial to the way that things work for us. That does seem to be a product of language. It's hard to imagine what might convince us that creatures without human-style languages could develop them.

I don't understand what you mean by "we cannot exclude similar skills that have developed differently in other creatures." What would be an example? — Patterner

That was not well put. I should have said what I meant. I was thinking of the question of animal languages, human morality, and even rationality.

But it's interesting to think of someone who had no language thinking abstract thoughts. — Patterner

It seems to me that we need to distinguish clearly between thinking as a conscious action, a phenomenological event or process and the tacit thinking when our thoughts are enacted without prior, separate, thinking. Think of it as thinking in action.
It depends on what you classify as an abstract thought. Generalizations from experience do not seem to me to be problematic. It seems to me that maths, morality and articulate self-consciousness are.
However, there is an interesting possibility. Some people say that they think in images. That would be independent of language.

We're special because we have all these extra capabilities that raise us above the other animals, but when we dig ourselves into trouble, it's because the special capabilities are unequal to the animal instincts. I'm saying neither the animal instincts nor yet our helplessness to control them, are responsible for our messes. We do control them. We make laws, practice monogamy, have celibate monastic orders, teetotalers and anorexic teenaged girls. Instincts don't lead to genocide. It's the extra special faculties, the facility for narrative, that creates the evil that we do - and the very concept of evil. — Vera Mont

I think our special capabilities allow us to ignore the animal instincts. Obviously, that's not always a good idea. As you say, genocide. Otoh, they allow us to do some amazing things. It's difficult to say the amazing outweighs the genocide, but we're stuck with both edges of the sword.

And yes, We create the very concept of evil. That's my point.

And yes, We create the very concept of evil. That's my point. — Patterner

So do we create the concept of a threat? Or a llama?

We show that we have understood a concept by the way we behave. Our linguistic behaviour is the quickest and most accurate (but not absolutely accurate) way of showing what understanding we have, but our non-linguistic behaviour does also show that understanding. There can be ambiguity in both llinghistic and non-linguistic behaviour. But many of them (maybe all) can, in principle, be cleared up on further investigation.
Whether "threat" or "bad" or "evil" is the best way of describing the llamas' behaviour is simply not clear from the information we have. Any of them would be a reasonable explanation for what we know. We would need a good deal more information to clarify that.
You seem to be wanting to get inside the heads of the llamas. We don't need to get inside the head of anyone, animal or not. That's just as well, because it's not possible to get inside anyone's head.

Instincts don't lead to genocide. It's the extra special faculties, the facility for narrative, that creates the evil that we do - and the very concept of evil. — Vera Mont

Yes, I do accept that narratives are crucial to the way that things work for us. That does seem to be a product of language. It's hard to imagine what might convince us that creatures without human-style languages could develop them. — Ludwig V

Why should they? They already have concepts and strategies that work for them.
The lost point there was that the sophistication of language, narrative and high level of abstraction which sometimes work for us are also what backfire[/quote] on us - not the animal drives.

Otoh, they allow us to do some amazing things. It's difficult to say the amazing outweighs the genocide, but we're stuck with both edges of the sword — Patterner

Increasingly, the edges are lost; we're looking at the tip. We've passed the deadline for choice. And who knows where the nuclear situation stands at the moment - you get conflicting reports every day. The good ideas and bad ones have converged to pose an existential threat to all advanced life on the planet, and I see no signs of global resolve to mitigate the unavoidable consequences.

So do we create the concept of a threat? Or a llama? — Ludwig V

Every entity with a brain understands threat. In between the dumbest and smartest are intellences that assess the threat level as degrees of bad, and categorize the sources of threat accordingly.
Only one species has elevated both the ability to pose threats to others and itself and to characterize threats to itself, its institutions and narratives to the level of evil, in both concept and deed.

There can be ambiguity in both llinghistic and non-linguistic behaviour. But many of them (maybe all) can, in principle, be cleared up on further investigation. — Ludwig V

I'm not sure about that. Have you tried getting clarity from a religious or political fanatic? If you listen to interviews with MAGA supporters or jihadists, you'll hear them use the most extreme language and yet they seem not to have any idea what they believe or why.

You seem to be wanting to get inside the heads of the llamas. — Ludwig V

That was just my facile example of a generalization, of conceptual thinking. I loosely translated the llama's aggressive approach to any random wolf as analogous to a human categorizing his perceived enemies as evil. If I'd known so much would be made of it, I'd have been more circumspect in my choice of words.

Why should they? They already have concepts and strategies that work for them. — Vera Mont

I didn't mean to imply that they should. Sorry I wasn't clear.

The lost point there was that the sophistication of language, narrative and high level of abstraction which sometimes work for us are also what backfire on us - not the animal drives. — Vera Mont

OK.

Every entity with a brain understands threat. In between the dumbest and smartest are intelligences that assess the threat level as degrees of bad, and categorize the sources of threat accordingly. — Vera Mont

Yes, I understand that. But @Patterner seems to be suggesting that we can't attribute the concept "evil" to them because we created it. I wondered what difference he was getting at between "threat" on one hand and "bad" and "evil" on the other. What led him to suppose that we can attribute the concept "threat" to them but not the other two.

That was just my facile example of a generalization, of conceptual thinking. I loosely translated the llama's aggressive approach to any random wolf as analogous to a human categorizing his perceived enemies as evil. If I'd known so much would be made of it, I'd have been more circumspect in my choice of words. — Vera Mont

Well, it was good enough to make your point, in my view. But @Patterner's objection pushes us to go deeper into the way the process of explaining animal behaviour works.

I'm not sure about that. Have you tried getting clarity from a religious or political fanatic? If you listen to interviews with MAGA supporters or jihadists, you'll hear them use the most extreme language and yet they seem not to have any idea what they believe or why. — Vera Mont

Good point. Possession of language doesn't guarantee the application of rational standards to what one says/believes.