Well, they did survive, so they must have made some rational decisions along the way. We can't see the process, only the result. — Vera Mont

Surviving does not require the ability to think. You would not want to say alligators think, would you? They do not have a cortex and it is the cortex that makes us thinking animals. Alligators have reptilian brains, and so do we. I have been with severely brain-damaged people and they may be able to make some survival choices but their inability to think means very poor decision making.

Insects and animals do amazing things as a matter of instinct and want to add epigensome to this, which I define in my post just before this one. Our emotions can cancel out our ability to think, resulting in us reacting perfectly to an emergency or perhaps doing something we seriously regret. Just because we are capable of rational thinking, that does not mean that is what we are doing 24/7. Our brains are like chattering monkeys constantly running from one thought to another, but this is not rational thinking.

I think we need to understand the importance of language and learned logic skills for rational thinking. Not all thinking is rational thinking.

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. — Ludwig V

I had to look up tacit knowledge and found this..

Examples of tacit knowledge include knowledge of how to manage an angry customer or the know-how required to complete a complex task. This type of knowledge is often not easily captured in words, and therefore not easily transferred from one person to another. https://helpjuice.com/blog/tacit-knowledge#:~:text=Tacit%20knowledge%20refers%20to%20the,Tribal%20knowledge

I knew a man who was mechanical and took a class in physics and failed, yet he could resolve a mechanical/physics problem that no one else in the class could figure out. I would say that is an example of tacit knowledge. It is not understanding theory which is a verbal explanation of how something works. Verbal knowledge is something the man has trouble learning but he has knowledge that is not verbal.

When speaking of rational thinking- human and animal, I think we should mull over what is a thought. You said a thought can be an image rather than words and I spoke with a woman who designs things for people who request designs such as a machine that makes concrete barriers for a fancy garden. She said she sees the required parts of such a machine. She came to her job by her unique skill, not education.

Now if we agree rational thinking requires words, the two people I mentioned are not thinking with words and that might be akin to how animals think. With sonar, a bat can do amazing things and that is not a verbal task. Animals in general do amazing thing without words and could label all this tacit knowledge?

When arguing bonobo can learn language I wanted to say something that I didn't have the words for. Your thoughts helped me find the right words...

We used to think that a new embryo's epigenome was completely erased and rebuilt from scratch. But this isn't completely true. Some epigenetic tags remain in place as genetic information passes from generation to generation, a process called epigenetic inheritance.

Epigenetic inheritance is an unconventional finding. It goes against the idea that inheritance happens only through the DNA code that passes from parent to offspring. It means that a parent's experiences, in the form of epigenetic tags, can be passed down to future generations. https://learn.genetics.utah.edu/content/epigenetics/inheritance/

I believe bonobos have the potential for learning language but it is dormant because they lack the epigenome and inherited use of language that humans have. However, if they were taught communication as infants and were in an environment that encouraged communicating, their children would have epigenome and inherited language skills and they could eventually evolve into using language.

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

That would not cover rational thinking would it?

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?

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.

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.

The issue is how much organic life combined with simulated consciousness will it take to lead to pain emotions. The presence of a brain and nervous system is probably of significance. — Jack Cummins

Pain requires an organic body that can be aware of pain. This is true for any pain or feelings of joy. Without the body, feelings can not exist and without feelings, judgment is lacking an important piece of information.

Of course, it would be an error to see such damage as being damaging beyond repair necessarily. But, it may take a lot of therapy and support for healing to occur. This is especially true when those who have a history of early childhood trauma experience severe life stresses at later points in life as well. — Jack Cummins

It is crazy making when something triggers emotions that bring past feelings into the present and the person experiencing this is not aware of the problem being in the past. The person may know the present reactions are inappropriate for the present but have no control over the feelings. Awareness of the traumatizing event is essential to regaining sanity.

Because preverbal children have no verbal explanation of what happened, they can't be aware of it without someone explaining what happened. Fortunately, my mother told me of discovering I had one leg shorter than the other and I had trouble walking. That is why I was put in a body cast and the doctor was pretty careless with me when he dropped me on the table like a suitcase and told my mother she could take me home. But I didn't understand the chaotic terror I felt until I did EST and regressed to that moment in time.

