I am not sure. Could be we are the only ones. But it could also be that we are the only ones who want and need more than what we have. We might be the only animal dissatisfied with ourselves, and life as it is. I mean, look at us! Can you blame us for being so insecure? — James Riley

Speak for yourself!

Or it understands, but you're not conscious of it. You think the toaster knows the numbers on its dial?

Or it understands, but you're not conscious of it. You think the toaster knows the numbers on its dial? — Bylaw

I still have to get used to the vocabulary. Our puppy dog is very intelligent though. She knows not to bite my face (she's licking it right now!). My hands are not safe though. She can't read a clock too (neither?).

To answer your question about "too (neither?)": it would be grammatical to say "She can't read a clock either", however I don't think that's what you were trying to say. The words "too", "either" and "neither" all refer back to something mentioned previously. I think you needed to start a new thought, maybe something like "Anyway, she can't read a clock". I hope that's helpful.

My dog is 8 years old now and I have had him since he was 8 weeks old, and all that time I have thought about what he knows and how he thinks. He would bite my hands when he was very young, but I learned that the way to stop this is to scream and act like the puppy has really hurt you, in an exaggerated way. This is how other dogs respond to a puppy biting. I hope that's helpful.

I guess that behaviour is instinctive, because it is widespread among dogs.

When I think about my dog's intelligence I see that he works by trial and error more than by reason, and I think that is because he lacks the flexibility provided by human style language and thought. Not only flexibility, but many other aspects of thought are available to us because of the nature of our language.

Sure, animals, including us, have our strengths and weaknesses.

When I think about my dog's intelligence I see that he works by trial and error more than by reason, and I think that is because he lacks the flexibility provided by human style language and thought. Not only flexibility, but many other aspects of thought are available to us because of the nature of our language. — Daemon

Nonsense.

I am totally convinced by the power of your rationale Oh Thunderballs!

am totally convinced by the power of your rationale Oh Thunderballs! — Daemon

Sometimes few words are needed... Oh Daemon 596796...

Speak for yourself! — Daemon

LOL! I'm speaking for you, whether you like it or not. LOL! How does it feel?

I argue that an objective, neutral third party (God?) would view Homo Sapiens, on most but not all fronts, as an inferior species. This is evidenced by three proofs: 1. He must copy other species in order to survive; 2. He feels insecure, and compelled to over-compensate in the imitation; 3. In addition to, or as part of his tongue and brain, he has evolved an incontrovertibly idealized view of his species.

It has been said that Man can copy animals but animals cannot copy man. This is improper phraseology designed to assuage the fragile insecurities of man. The proper way to say it, and the way which would be understood by an objective, distant viewer is this: Man must copy animals to live. Animals do not need to copy man. This phraseology more accurately states the objective facts.

It has also been said that imitation is the sincerest form of flattery. Animals do not flatter man. This is not good for man’s fragile ego and feelings of insecurity. Thus, man does what he always does, and spins this the best way he can, by using the terms “can” and “can’t.” Every direction he turns, he finds himself copying animals, but they don’t flatter him by copying him. He thus devalues animals and marginalizes them to something inferior; when the truth is quiet the opposite. Man over-compensates, and thinks that over-compensation is better. He tunes animals out and refuses to listen to them, except for what utility they might provide in helping him shore up his inherent weaknesses. He learns how to cover his naked self; he makes a knife for tooth and claw; a plane to fly like the bird, a submarine to swim like the fish, etc. All more than is necessary, and he calls this good. To the extent he overcompensates, he shits in his own nest. And in the end, he still cannot fly and he still cannot breathe water.

This comparison might better be made to intraspecific relations. After all, man thinks he is the measure of all things, so the best way to reach him is through himself. Consider the United States of America: The richest, most powerful nation on Earth. Many Americans look at other countries and perceive them to be “lesser” than us. It is suggested they be like us if they want to have what we have. We suggest this as if we would not look down upon them if they would only flattered us, and if they only tried to be like us. But then if they do try to be like us, and if they approach success in their efforts (China/capitalism) they become enemies. If they stand up to us, eschew the petrodollar, using the petroeuro, or barter system, then we again make them enemies, and invade or sanction them.

This example of the United States vs the world is like mankind vs the animal kingdom. We have spun our myths for so long, and told them so well, that we have convinced ourselves of their irrefutable truth. Everyone, if they only knew better, would be like us. There is no way anyone could be satisfied with their lot in life unless it is our lot. This is the height of arrogance.

As Jose Ortega yGasset opined:

“In the preoccupation with doing things as they should be done - which is morality - there is a line past which we begin to think that what is purely our whim or mania is necessary. We fall, therefore, into a new immorality, into the worst of all, which is a matter of not knowing those very conditions without which things cannot be. This is man’s supreme and devastating pride, which tends not to accept limits on his desires and supposes that reality lacks any structure of its own which may be opposed to his will. This sin is the worst of all, so much so that the question of whether the content of that will is good or bad completely loses importance in the face of it. If you believe you can do whatever you like - even, for example, the supreme good, then you are, irretrievably a villain. The preoccupation with what should be is estimable only when respect for what is has been exhausted.” Meditations on Hunting.

Wild animals not only refrain from flattering us (save maybe the dog, and, well, they are dogs; we love them as long as they know their place, don’t get uppity and continue to beg), but they refuse to compromise their superior endowments in order to be like us. How humbling for a creature who refuses humility; who celebrates himself as a warrior against the odds in a cold cruel world. We are God. LOL!

Animals would not envy us. They would laugh at us, or feel sorry for us, if they weren’t so superior, so humble, so grateful, so gracious, so generous, so secure in who they are.

If the tooth and claw are not tools, then neither is the brain or tongue. It’s really how they are used that generates a distinction with an evolutionary difference. But not a better one. Animals use tooth and claw to procure food. We use our brain and tongue to create tools that animals don’t need to procure food. We make machines for strength because we are weak. We then tell ourselves a we are strong because of it.

We should pump the breaks, live in grace with the Earth because, ultimately, everything we are or ever have been or ever will be is the direct result of her. Not us, in a vacuum, pulling ourselves up by our own bootstraps. No. That is a myth. We are of the Earth. We are not better than the Earth.

As opined elsewhere, I think man can hold his own, and maybe even surpass other species in the creative and performing arts. As to the rest, I am doubtful.

There are indeed some species using other ones on their favour. All animals think, it's just a matter of degree. Even the group thinks by its own as a whole is a bug itself.