Do you see how you keep making my point?

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

And I see how you consistently fail to understand mine, probably due to lack of basic education in philosophy and cultural history.

The word 'violentily' doesn't imply actual violence, but rather a 'strongly held opinion' which has been expressed forcibly any number of times in this thread.

Ralph Cudworth - right! He was one of the Cambridge Platonists. @Manuel has mentioned him several times. I'll read that with interest later.

A couple of paragraphs:

According to Cudworth, Descartes’ mistake was that his conception of the soul was too narrow. Descartes thought that animals’ inability to speak or think reflectively like humans was explained by their not having souls and thus being purely physical machines, but Cudworth saw a problem with this: animals might not speak or reason, but they still do an awful lot. As Cudworth saw it, anyone who can look at the incredible variety and complexity of animal behaviour and decide that it is all merely physical mechanism “will never be able clearly to defend the incorporeity and immortality of human souls” (The True Intellectual System of the Universe, 1678, p.44). In other words, if animals feel and move and communicate as they do purely because of their physical makeup, then there’s no reason to introduce a special, immaterial soul to explain human behaviour. If Descartes is willing to explain the behaviour of all animals as resulting from nothing but ‘blood and brains’, why shouldn’t he draw the same conclusion about us?

For a seventeenth-century Platonist, that’s a surprisingly modern insight; in fact, it’s not unlike the sort of argument many materialists would use to refute Descartes’ dualism today. But Cudworth was not a modern man, and like Descartes, he accepted the orthodox assumption of his time that conscious minds are souls. As we have seen, he was also committed to bridging Descartes’ radical gap between human and animal life. And so, instead of showing that neither animals nor humans have souls, he tried to show that animals have souls too. And although Cudworth thought that animal souls were less perfect and less conscious than human souls, he believed that nevertheless, their existence gives us moral responsibilities towards animals that we do not have towards soulless, mindless objects. So for Cudworth, the specialness of human souls does not entail the worthlessness of animal ones: rather, animals are simply less complex, less developed examples of the same sort of thing that humans are.

Substitute 'soul' with 'mind' and I think Cudworth makes a valid point.

None of which vitiates the arguments I've been presenting on the matter.

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.

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.

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. — Fire Ologist

One problem with this is, that when you look at the mechanisms enabling the behavior of a thermostat and the behavior of an animal, that of the animal is vastly more complex than that of a thermostat. Furthermore, what enables the behavior of most animals (and in particular mammals) has a substantial degree of similarity to what enables our behavior.

Like us, animals have brains composed of complex neural networks, which enable complex responses. Based on such physiological similarities, I would think it naive at best, to be dismissive of the possibility of cognitive similarities.

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. — Fire Ologist

I have two dogs. I love them. — Fire Ologist

And you love your thermostat in the same way for the same reasons?

I don't believe there is a black and white line between us chimps and bonobos, they are animals we are humans. — Athena

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.

It has become even clearer now...

What counts as thinking? What counts as rational thinking? The answers need a minimal criterion, which in turn, requires the right sort of methodological approach. Do you have a minimum criterion which, when met by a candidate, counts as thinking? Rational thinking? If not, then upon what ground do you rest your denial that some creatures other than humans are capable of thought, rational or otherwise?

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

Like us, animals have brains composed of complex neural networks, which enable complex responses. Based on such physiological similarities, I would think it naive at best, to be dismissive of the possibility of cognitive similarities. — wonderer1

Yup.

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.

Some day evolution may favor the survival of roaches. — Athena

I'm betting on the ants.

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.

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

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. — Fire Ologist

Since you’ve addressed canids, you are claiming that packs of wild canids (wolves, cayotes, dingos, etc.) engage in no reasoning whatsoever when entrapping their prey (which can sometimes cause sever injury to them, if not their death – with a moose as one example of such prey - and which are in many ways unpredictable in what they do) and then bringing it down?