I would say preverbal babies record such moments emotionally and don't have words to explain what happened. I might be stuck with that time in my history if my mother had not told me, and I had not found the explanation of PSTD and had not read a book about traumatized children. I was diagnosed as having PSTD but the event that caused it was unknown. When I told professionals what happened to me they ignored the possibility that the medical procedure could have been traumatic. I had been molested when in my teens and the therapists were hung up on that. When I asked why that would cause a problem I was told the child's body could not cope with such a terrible thing. Huh?. The molestation led to a family problem but in itself was not so terrible compared to being encased in cement for a year. :lol: I am angry about people being unaware of how badly medical procedures can affect a child. Hopefully today, doctors recognize there is a sentient being in the body they are treating and the primary caregiver may need extra support to feel confident in their ability to care for the child.

I think what we know now can result in a better world. Human beings have been very barbaric, Wars are very barbaric and it is shocking to me that some nations today are still acting like chimpanzees in the wild. We have nations acting like preverbal animals and thinking their barbaric behavior is justified. For every baby in the world, I am saying that barbaric behavior can never be justified. War is a crime against children.

"Boy, when your hand went into that fire and you pulled it out, you did some quick thinking and came up with a really rational response." — Fire Ologist

:rofl: Thank you for the humorous gift.

A dog wants to lick a bowl. So the dog begs. When the person looks at the dog, the dog moves his eyes to the bowl to communicate or tell the person what he wants. — Fire Ologist

Wow that is insightful. In a documentary on TV they made a big deal out of the fact that a dog will investigate where a person points, and you are telling us that a dog points with its eyes. That deserves some research. Oh and the pointer dog!

Pointing dogs, sometimes called bird dogs, are a type of gundog typically used in finding game. Gundogs are traditionally divided into three classes: retrievers, flushing dogs, and pointing breeds. The name pointer comes from the dog's instinct to point, by stopping and aiming its muzzle towards game. Wikipedia

I wish I could talk to the people who made the documentary for TV and raise awareness of dogs naturally pointing.

We think. — Fire Ologist

That could be the subject for a whole thread.

Au contraire, mon frère, and I know this from personal experience. What swims around in our brains 99 percent of the time are memories, worries, ruminations, replays, reactions, and judgments (of ourselves, as well as of others). They’re sound bytes and flashbacks. We can call them thoughts–but they don’t constitute thinking....

Real thinking is active, not passive. Real thinking is purposeful.

What’s more, real thinking is almost always more positive and productive than the unchecked babble that goes on in our heads much of the time. Real…
https://medium.com/the-orange-journal/how-much-time-do-we-actually-spend-thinking-45a4bf09db40

This is my favorite explanation of thinking.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uqXVAo7dVRU

I harp about thinking because we tend to jump to conclusions without doing the real work of thinking. And people will kill each other because of differences in belief. Maybe we can not stop that, but perhaps awareness of how our brains work will help us go through life a little more sanely.

Ever read Stranger in a Stranger Land? The protagonist decided that's what separates us. Man is the animal that laughs. — Patterner

Some researchers believe other animals have a sense of humor.

We think of humour as a distinctly human emotion, but some animals may also use it to strengthen their bonds. https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20240223-do-animals-have-sense-of-humour

I would love to see research with pigs because of what @wonderer said about piglets.

I've gotten the impression that pigs, at least when young, have a sense of humor. (A mother pig with a litter of piglets, not so much.) — wonderer1

How totally fascinating. That would make a great research project. We know animals change once they pass puberty, and we know the young are more open to exploring new things. Could our capacity for humor change as we age? Is a sense of humor and joy of learning new things something we can preserve as we age, delaying the negative effects of aging. And there is also that human-pig bonding issue. Can playfulness improve our relationships with animals? Where as that old sow is stuck in her ways and is not open to a relationship with humans?

