I thought it [intelligence] was something like the ability to acquire, understand, and use knowledge. That would make it something different from knowledge but more about how to acquire knowledge. — Ludwig V

Yes, it is an inherent mental capability - although, like all inborn, or *hold nose* hard-wired traits, it can be dulled or enhanced by environmental factors. Intelligent beings learn to navigate the world by gathering information through their senses and formulating experimental approaches to the problems they encounter.

The information on which they must base decisions comes from the environment. In the case of humans, that ambient information matrix is linguistic and cultural, as well as physical and sensory. If a religious concept, or gender prejudice or architectural style or economic organization is embedded in the culture, those things become, from infancy, part of the 'knowledge' an individual gathers. Those verities form part of the world in which he operates as a problem-solving entity.

At some stage of intellectual development, some of the sharper individuals may question the verities of their culture, the assumptions with which they were raised. In human cultures, such questions can be hazardous; it is often safer not to voice them. Whether a thinker believes in God or not, the example of Galileo fresh in his mind, he [Descartes] may deem it more rational to justify the existence of God than to cast doubt upon it. Or, understanding the dynamics of his society, a career priest [Augustine] might propound Christian/Platonic values as a rational way to support the status quo. Rational thought is less often used in the service of Truth than in achieving goals.

And whales learn songs both from their own and from other pods.
Learning is common to all species that operate in a complex environment (i.e. not underground of stuck to a cave wall) Some learning is solitary experimentation, the way an octopus does. But the social species of mammals and birds teach their young a considerable amount of knowledge and skills.

All true. So why the symbol question? I've seen it bandied about and argued over, but I can't figure out the significance of it.

You could respond instinctively to the gooses hissing which I would say would be a non-symbolically mediated understanding of it. — Janus

Would that be an appropriate response? You might instinctively take it as a friendly greeting, or as just something geese do with no meaning.
In fact, it's a simple enough communication, usually accompanied by threatening stance and body language. Why do you need symbols as an intermediary? Why not regard what's in front of you, recognize the gestures as similar to those of other animals - including your own species - in similar circumstances, and reasonably assume that the goose does not welcome your presence in her personal space or nesting ground, and make a rational decision to retreat?

But the reform of abortion in Ireland is a good example of how influential they can be. — Ludwig V

The assemblies only made recommendations how to frame the debate for a referendum. The referendum itself asked all the citizens one important question

Do you approve of the proposal to amend the constitution? The amended text would read: “Provision may be made by law for the regulation of termination of pregnancy”

After many hearings, arguments, information releases, articles and pamphlets, one question, simple and direct.

Referenda have their place, can be very useful if done properly (not like brexit!). You can't do it with every issue and you can't do it often.

I have a feeling we're about to hit the Lounge. I'll buy the first round, while Vic Fontaine sings Imagine.

My first thought is Athens. — Athena

You're a bit late on that one! I meant - in response to

If we all agree about why civilizations fall, can we use our rationale to prevent that from happening? — Athena

That would make it a choice among those that exist today.

Greer estimates that it takes, on average, about 250 years for civilizations to decline and fall, and he finds no reason why modern civilization shouldn’t follow this “usual timeline.

Couple of problems with that. Without having read The Long Descent (I did read Gibbon on Rome)I suspect that he's not taken into account the relative speed at which the American Empire achieved global dominance or the way the industrial revolution and electronic technology have increased the speed of decline-inducing events: the depletion of natural resources world-wide, the stratification of societies, the environmental degradation, population growth and the spread of disease.
Where Athens was a self-contained city-state that could divorce itself from satellites if they became troublesome; while Rome could gradually abandon occupied territories if they became too burdensome, the US cannot even disengage from local wars of its own making; nor can it shed its international financial interests.

If there is a Resurrection we may be in it now. — Athena

Show me the Messiah(s) who will be followed to this new life.
Tell me when the movement reaches world-changing momentum.