Can’t so far find a reference to this experiment online, but during my university years I was told by a professor of a scientific experiment where an otherwise friendly dog was made to go insane: biting all humans that surrounded and biting itself while foaming at the mouth. The experiment is easy to understand, and maybe even empathize with. From my best recollection of how this experiment went: A dog is accustomed via operational conditioning to obtain food after touching its nose to a door that has a circle depicted on it. The dog is then faced with two doors: one with a circle where it gets its food and one with an ellipse which, when touched, transfers an electric shock to the dog. The dog via brief experience then always touches the door with the circle and always avoids the door with the ellipse. The experiment then makes the circle more elliptical and the ellipse more circular. The dog has no issues in yet going to touch with its nose the door with the more circular figure. This until the two doors – more properly the circular ellipse and the elliptical circle – become indistinguishable by it. At this culminating point, the heretofore friendly dog goes insane as described.

Granting that this experiment did in fact take place, why would the dog go mad – this as most likely would any human child if not also adult human faced with the same contextual constraints forced upon them – if the dog engaged in no reasoning whatsoever when selecting the door with the more circular ellipse over the door with the more elliptical figure?

What some might well find to be horrific experiments on lesser animals – with dogs as one very commonly used species (in part because they’re easy to obtain, such as from shelters) – are maybe far more common than typically known. And in all these at times sadistic experiments on lesser animals (with very many being far more sadistic/horrific than the one I’ve just mentioned), there is assumed a potential benefit to humans down the line - to human brains and human minds. (I’ve worked in a neuroscience lab where I had to perform partial lobotomies on birds and then, after some time, perfuse them (while they were alive, of course) so as to extract their then paraformaldehyde-hardened brain for slicing and then observation of neurons under the microscope – this, in short, to better study the neuroscience of language acquisition and application. I’ve said “sadistic” because I’ve observed firsthand how some, but certainly not all, fellow experiments obtained pleasure from the suffering of the birds during the process – this rather than in any way empathizing with their condition which we had inflicted upon them. Doubtless that empathizing with their condition would have been uncomfortable if not painful for them.)

And yes, sometimes such experiments on lesser animals are the only means we have at our disposal for better understanding the structure of the brain and the correlating mind without harming humans. (And, in fairness, sometimes they are utterly idiotic, to not here also address ethical considerations.)

That said, what sound reasoning would there be in all these many experiments on animals were there to be no continuity between the minds of animals and those of humans? Here to include the mind’s utilization of some form of reasoning, however diminished by comparison to human reasoning it might be. Example: what could we possibly learn about ourselves as humans by placing rats in T-mazes and the like were there to be no continuity in cognitive faculties among lesser animals and us?

---------

To be clear, this is not to deny that we as humans are of a different level of cognition than all other animal species - making us as a species quite exceptional. In so asking, I only uphold that there is however no absolute divide between the cognition of humans and that of lesser animals.

The dog has no issues in yet going to touch with its nose the door with the more circular figure. This until the two doors – more properly the circular ellipse and the elliptical circle – become indistinguishable by it. At this culminating point, the heretofore friendly dog goes insane as described.

Granting that this experiment did in fact take place, why would the dog go mad – — javra

Did the experiment reveal their findings? If that was a true experiment, the researchers would have some insights as to why the dog went insane.

Good point. I don't remember (its been some 30 years since I've heard of this experiment). My best hunch is that the hypothesis tested for might have had something to do with symbolic representation among lesser animals. But, in truth, I don't now know.

Many machines we interact with have personalities and we like to name them and enjoy our relationship with them. — Athena

Right. And they listen attentively when you bitch about your day, babysit your kids, make sure you get enough exercise, make you laugh and love you back, no matter what? Relationships with machines tend to be one-sided. Relationships with dogs, cats, horses and parrots never can be.
(Anyway, I was just pointing out the double-think.)

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. — Athena

The operative word is "some". Ants are also resistant to radiation, but they have other valuable assets, as well. The complex social organization and extensive interaction of members bodes well for adaptation under stress and replication of useful traits.