Yes, pigs are social animals:
Social groups
Pigs live in stable social groups, often in matriarchal structures, where they form close bonds with each other.
Social hierarchies
Pigs develop social hierarchies through scent and noise, and these hierarchies can be established even when pigs are blindfolded. https://www.merckvetmanual.com/behavior/normal-social-behavior-and-behavioral-problems-of-domestic-animals/social-behavior-of-swine

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

That chimps are more aggressive than bonobo needs to be taken into consideration because individual temperament is involved in learning.

Also, I don't think we all have an agreement about what language is. I think we have agreement that animals are capable of communication but does that equal language? Even if it did equal language is that language limited to a few words and what concepts does that serve? I think we are looking at evolution here. A bonobo that learned to sign taught her offspring to sign. In the wild, this is unlikely to happen naturally, but perhaps in a human environment, human socialization is picked up, setting the animal on the path humans took.

An animal's willingness to play with people increases bonding just as play is important in nature and building social connections. Would you please read the quote and tell me what you think? Did Kanzi not only demonstrate an understanding of words but also used a conceptual word demonstrating judgment associated with a word?

[/quote]In a landmark study in the mid-1990s, Savage-Rumbaugh exposed Kanzi to 660 novel English sentences including “Put on the monster mask and scare Linda” and “Go get the ball that’s outside [as opposed to the ball sitting beside you].” In 72 percent of the trials, Kanzi completed the request, outcompeting a 2½-year-old child. Yet his most memorable behavior emerged outside the context of replicable trials. Sampling kale for the first time, he called it “slow lettuce.” When his mother once bit him in frustration, he looked mournfully at Savage-Rumbaugh and pressed, “Matata bite.” When Savage-Rumbaugh added symbols for the words “good” and “bad” to the keyboard, he seized on these abstract concepts, often pointing to “bad” before grabbing something from a caregiver—a kind of prank. Once, when Savage-Rumbaugh’s sister Liz Pugh, who worked at the Language Research Center as a caregiver, was napping, Kanzi snatched the balled-up blanket she’d been using as a pillow. When Pugh jolted awake, Kanzi pressed the symbols for “bad surprise.”
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/bonobos-teach-humans-about-nature-language-180975191/
[/quote]

Language and linguistics is important in the navigation of choices. This may be where human beings differ so greatly from animals. Lqnguage is at the core of human meaning and understanding. As the cognitive behavioral thinkers suggest, emotions and behaviour are not caused by experiences but by our interpretation of them. Nevertheless, it is a difficult area because while humans may struggle with interpretation and framing, the experiences of perceived 'trauma' has lasting effects, including upon the brain and biochemistry, This includes PTSD and the basis of so much which is experienced and diagnosed as 'mental illness'. — Jack Cummins

Amity — Amity

I wish I had remembers the words '"emotions and behaviour are not caused by experiences but by our interpretation of them." when I was in the heat of an emotional storm with my sister. I was so aware of that, but could not put the right words to that awareness at the time. :rofl: It can be hard to be rational when the bombs are falling. But I did know my sister was in her little girl story and ideas of competition.

The chemical component of past trouble concerns me. That does not seem fair to me. A bad experience is bad enough, but to live with it our whole lives just isn't fair.

WOW! I just looked for more information and especially this jumps out at me as very important!

The third medicine is community care. The truth is, we heal together. Oppression and colonization teach competition, close-mindedness, distrust, individualism, and the goal of obtaining power over others. Rewrite that script. Recite the love language of your ancestors.

https://www.apa.org/monitor/2023/06/healing-collective-trauma

I so wish I could get my brain to write books. One would be "Our Shared Trauma" and it would about how the Great Depression and Second World War traumatized us. Us being worldwide but my thoughts are limited to knowledge of the US experience. There are some good books about what war does to human beings, and always periods of war and famine have scarred human beings. The way we talk about this today gives us some hope for a more civilized future.