Moving on to logos and universal thinking to save as much of our planet as we can save. — Athena

If that had happened in 1975, we'd have stood a chance. Carter made some effort.... Reagan killed it. The way many Americans remember them is : Reagan, one of the best presidents, ever; Carter, one of the worst. Nearly half of them want an incompetent, incontinent, addled fascist for the next four crucial years. Logos is huddled in a corner, nursing his bruises and sniffling.

It's not just my explanation https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10529410/
Why should "we" prevent history? Which empire would you like to keep in play? It's probably not the same one a Chinese businessman would choose, or a supporter of Modi. Should there be any empires at all? I don't think so, but that's what happens when a nation outgrows is own territory and is powerful enough to annex other territories and exploit their resources. What is it we'd be preserving? The same economic and political arrangement that caused the rapid decline.

We don't have time for the usual process to unfold. Much of the world is either under or threatened by imminent totalitarian rule. The economic disparity is huge and growing in all developed and developing countries alike. The weather isn't just causing local problems anymore: increasingly violent and frequent climate events are rendering large areas of the whole world uninhabitable. There are more people than have ever been, and huge populations are being displaced by famine, environment and war - everywhere. They have no place to go except the populated places that don't want them.
This isn't a discrete, identifiable civilization: this economy is global. When it implodes, there is literally nowhere to hide.
Here is a good article - of course, not everyone agrees.

Are we clear that this is a complete derail from the original subject? Saving or toppling the current civilization has no more to do with rational thinking than the life-cycles of previous civilizations did. Within the life of a tribe, nation or empire, many rational thinkers make decisions relating to whatever their role in that civilization is. But the social and natural and external forces that converge on it determine the path that civilization takes. That's more like an evolutionary process than a rational one.

I had a health scare the other day, so the OG bought Winnie the Pooh. I'll probably watch it with him - sometime. Halloween is coming up, so it's time to put on Nightmare Before Christmas, a perennial favourite.
Lunchtime, we've been watching Portrait Painter of the Year on You Tube. Evenings, Madame Secretary - again.
I've been having strong nostalgia for my favourite movie: Turtle Diary.

Oh, people have opinions on everything within their line of sight, so if you ask them a question about something that they happen to be aware of, and giving an answer is as easy as striking a few keys, they'll be happy to tell you what they think in that moment. Of course, it's an uninformed and only half-formed opinion, and they may think very differently after supper or after talking it over with a teenaged daughter with stronger opinions, or after somebody points out that the solution they chose will cost them money.
If you ask them a question about something they're unaware of and/or don't care about, some of them will still throw out an opinion, relevant or not. If it happens every week, many people will play it like a game, while many others get bored and stop participating.

Not sure this has been mentioned but a referendum is usually a binary choice, greatly influenced by the question asked. — Benkei

I asked who would set the question of the week, among other things worth considering, but my questions were considered 'trivial' and never answered.

As far as I know, in ancient Greece the "lottocracy" was trusted more than democracy, because in usual democracy, usually not best but the worst people come to power. — Linkey

Do you know what sortition means? Public offices were drawn by lot - not a bunch of people to argue about an issue on film. Very different concepts.

I'm in favour of selecting governing bodies the same way that we select juries. But you don't actually seem to be clear on your proposed system. At all. I recommend more time at the drawing board.

these 200 people will perform a vote, also they can vote for spending some state money for creating a video illustrating their argues and decisions; — Linkey

So decisions on major public issues now hinge on a video of people - 200 people! - arguing? I'm trying to imagine the sound level and clarity.
This idea just keeps getting less plausible.

Some of your questions are trivial. — Linkey

Please list in order of triviality.

Concerning the necessity to gather information before voting, I have an idea of using a lot: a group of 200 random people would be chosen, the state will give them the money for studiing the subject, and possbly they will vote instead of the whole population. — Linkey

Government by focus group... How is that an improvement over the current system, wherein every adult has at least a theoretical opportunity to participate? You want to take away from citizens even that illusion of control?
Of course, that doesn't address the implementation problems.