Besides, I think the world is more likely to end with a whimper than a bang. Both ants and roaches have made successful transitions to all kinds of climate conditions and environments. No doubt in some remote future, the Cockroach Empire and the Republic of Ants will be rattling Raid missiles at each other. Then again, they may be saner than we are.

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 — Athena

You should have a read of the story of Nim Chimpsky. He was born and raised like a human child with the hope that he could be taught to communicate like humans.

As chronicled in the 2011 documentary "Project Nim," [Columbia University psychology and psychiatry professor Herbert S.] Terrace decided to see if Chimpsky could learn human language by placing the infant monkey into the home of one of his former students, Stephanie LaFarge. The goal was to see if Chimpsky could acquire human-like language if he was raised like a real human being. Starting in late 1973, Nim Chimpsky began his life/experiment — but controversy soon arose. Despite being treated kindly, Nim Chimpsky showed unexpected aggression toward his human caretakers. His behavior was so sporadically violent that, after he attacked one of the people taking care of him in 1977, Terrace moved Nim Chimpsky back to a regular laboratory. At that point, Terrace called off the experiment.

Additionally, Terrace and his colleagues reached a disappointing conclusion: Although Chimpsky had appeared to learn language — he moved his hands and body in a manner consistent with American Sign Language, using over 120 combinations, in order to seemingly ask for things like food and affection — the evidence indicated that he was simply mimicking the behavior of the humans around him. It is possible that Chimpsky understood at least some of the "words" he was forming, but it is also very, very far from being proven.

"Nim learned to sign to obtain food, drink, hugs and other physical rewards," Terrace later explained to Columbia University. "Nim often got the signs right, but that was because his teachers inadvertently prompted him by making appropriate signs a fraction of a second before he did. Nim's signing wasn't spontaneous. He was unable to use words conversationally, let alone form sentences." — Salon

When the experiment failed, the poor little chimp was then packed off to a home for retired lab animals, where he was reported to seem very depressed. Ends up being a sad story.

why would the dog go mad — javra

I would say because of cognitive dissonance. I don't find it hard to see that many higher animals could experience that.

I would say because of cognitive dissonance. I don't find it hard to see that many higher animals could experience that. — Wayfarer

I happen to very much agree with that. Though I'm uncertain as to how this might relate to reasoning among lesser animals in your own view.

To me, for cognitive dissonance to occur, there is required some modality of reasoning. As just one example, there is required a non-linguistic understanding that if this then that. Having such non-verbal if-then reasoning would bring about the dog's madness via an extreme cognitive dissonance wherein it becomes impossible for it to discern what action (that of either touching the one door or the other) leads to what consequence (that of obtaining food, which would be pleasurable, or of being electrically shocked, one can only presume quite unpleasantly so) prior to commencing any action.

From where I stand, other then the misapplication (else misconstrual) of purely poetical metaphor in expressing that "an AI can experience extreme cognitive dissonance and thereby go mad", I find that while AI might malfunction, they cannot go mad strictly due to experienced stressors such as that of extreme cognitive dissonance. In conjunction with this, I so far find that AI - unless they were to gain some first-person awareness whereby I-ness/ego becomes ontically established - does not and cannot engage in reasoning (this in non-poetic/metaphorical terms). All this on par to what can be said of a thermostat. Maybe paradoxically for some, all this however being unlike the bona fide reasoning of lesser lifeforms - which again occurs in various diminished extents relative to the average human. (With some humor, I say that some animals from corvids to octupi exhibit far more reason-driven intelligence than some non-average - and yet not mentally handicapped - humans. ... myself included at times :grin: )

I happen to very much agree with that. Though I'm uncertain as to how this might relate to reasoning among lesser animals in your own view. — javra

I’ve already said, I don’t deny that the so-called higher animals (including some birds) are intelligent. But rationality in the sense h.sapiens possess it displays a kind or level of intelligence that they don’t, even if it is present in them in a rudimentary degree. This is based on abstract reasoning and language (see for instance Terrence Deacon The Symbolic Species). It has been suggested that because there is some continuity between h.sapiens and other species, then the difference is only one of degree rather than of kind. That is what I’m taking issue with. Maybe what I’m arguing for could be described as a question of philosophical anthropology, a philosophical view of what is significant about humankind. I know this is a very non-politically-correct argument, so a lot of what I’ve been trying to spell out in this thread, is what I see as the motivation for the currently popular view that we’re no different to animals.