Looks like a republic/democrat divide.
— Athena

:rofl: — wonderer1

Thank you. Hum, do other animals laugh?

a new study shows that humans may not be alone in their love of playing practical jokes. Animals can tease each other too. Together with colleagues, Isabelle Laumer, a post-doctoral researcher at the University of California Los Angeles (UCLA), watched over 75 hours of videos of great apes interacting with each other. Great apes are our closest living relatives, and include orangutans, chimpanzees, bonobos and gorillas. The apes in the study all lived in zoos, and were filmed attending to their daily routines. https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20240223-do-animals-have-sense-of-humour

:chin: I understood play is important to social bonding and establishing social order but intentional humor? From experience, I know humor is very important for humans and that things can go very sour if we lose our sense of humor. In fact, I think humor is so important, we might want to teach it in school. Wouldn't it be nice if our schools produced comedians instead of killers.

Anyway, I think our pragmatic concerns are too different for us to reach aggreement anytime soon. — wonderer1

I think we are in agreement. You made a very good point. I like that the Greeks thought we are political creatures and it is fitting for this thread to question if any other life form is political. Chimps will sort of choose their leader, by ganging up on a leader they want to get rid of. An old leader who lost a fight may be allowed to stay close to the group. I just looked for more information and this link caught my interest.

Chimps use military tactic only ever seen in humans before

Chimps use an ancient military tactic to make decisions and avoid potentially fatal clashes with rival groups, scientists have discovered.

Researchers observed two western chimpanzee (Pan troglodytes verus) communities in Africa take to the hills to carry out surveillance on each other — much like reconnaissance missions used by militaries. They then used that intel to decide when to enter contested territory.

Plenty of animals look out for danger in their environment, but this is the first time scientists have documented a non-human species making elaborate use of elevated terrain to assess risk in a territorial conflict, according to the new study, published Nov. 2 in the journal PLOS Biology.
https://www.livescience.com/animals/monkeys/chimps-use-military-tactic-only-ever-seen-in-humans-before

It is kind of exciting to think about this and the evolution of social order. I googled if bonobo also use military tactics and I got this...

No, bonobos don't use military tactics, but they do have their own ways of responding to conflict:
Individualistic survival strategies: Male bonobos tend to survive on their own, which may be due to their tendency to follow female groups.
Sociosexual behavior: When faced with conflict, bonobos produce cortisol, the body's main stress hormone, and respond with anxiety instead of aggression. They relieve their discomfort by hugging, kissing, and having brief sexual encounters with group members.
https://www.google.com/search?q=do+bonobo+use+military+tactics&rlz=1C1CHBF_enUS926US926&oq=do+bonobo+use+military+tactics&gs_lcrp=EgZjaHJvbWUyBggAEEUYOTIJCAEQIRgKGKABMgkIAhAhGAoYoAEyCQgDECEYChigATIJCAQQIRgKGKABMgkIBRAhGAoYoAHSAQoxODMwN2owajE1qAIIsAIB&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

Looks like a republican/democrat divide.

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

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

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

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

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

What you are saying about your experience with your sister shows the power of nurture inherent in our core thinking. As Freud suggested, so much of our basic personality structure is determined in our first 5 years. This is also consistent with the neurochemistry of thought, with the added factor of nature, including genetics, alongside nurture.

It is so difficult to break free from our constructions and defence mechanisms of the past. I don't have brothers or sisters, but I am aware that I am restricted by aspects of childhood patterns of thinking. In particular, I am inclined to go into the victim mode as a doorway into negative thinking.

Cognitive behavioral therapy is more focused on the present as opposed to the analysis of the past in psychoanalytic therapy. Making changes is very far from easy though, as it may require a need to reframe the past. It may require a lot of work on oneself to do this effectively and consistently. In this sense, free will may not be a given aspect of thinking but as a mode of ability which needs to be developed. — Jack Cummins

You triggered some thoughts in my head.

Number one thought is how important is the first 5 years. I think that information is stored in our subconscious and pops up automatically when something in the present triggers it. As for the recent drama with my sister, I would swear that was a frightened 3-year-old child with no developed self-defense skills other than screaming and attacking, and no language to explain the situation and the choices in that situation.