A am sure that the best political system would be a “referendum democracy”: if an online referendum will be performed at least each week, and these referendums should cover not only laws, but also decisions within the competence of the judiciary power (fines and punishments). — Linkey

And who would set the question for this Friday? Do the voters get advance warning to inform themselves on the subject? It's not a lot of time to prepare. How would a new mandate be implemented, when, and by whom? Who owns the platform on which the voting takes place and how are votes tallied? What percent of the votes would it take to win, and would that be the same requirement for imposing a parking fine, changing a zoning regulation, eliminating/reinstating the death penalty and declaring war? What if the public mood shifts before the law goes into effect?

There is already a better system than this in place in a number of jurisdictions. It’s called ranked choice voting. — T Clark

Yes, that's a good one.
So is proportional representation.

Proportional representation is an electoral system that elects multiple representatives in each district in proportion to the number of people who vote for them. If one third of voters back a political party, the party’s candidates win roughly one-third of the seats. Today, proportional representation is the most common electoral system among the world’s democracies.

Neither could function with that crazy referendum thing going on. Direct virtual participation could only work if the government consisted of a supercomputer with lots of enforcer and expediter peripherals and veto power over the dumbest public gestures.

Now how about the Glory of Islam, 8th to 13th century, and the decline? How about China that was more advanced than all of Europe and its decline? — Athena

Ecclesiastes 3:1 To everything, there is a season, and a time to every purpose under Heaven.

Nations grow rich, then powerful and their rulers grow ambitious. They have the wealth to raise large, well-equipped armies, and the constant anxiety of being overlooked by envious neighbours and hostile rivals. So they go forth to conquer and build empires. The sons and grandsons of these war leaders may not be equal to the task of consolidating and maintaining their forebears' empires; they become complacent and self-indulgent. Factions form among the aristocracy, each group plotting to take over the reins if/when the legitimate ruler falters. The military is overstretched; too expensive to supply efficiently, unable to deliver enough booty from the colonies; the troops are fed up with occupation duties and replacements are harder to recruit, the farther from home they're expected to serve. There are too many subject peoples chafing under foreign domination, looking for a chance to revolt. Meanwhile, those hostile rivals haven't disappeared; they've been growing stronger and richer, forming alliances, perhaps amalgamating: a young, energetic empire is emerging to challenge the superpower of the day.

This historical pattern has nothing to do with human 'advancement', but during the period when each empire is near the top of its cycle, a great many cultural, scientific and technological innovations flourish, because the empire has access to untapped natural and human resources, is motivated to develop those resources and has the material wherewithal to support them.

What has caused advancing civilizations to decline and in some cases to totally distruct? — Athena

Shortage of funds, overreach, mismanagement, corruption, unsustainable disparity, internal unrest and ideological schism, external aggression, and sometimes climate change.

That would mean children born deaf can think well enough to function, communicate and learn sign language. In fact, they begin to invent their own signals between 8 and 12 month, and can be taught the rudiments of ASL at that time, just as hearing babies begin to learn spoken language. They all do need sensory and intellectual stimulation. For non-verbal feral children the requirements of survival would provide plenty of stimulation, as it also does for fox kits and fledgling geese.

It's not that I've been arguing that symbols are important but rather that there is an important distinction between symbolic and non-symbolic signs. don't think it is controversial that one thing we possess that other animals don't seem to is symbolic language. — Janus

When you don't have access to the other entity's mind, I'm not sure you're justified in assuming they have no symbolic communication. You're probably correct in that symbolic language is a uniquely human achievement. What I don't see in practice or agree with in theory is that symbolic language is a prerequisite of rational thought.