Also in relation to AI, I’ve used ChatGPT since day one, I run a lot of ideas by it and use it for all kinds of things. It’s truly amazing. But are large language models beings? That’s another thing I question. I put it to ChatGPT which responded as follows:

The question of whether large language models or AI in general qualify as "beings" touches on deep philosophical and ethical issues. From a philosophical standpoint, it connects to topics like consciousness, personhood, and agency, all of which are traditionally considered key aspects of what makes a being.

In the case of large language models like me, while we're able to process language, respond meaningfully, and simulate conversation, we don't have consciousness, intentionality, or subjective experiences. So from a metaphysical or philosophical point of view, most would argue we're not "beings" in the traditional sense. However, this opens up debates about how we define terms like "being" and "intelligence."

It sounds like a lively thread—did the mention spark any follow-up questions or reactions?

I said I’d provide updates ;-)

I knew that but I thought you might think about what you said if I responded as though you were addressing me. — Athena

I see, and appreciate the compassion behind your response.

I do think about what I say, and try to tailor the things I say to the individual that I am speaking to, rather than attempt to have a 'one size fits all' way of speaking to people.

One aspect of that is understanding that there are people with personality disorders who exhibit very sterotypical behavior patterns that can be recognized. Some categories of personality disorders are narcissistic personality disorder, antisocial personality disorder (colloquially psychopathy), and borderline personality disorder. I've had experience interacting with people with all three of those conditions, and I've done some study of psychological perspectives on all three of those conditions.

As food for thought... Although you haven't provided very detailed information on your recent interactions with your sister, I think it might be beneficial for you to investigate borderline personality disorder and what is referred to as "splitting" in the case of someone with borderline personality disorder, and see if it rings any bells.

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. — Athena

My thinking is influenced by things discussed by M. Scott Peck in the book The Different Drum: Community Making and Peace, not least of which is Peck's discussion of the toxic effect on communities that people with personality disorders often have.

I guess you'd need to make a better case against calling out narcissism when the evidence for it is overwhelming, in order for me to think that it is not worthwhile to do so. (Not to say that it is likely to be of any benefit to the narcissist herself, but that is a different matter than what is of benefit to a community.)

I would say because of cognitive dissonance. I don't find it hard to see that many higher animals could experience that. — Wayfarer

Humans do, all the time.

Yes, and.....?

Just another thing we have in common, perhaps because our minds work in similar ways.

It has been suggested that because there is some continuity between h.sapiens and other species, then the difference is only one of degree rather than of kind. That is what I’m taking issue with. — Wayfarer

We once, a long long time ago, had a debate about whether bonobos which have learned to communicate with humans via human-devised symbols could be asked the question "what occurs after death" (or something to the like) and give a meaningful, or else cogent, conceptual reply (which I take to not necessitate a "well reasoned" reply). My stance was and remains that, while I don't know, it to me remains within the scope of (lets call it) physical possibility that they might then entertain some conceptual notion of the same end of physical life we hold in mind - thereby having, or else obtaining, an awareness of their own mortality. (Just that, much like many a human, they might not be pleased with so contemplating.)