Number 2 is linguistics therapy, that explores those hidden thoughts and emotions and rewrites them. Many years ago stress triggered my PTS and instead of being one person having different experiences, I became several people fighting for control and one was a murder. Not a fun experience. My therapist regressed me to the traumatized one-year-old and helped me rewrite the story created by the infant. Amazingly that snapped me back together and I was once again one person having different experiences. I am a firm believer in the power of linguistics therapy and rewriting our personal life stories.

Number three is Eastern philosophy. From this Eastern perspective, we intentionally learn virtues and intentionally practice and practice them until they become habits. That might be the key to freedom that you are looking for. If we do not use a spot in our brain, the cells will atrophy. The cells we do use grow. Imagine the intentional adult in control and freedom from the past.

I work on both rewriting the past and focusing on virtues. But I have the luxury of security that a younger person is not apt to have. It is insane to leave a person with intense insecurity and expect good results. It is a little crazy to feel safe when in fact one is not safe. :rofl: Much of my life was an exercise of insanity. Trying to make myself believe things were better than they were and functioning without the social support we need. Man, it is not easy being human. But we can use Virtue cards, and use them when we are not sure of what to do and in so doing make living with virtues a habit.

PS

Amity — Amity

post is a good one. When I came of age, women were expected to marry, have children, and stay home to be homemakers. I strongly value that and believe it is essential to civilization, but it is not 100% good. There were problems with that.

I think a good compromise would be returning to college, getting a degree, and then having a career. Individually we can not make a perfect world, but I believe together we can manifest a better reality.

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

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

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

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

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

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

I'm betting on the ants. — Vera Mont

Really, you think the ants will outdo the roaches? Ants don't even make the list of nuclear blast survivors. I had to look up the possible survivors and there are some. Just for fun....

https://jeevoka.com/8-animals-that-would-happily-survive-a-nuclear-war/s

I have two dogs. I love them.
— Fire Ologist
And you love your thermostat in the same way for the same reasons? — Vera Mont

:lol: That may not be a fair statement but it sure is funny.

Now I don't know about loving a thermostat, but loving a car may be reasonable. The car we drive is an extension of who we are. And they have personalities. Many machines we interact with have personalities and we like to name them and enjoy our relationship with them.

We are all animals. They are chimpanzees and bonobos and we are humans. The big black line is drawn only on side of that distinction. — Vera Mont

I think we agree humans, chimps and bonobos evolve from the same ape-like creature. I am not sure we agree that humans are the only ones who argue about such things. Does it matter? Some day evolution may favor the survival of roaches. Some believe our opinion of our intelligence is overrated.

Is anyone in this thread "violently" rejecting human exceptionalism, or are people simply expressing various nuanced views? — wonderer1

I have been turning to research. And because of the book "The Math Instinct" by Keith Devlin, I see mathematical feats in animals as equal to

's explanation of an air conditioner. However, a bat's sonar abilities are far better than anything we have.

I am also struggling to get a clear definition of rational thinking. Is it rational to believe a god made us of mud and our reality would be different if a man and woman didn't taste the wrong fruit? Or does rational mean based on facts that can be validated? At least among the researchers, there is agreement that we are the only animal that asks these questions and attempt to answer them. I am just not sure if bonobo might not evolve as we did if we set the conditions for this evolution. — Fire Ologist

I don't disagree, and what you quoted wasn't directed at you. — wonderer1

:grin: I knew that but I thought you might think about what you said if I responded as though you were addressing me. I think to have the meaningful discussions we all want in this special forum, we need to feel safe and when we are made the subject of a post and criticized for all to see, we might not feel safe.
I know I don't like it when someone does that to me. On the other hand, over the years my posts may have improved because of all the criticism that has come my way. I work very hard at not appearing condescending because I was accused of that so often. As a general rule I try to respect everyone and protect the dignity of others. Doing so is a matter of honoring my grandmother who taught me those values.

e thermostat reacts to the cooler temperature and shuts off the air conditioner.

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

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

We could say the same thing about animals.

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

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

Animals don’t ask questions. Ever.