Why don't all humans advance? — Athena

Maybe we don't all have the same definition of 'advance'. Maybe some territories were too remote and poor for conquest, and therefore the inhabitants of those undesirable lands didn't have their traditional lifestyle ripped away and destroyed, as so many others did. By the same token, having territory with scant resources means there is not much leisure time for contemplation or extra material for development.

But if you mean, what caused civilization where it did happen, that's a more complex answer. It probably doesn't belong here, but I can point you to a source for the basics. Fundamental difference: enough surplus (of food, natural resources and labour) to support specialized unproductive classes of people, such as administration, priesthood, judiciary and law enforcement, military and clerical, thus stratifying the society and perpetuating a power structure. The influential classes can then patronize artisans and inventors and allocate resources to their own comfort, enrichment, armaments/fortification and glorification through ritual, spectacles, monuments and elaborate burials.

Is it contradictory to work in a spa for improving the fertility of people and then consider that it is better to have a dog than a kid? — javi2541997

Individual freedom; individual choice. Not wanting children for yourself doesn't mean you disapprove of other people's desire to have them. I like both dogs and children and had both, but chose to adopt, rather than make them from scratch. I didn't think any less of my friends who had babies.

I understand animal warning cries to be signaling, not symbolizing, danger. I have acknowledged that I believe animals sense danger. I'm not sure what you think we are disagreeing about. — Janus

You seem to consider symbols important. I don't think it makes any difference to the concept whether there is a call, a word or a pictogram signifying 'danger', so long as the message is transmitted and received - i.e. the concept is shared within a species or a tribe: everybody ducks for cover to escape the danger, or flies up in dive-bombing formation to combat it.

Its a generalization and I doubt animals have a generalized conceptual notion we could refer as 'danger'. — Janus

Then what do the sentries outside meerkat burrows, groundhog colonies, wild goose nesting grounds and rookeries shout when a hawk or kestrel or coyote or fox or cheetah or snapping turtle is spotted?

So we are merely working with what seems most plausible, and plausibility is in the final analysis in the eye of the beholder. — Janus

As in all learning, yes, until a more complete answer, one that fits more criteria, becomes available.

One charter told another that she could remember much greater detail if she tried to walk through it slowly, step by step. — Patterner

I recently saw a documentary about Australian natives constructing mental maps in that way. The person who doesn't know the way is escorted along the route and told at certain intervals to make note of some feature of the landscape. Then they would walk the route in their head, recalling the sequence of features.
When I lose things - more often every week, it seems - I do the same thing: try to retrace my steps internally, and then see if I can follow the same sequence of things I noticed when i was carrying the flashlight or eyeglasses (the two most AWOL-prone objects in my household).

What if you're all alone on a desert island, building a shelter, foraging for food, making tool and working on an effective SOS signal, and there is nobody to demand an explanation of why you're doing these things? Are you irrational then?

Sorry I wasn't clear. I think that's implicit in what I said - indeed it is the justification for what I said. I should have said so upfront. — Ludwig V

Not disagreeing; amplifying. People can be seen to act rationally even when they don't explain their motivations and sources of information. When you see someone doing the very same thing you would do in their circumstances, it's reasonable to assume they're thinking the same way. Sometimes we may be wrong, and alternate explanations might be given (Like Dortmunder telling the judge when he was caught with a television in his arms that he wasn't stealing it; he had interrupted the real thief and was putting it back.) but it would still be reasonable to start with the most obvious explanation until we know more facts.

When we see animals displaying those behaviour patterns, there should be no problem whatever in applying those concepts to them.
When we come to the question which exact concepts apply in specific cases, it is not an at all unusual to find that there is a range of possibilities. — Ludwig V

Would this not also be true of observed human behaviours?

I think we can observe animals avoiding danger—things they presumably feel to be threatening. I am not suggesting that animals think precisely in terms of 'avoidance' or 'threat' or 'danger' as those are linguistically generated concepts. — Janus

How is danger a linguistically generated concept? Dangers have been around as long as living organisms have been around, but human language is only about 200,000 years old. We ran from predators and went around swamps millions of years before we were human. If danger were not a real thing in the world, why would we have made a word (actually, many words) for it. Where would we ever have got the linguistic idea in the first place? You can do something sensible without talking about it.