With that said, I myself happen to be in accord with what you here express. Differences in degree do indeed produce differences in kind. A bacterium is of a different kind than an ameba, both being of utterly different kinds than a cat, for example - this though evolutionarily speaking the differences between in issues such as that of awareness, or else of behavior, is a matter of degree. Maybe needless to then add, Homo Sapiens is a species of an utterly different kind than that of any other species on Earth with which we co-inhabit (most especially with all the other hominids that once existed now being extinct). I'll hasten to add that our species is nevertheless yet tied into the tree of life via an utmost obtainment, else utmost extreme, within a current spectrum of degrees - this as, for example, concerns qualitative magnitudes of awareness, of forethought, and the like. But this in no way then contradicts that we humans are of an utterly different kind than all other living species on Earth. Relative to bonobos and chimps very much included. Since we're on a philosophy forum, no other animal - great ape, dolphin, or elephant, for example - can comprehend the concepts we can when addressing the many diverse philosophies that have occurred. Thereby, again, making us of a distinctly different kind from all other lifeforms of which we know.

I'm sort of pondering on what grounds anyone might disagree with this (I should say, anyone who accepts biological evolution as fact).

Since we're on a philosophy forum, no other animal - great ape, dolphin, or elephant, for example - can comprehend the concepts we can when addressing the many diverse philosophies that have occurred. Thereby, again, making us of a distinctly different kind from all other lifeforms of which we know. — javra

Right. That's what I've been arguing for, and also, why is it that it seems such a hard thing to grasp. Apparently that makes me a pathological narcissist, although of course I don't possess the insight to see it.

Incidentally, speaking of animal awareness of death, there was a spooky and touching story about 15 years ago, concerning a fellow named Lawrence Anthony, who had devoted his life to helping and caring for elephants in southern Africa.

Back in March 2012, Lawrence Anthony, a conservationist and author known as "The Elephant Whisperer", passed away.

Anthony, who grew up in rural Zimbabwe, Zambia and Malawi, was known for his unique ability to communicate with and calm traumatized elephants. In his book 'The Elephant Whisperer: My Life with the Herd in the African Wild', he tells the story of saving the elephant herds, at the request of an animal welfare organization.

Anthony concluded that the only way he could save these elephants, who were categorized as violent and unruly, was to live with them - "To save their lives, I would stay with them, feed them, talk to them. But, most importantly, be with them day and night".

When Anthony died of a heart attack, the elephants, who were grazing miles away in different parts of the park, travelled over 12 hours to reach his house. According to his son Jason, both herds arrived shortly after Anthony's death. They hadn't visited the compound where Anthony lived for a year and a half, but Jason says "in coming up there on that day of all days, we certainly believe that they had sensed it". — CBC

Work that one out!

But they aren’t using reason — Fire Ologist

Humans can judge (view) the dog's reaction as rational, not that it is rational. Fire's comment went on to explain that he does not see any evidence that the dog is using reason. — L'éléphant

This is exactly right, in one way. It is a question of interpreting what is in front of us. There's a problem, however, about the distinction between seeing the dog's reaction as rational and it being rational. That suggests that It is not a question of inferring from the dog's actions to something else, such as an inner experience or brain state. That takes us straight into a morass of undecidability and metaphysical speculation. Yet there is a real issue about assigning truth or falsity to an interpretation - it's very likely not possible.

The issue is what the principle of interpretation should be. If one adopts one principle or the other, it is not a question of some fact that provides evidence one way or the other, but what conclusions the evidence in front of us justifies - and that depends on what principle of interpretation we adopt.

The difficulty is to identify how to justify the principle of interpretation independently of assessing the evidence.
You are drawing the distinction between interpreting the dog's reaction and what the dog's reaction actually is (presumably, independently of any interpretation). But when it comes to interpretation, that's a very tricky question and the answer is by no means self-evident. In other words, the question is now how to distinguish between interpretation and reality? Or maybe how to decide when interpretation is reality?

Animals don’t read reasons. Otherwise we read off of smells and visions and feelings. Like other animals. And “read” in this context is metaphor for sensation. We read reasons, Animals don’t read anything (except metaphorically). — Fire Ologist

You are very confident about that. What grounds do you have? Or is this simply a decision about how you are going to interpret what they do and what they don't do? You can jump either way. But I want to know what justifies your choice. (Because I make a different choice and I'm prepared to go into my reasons/justifications.)