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

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

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

I am not so sure the rest of what you said is exactly right. Especially when we get to the chimps and bonobo our closest genetic match, and their communication ability. The following link is for

Vera Mont — Vera Mont

Savage-Rumbaugh a researcher, is sure bonobos are capable of language and communication. The link explanation is long, and ends with...

I was reminded of something Savage-Rumbaugh had once said to me about our species’ signature desire: “Our relationship to nonhuman apes is a complex thing,” she’d said. “We define humanness mostly by what other beings, typically apes, are not. So we’ve always thought apes were not this, not this, not this. We are special. And it’s kind of a need humans have—to feel like we are special.” She went on, “Science has challenged that. With Darwinian theory, this idea that we were special because God created us specially had to be put aside. And so language became, in a way, the replacement for religion. We’re special because we have this ability to speak, and we can create these imagined worlds. So linguists and other scientists put these protective boundaries around language, because we as a species feel this need to be unique. And I’m not opposed to that. I just happened to find out it wasn’t true.” https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/bonobos-teach-humans-about-nature-language-180975191/

I don't believe there is a black and white line between us chimps and bonobos, they are animals we are humans. I think we are on the same line of evolution and under the right conditions bonobos could have more complex communication than we want to admit. I am putting information about bonobo communication together with an explanation of climate change that may have caused our uniqueness.

The study of human evolution shows that, like other organisms, humans have evolved over a long period of time in the face of environmental challenges and opportunities. These challenges affected how early humans secured food, found shelter, escaped predators, and developed social interactions that favored survival. The capacity to make tools, share hunted-and-gathered food, control the use of fire, build shelters, and create complex societies based on symbolic communication set the stage for new ways in which humans interacted with their surroundings. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK208097/#:~:text=The%20study%20of%20human%20evolution,social%20interactions%20that%20favored%20survival.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

One of the issues central to the debate about free will is the way in which thoughts and behaviour are determined by nature and nurture. This poses the problem that humans have lack of capability to change, at the level of thoughts and neurochemistry. My own view is that human beings have reflective consciousness, which is the foundation of potential change. — Jack Cummins

I just had an experience that makes me question just how much free will we have. I went to Hawaii with my sister and two other women. We stayed in her timeshare. Some problems came up and the stress took a toll on my sister, reverting her back to a three-year-old in a daycare center having to fight for a toy. Her reactions to me were insane but not unexpected. before leaving, I told all my friends I didn't want to go because I was afraid this would happen. The point is I am sure this is not what my sister would want to happen if she truly had freedom of will. Obviously, she did not have freedom of will but was thrown back in the past and lost all self-control in relation to me but oddly could snap back to appropriate behavior when speaking with others.

The most helpful information I have gotten is dog breeders do not put puppies with the same mother in the same home because since birth they competed with each other. The life story my sister created for herself, was running her, not her better judgment and in her mind, I was competing with her and inconsiderate of her feelings. This is pretty common in sister and brother relationships and it goes against any chance of having a good outcome because the person is not wholly in the here and now but has a childhood perspective of what is so.

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

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

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

Open-minded critical thinkers demonstrate:

Willingness to consider alternative viewpoints

Ability to suspend judgment until sufficient evidence is gathered

Receptiveness to constructive criticism and feedback

Flexibility in updating beliefs based on new information

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

↪Athena
I guess you'll have better things to do that hang around here!

I want to add that I do not at all deny that animals (including humans) do have purely mechanical responses. Examples in humans are the reflex breath as you come back to the top of the water, which is clearly evolved and rational, as contrasted with the jerk of your lower leg as your old-fashioned doctor tap just below your knee, which (so far as I know) has no evolutionary purpose. You may know that if you scratch a dog at just the right place, their back leg comes up as if to scratch themselves; they can also do the same thing when they want to scratch themselves; that response can be mechanical and irrational and can be voluntary and rational.