I am unsure at several points in your communication whether you are expressing your own view or attempting to paraphrase Sartre. — Jedothek

Invariably expressing my view and paraphrasing nobody - except occasionally in jest or irony and that's more likely to be poets or scriptwriters than philosophers.

When you refer to material, environment and evolution, you may be thinking of the human condition. — Jedothek

Nope. The human body, without which there is no human essence, spirit, nature, character, circumstance or condition.

But, surely, there is some kind of thinking involved in the experience itself. And particularly with the painting and concerto, since very specific thinking is involved during the creation. — Patterner

I believe we think on several levels and several ways at the same time. The multi-chambered mind allows us to process input, store it in short-term memory, translate it into numbers, words, musical notation, symbols and picto- or videograms and cross-reference it, for storage in various compartments of long-term memory archive, whence it can be retrieved using any of several reference keys (voluntary) or automatic flags (involuntary).
Synesthetics may be able to access a musical score through the weave of a Harris tweed (note-colour association is fairly common) or an equation by locating the terms in space .
We also mix memory, emotion, prejudice and involuntary associations in with our conscious thinking.
It's never simple and pure; and it's - I hesitate to say never, so will settle for seldom - wholly rational.

I was thinking there are people who claim they never think in words. If there are such people, I would like to know how they have conversations. — Patterner

I'm skeptical myself. I suspect it's a combination, like an illustrated narrative.

That claim reminds me of an absurd STNG episode, wherein Picard had to communicate with an alien whose entire language was made up of analogies and references to legend. Yet they had space travel. How the hell did anyone say "Hand me that spanner, will you?"

Yes, I understand that. But Patterner seems to be suggesting that we can't attribute the concept "evil" to them because we created it. — Ludwig V

And I agree. I don't imagine that other species view anything as 'evil' in the way that humans do. But they do appear to have a strong notion of things that 'may harm me' and things that 'endanger my pack' my herd, my colony or my flock. If a hawk-shaped kite hovers above a groundhog burrow, the guards give the danger call, exactly as if it were an actual hawk. Many dogs are afraid of or outright hostile toward vacuum cleaners, which they perceive as a threat; it's enough to see one turned off, or hear one from another room, to set the dog to snarling and barking to warn off its perceived enemy. (Canine vocalizations are very well documented.)
I don't imagine other animals are capable of performing evil acts the same way humans do, either. They can be angry, resentful, suspicious, spiteful; they can take a dislike to a person or other animal when we see no obvious reason for it; the long-lived ones can hold both affection and grudges for many years. Dogs, monkeys, elephants, parrots, cats and even horses* can devise unpleasant acts of revenge on those who have wronged them. That's bordering on the outer fringes of badness, but doesn't approach anywhere close to evil.
I think it's a long, long, jagged spectrum.

*This is anecdotal among horse-handlers; I don't know whether it has scientific backing.
I personally only know of one example: a thoroughbred who always managed to step on a particular rider's foot. That groom was known to be rough with the horses; our trainer warned him several times before he was finally let go. And that horse - Francolin, a calm 8-year-old - never stepped on my foot, or any other stable-hand's that I'm aware of.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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:

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.

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.

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.

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.

But I find it hard to imagine how they could be reflectively or narratively self-aware given that they don't possess symbolic language. — Janus

Does it matter whether you can tell stories about your thinking? I mean, it obviously matters to the storyteller. I happen to be a teller of fictional stories and it matters greatly to me. I suppose it matters even more to the tellers of stories that liberate or subjugate or eradicate entire peoples. In that sense, it raises humans above species that can't or don't need to tell stories.
(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.)
But how does it alter rational thought, problem-solving or navigating the physical world?