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

The condition "if the volume of his barking is a reasonable to convey...." means that his barking is a rational response. If the rest of the pack don't respond, he will likely bark louder, which demonstrates a feed-back loop, which implies rational, purposive control of the bark.

Reason involves logical inference, representational language, judgment and choice. We have to use reason to deliberate and make a choice. We have to use judgment to choose what objects are the most reasonable objects to deliberate about. When we focus our reason on a subject, we are choosing that focus. These are all human things. — Fire Ologist

Yes, there are a range of activities that are constitute what I think you mean by "using reason". I agree that we do not recognize any animal activities that we can interpret as doing those things. (Actually, I'm not at all sure that's true, but let's suppose it is for the sake of the argument)

But here's the problem. If those activities are the only basis for rational action, what leads us to suppose that it is rational to engage in them.

If this idea were correct, the only basis for supposing that when we engage in those activities in relation to taking an umbrella when we leave the house is that we have debated and considered whether to take an umbrella. But what makes us suppose that it is rational to engage in debating and considering? The only answer is that we have debated and considered whether it is rational to engage in debating and considering whether it is rational to engage in debating and considering. I hope you see the infinite regress looming. I conclude that at some point, we do not engage in debating and considering before acting and yet are acting rationally.

Since we can act rationally without debating and considering what to do, there is no reason to suppose that animals cannot act rationally without debating and considering what to do.

When the air in my house is above 75 degrees, the air conditioning goes on and the house is cooled and the 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. — Fire Ologist

Quite so. It's about how we interpret the phenomena. We can interpret them in a causal framework, or we can interpret them in a rational framework. Confusingly, we can sometimes interpret the same phenomena in both frameworks. Our question is which one is more appropriate in this or that case? People seem to be quite happy to make the choice (some in one way, some in the other), but to find it very difficult to engage in an argument about which is the better choice - even though they have made a choice. It's very difficult and confusing. That's when the real philosophy begins

I think your story is close to the story of how dogs became domesticated. A few wild dogs dared to come close to humans .... This led to genetic changes that made domestic dogs domestic. ... — Athena

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.

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. — Athena

Yes. I'm sure there have been genetic changes in dogs. But, by the same token, also in humans. Note also that training is involved as well - learning to live together. I believe that pigs can also follow a pointer. It is significant, of course, because pointing (ostensive definition) is usually thought to be fundamental in learning language.

I did more research, and discovered that this was not true, and that at one point, Descartes had a pet dog which he treated with affection. However, the anecdote was not entirely devoid of fact, — Wayfarer

I had heard about this, so I'm very pleased to know the truth of it. Thank you. Comment - It was a myth and like all, good myths, it was based on a truth and captured a deeper truth in spite of deviating from the facts.

But I argue that with language, rationality, and also the capacity for transcendent insight, h.sapiens have crossed a threshhold which differentiates us from other animals, and that this difference is something we have to be responsible for, rather than denying. — Wayfarer

I'm very cautious about transcendence. It has been very common to take a reasonable idea and turn it into a fantasy.

(In reality, he was probably exaggerating, and the dog was simply annoyed at his attitude. People get very huffy when they're disliked or disapproved-of.) — Vera Mont

There's a feed-back loop. Human doesn't respond to dog's greeting. Dog is confused and unhappy and withdraws. Human thinks that dog dislikes them, which is not wrong, so gets prickly - body language, looks away. Dog gets further upset. It's about a dynamic relationship.

I'm very cautious about transcendence. — Ludwig V

Our culture and philosophy generally lacks the language within which to interpret the word. It is usually treated as synonymous with religious dogma and rejected on those grounds.

Our culture and philosophy generally lacks the language within which to interpret the word. It is usually treated as synonymous with religious dogma and rejected on those grounds. — Wayfarer

Those are both real problems. But I don't think it is just a question of religious dogma, but of metaphysical and ethical dogma. It gets used as an attempt to bolster views that are inherently problematic without addressing the problems.