Often, this involves altering the meaning of words and twisting familiar concepts, and may include denial of the audience's practical experience.
— Vera Mont
You're not wrong. But, along with all the similarities, there must be differences. The same applies to chimps and horses and whales. So there is a legitimate enquiry to be had here, surely? — Ludwig V

If it is not language it is not rational. If we do not agree on the definitions of words, we are doing no better the competing groups of chimps screeching at each other. Without agreement on the definition of our words, we doing no better than pissing on a tree to mark our territory, or a fire alarm. Certain sounds like a chimp screech, a police siren, or a fire alarm are universal sounds of danger because the screech is in all these things and also bird calls. In some cases an animal will make different sounds for different threats and this close to language but not exactly language.

I am eager to get into animals and math, because I wrongly thought the ability to do math means a form of rationalizing. After reading "The Math Instinct- Why You're a Mathematical Genius(along with lobsters, birds, cats, and dogs)" Now I understand the math animals are doing is like our knee jerk or a dog moving its leg when the right is touched. It is not the problem-solving humans do until we get to hire order animals that are making choices, such as a chimp taking the dish with 7 pieces of candy and not the one with only 6 pieces. Many lions means leave the territory but only one lion can be challenged. A snake jumping in the right direction at the right time to catch prey is using math, but this is like a knee-jerk. What bats can do with sonar hearing is amazing and better than anything we have invented, or birds flying 20 thousand miles from a summer home to their winter home. These animals are doing trigonometry and geometry but it is instinct, not learned math, and most certainly not working with 1+2=3. Those numbers are like language and animals do not have language. It is more like an intuitive reaction than rationalizing, how the chimp can count, can of like making a scratch for each piece of candy and remember how many times a scratch was made.

We need to agree on what "rational" means and what "language" means. What is the definition of these words?

I never claimed otherwise. And, in fact, the remark was not directed specifically at you - except inasmuch as you have been defending the human exclusivity position - but was an observation regarding a whole system of faulty/disingenuous human reasoning for the purpose of arriving at a desired conclusion.
Propaganda and advertising work in this same way: argument directed at a desired outcome. The purveyors of mis- and disinformation use a rational process to determine what kinds of falsehood their audience is most likely to believe and construct the most persuasive arguments to make their conclusions sound reasonable. Often, this involves altering the meaning of words and twisting familiar concepts, and may include denial of the audience's practical experience. — Vera Mont

Wow, what a depressing view of reality. I just got back from a trip to hell and I am so happy to be here.
All my ideas may be wrong, but at the moment I don't give a damn because I am going to enjoy my happiness. Today I am not in charge of the world. It is my day to enjoy my home and my life. Maybe to tomorrow I will get more serious and back to feeling responsible for the world.

The bright side is I have almost finished the book about humans, animals, and math and look forward to to discussing what I have learned. We can talk about what is so and society be reason and being happy.

Ran out of time. My ride to the airport has arrived. I will be in Hawaii for a week.

Here is a clear example of thinking which is not rational. If you poke a caterpillar with a leaf in a way that doesn't harm it, it will squirm like its being attacked. Every time, it never stops. Its a purely reactionary mind, with no forethought, adaptability, or ability to react to memory. Whereas we have a monkey using a tool. How many tests did the monkey have to do to get the right stick? What did they try before sticks? Rational thinking is a process which requires memory, adaptation, and often times proactive and not reactive. — Philosophim

I might throw in here something I just read in a math book. It has been proven a 4 month old child recognizes the difference between one thing, two things, or three things. The baby has no language so is not thinking in terms one, two, three. It is just the change in the number of objects that the baby reacts to. This does not happen when there are four things or five things. More than three is just many. It also is specific to the number of things. It does not matter if three balls become three blocks, or if red puppets become blue puppets. It is only the change in the number of things, up to three things that catches the baby's attention. This is also basic to horses, birds, and dogs.

That is knowledge of some things is hard-wired. It comes with the animal. This is not the thinking you described. It is more like the caterpillar reacting as though it were being attacked. No thinking, just a reaction. A man accidentally killed his son because he was reacting to fear, and picked up his gun when he heard an intruder and then fired that gun when his son who came home from college a day early, jumped out of the closet to surprise his dad. The reaction happened before the thinking could begin. I think it is important to understand not all thinking is rational and thank you for your example of the caterpillar. It is also a baby's reaction to the change in the number of things. This is the stimulus, this is the reaction. Not rational thinking.

Logic may also be too strong. Rational thinking is the ability to piece premises together and come up with potential solutions. Those solutions may be wrong. A rational thinker can then eliminate that wrong answer and try another route. Logic often implies deductive reasoning, but many would argue that inductive reasoning is also necessary for rational beings. — Philosophim

There is a problem with inductive reasoning. Scholasticism used Aristotle and the Bible as the foundation of education. We did not come to the modern age until much later and there was a terrible fight and strong backlash to Aristotle's inductive reasoning. We are talking a huge knowledge breakthrough that changed our cultures and our lives. There was a lot of anger towards education based on Aristotle because it prevented us from progressing intellectually.

Hume asks on what grounds we come to our beliefs about the unobserved on the basis of inductive inferences. He presents an argument in the form of a dilemma which appears to rule out the possibility of any reasoning from the premises to the conclusion of an inductive inference. There are, he says, two possible types of arguments, “demonstrative” and “probable”, but neither will serve. A demonstrative argument produces the wrong kind of conclusion, and a probable argument would be circular. Therefore, for Hume, the problem remains of how to explain why we form any conclusions that go beyond the past instances of which we have had experience (T. 1.3.6.10). Hume stresses that he is not disputing that we do draw such inferences. The challenge, as he sees it, is to understand the “foundation” of the inference—the “logic” or “process of argument” that it is based upon (E. 4.2.21). The problem of meeting this challenge, while evading Hume’s argument against the possibility of doing so, has become known as “the problem of induction”. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/induction-problem/

Why does 'reasoning' require a modifier? — Vera Mont

If the reasoning isn't correct, things can go very wrong. That is why it is important to have the correct facts and think things through carefully. Democracy is not about what one person thinks but together after we argue with each other and check our facts, what is true. This is akin to scientific thinking. It is not basing our understanding of reality on a myth that can not be supported with factual statements.

We have a big problem in the US. Our understanding of rational thinking is very weak. In general people don't know the difference between an opinion and a fact. All thinking is confused with being rational and that is a serious problem.

It is your opinion that I hold rational thinking as a human thing based on language that animals do not have because I want to exploit animals, is an opinion, not a fact. Let me make it clear, I care that we know the difference because it is the only chance we have of not destroying our planet. If we do not distinguish between correct reasoning and incorrect thinking, the planet is doomed and there is no other animal on earth that can do that reasoning.

This is why the definition and meaning of the phrase "Rational thinking" needs to be clearly listed and agreed upon first. If we all have different viewpoints of what the phrase "Rational thinking" means, we're never going to come to an agreement. as to whether an instance of a crow using a tool is an instance of rational thinking. — Philosophim

I can think of three major elements to rational thinking: its form is linguistic, its structure is logical, and its orientation is (ostensibly) self-interest (either direct or indirect). Under that definition, animals do not have rational thinking because they lack language. And intuitive thinking, which allows for action without explicit knowledge of the reasons for action is similarly excluded. — Baden

@Manuel said "I suppose a bare minimum has to be symbolic representation akin to something that arises with language use. Animals do not have language, if by "language" one has in mind propositional knowledge."

Perhaps we can focus on logic.

Logic is the study of correct reasoning. It includes both formal and informal logic. Formal logic is the study of deductively valid inferences or logical truths. It examines how conclusions follow from premises based on the structure of arguments alone, independent of their topic and content. Informal logic is associated with informal fallacies, critical thinking, and argumentation theory. Informal logic examines arguments expressed in natural language whereas formal logic uses formal language. When used as a countable noun, the term "a logic" refers to a specific logical formal system that articulates a proof system. Logic plays a central role in many fields, such as philosophy, mathematics, computer science, and linguistics. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logic

.

I like that the definition begins with "correct reasoning". Lenching someone does not involve correct reasoning. In court, we aim at correct reasoning. But then I think of the ancient Greeks and the argument against rhetorical speaking which may appeal to emotions more than reason.