philosophers think that linguistic behaviour is, in some way that escapes me, something different from behaviour. I can't think why. — Ludwig V

Might have something to do with the fact that not all behaviour involves using language. All linguistic behaviour does.

Yes. The question of the significance of the difference(s) is likely the trickiest one of all.
— Ludwig V
How would that be judged? — Patterner

Good question. One way is to assess the ethical implications of the differences we find. Another would be to examine and explore why people get so strongly committed. It would be at least helpful to know why people think it matters. But the difficult bit is that how one sees animals is very much a function of the relationships one has with them, so there isn't a purely objective basis for the judgement. There isn't a matter of fact that makes the difference - it's a question of how one chooses to interact with them.

we can(and do, I would argue) know what all meaningful experience consists of - at the basic irreducible core. It consists of correlations drawn between different things by a creature so capable. That question was asked to Ludwig, for he admits language less thought and belief. I presume he would admit experience as a result. However, his approach is woefully inequipped to answer the question. That was the point of asking it. — creativesoul

OK. I'll bite. I thought you were asking the question because I couldn't answer it; actually I have answered; it's just that you don't like the answer. I haven't worked out exactly how to argue the point, so I'm holding my peace until I've worked that out.
Preliminary problems include what it means to say that any meaningful experience consists of anything never mind what it means to say that meaningful experience consists of correlations.

Their meaningful experience, thought, and/or belief does not consist of language use. — creativesoul

Language users express their beliefs etc. by talking (and in their other behaviour). Clearly, creatures without human language cannot express their beliefs by talking. But they can and do express their beliefs by their behaviour. Both language users and creatures without language have meaningful experiences, which, presumably, "consist of" correlations. (I'm setting aside my doubts about "consist of" and correlations.)

They do not draw correlations between language use and other things. — creativesoul

Insofar as they do not have human language, that seems obvious. But then, when I call out "dinner", my dog appears. Isn't that correlating language with something else? When I call out "sit", she sits and looks at me expectantly. Apparently dogs are capable of responding appropriately to something like 200 words, which is about the language learning level of a two year old human.

I'm not keen on conflating mathematical descriptions(which are existentially dependent upon language users) with language less knowledge, thought, and/or belief. Dogs are incapable of doing math. Doing math requires naming quantities. Dogs cannot do that. They can catch a ball nonetheless, and we can describe those events(or at least the trajectory of the ball) with calculus. — creativesoul

I wasn't conflating those two descriptions. I was pointing out that the mathematical description of the trajectory of the ball does apply to the ball and that the dog (or indeed, human) is not applying that description. What beliefs and/or experiences can we discern in ourselves to explain how the ball is caught? Can we attribute those same beliefs to the dog or not? I think that skills like these are attributed to "judgement", which means either that the human "just sees" where the ball is coming and the same can be attributed to the dog. Both express their belief about where the ball is coming by positioning themselves to catch it.
We can legitimately expect that there will be some neurological activity which we are not conscious of and which that enables this to happen. This will be similar to the neurological activity that must underlie our ability to discern where a sound is coming from. We can also expect the same or similar activity to be going on in the dog.

What difference is a question of how we interpret the events? The events are already meaningful. Hence, it is possible to misinterpret them. — creativesoul

The difference between the autonomous salivation and the growl which is under the dog's control.

I'm not convinced that growling is under conscious control, as if used intentionally to communicate/convey the growling dogs' thought/belief. I'm more likely to deny that that's what's going on. The growl is meaningful for both the growling dog and the submissive others. I'm not convinced that the growl is a canine speech act so to speak. — creativesoul

I wasn't going so far as claiming that it is a canine speech act. However, my speech acts are meaningful to myself and others (including my dog), so there may well be something to the comparison.
As to conscious control, I cannot train my dog to salivate or not on my command (any more than I can train myself to salivate or not as I wish). But I can train my dog to stop growling on command. That suggests the growl is under the dog's control.

Functioning in a social context does not lend itself to being a social function in the sense that the community members have some awareness of the awareness. — creativesoul

Sorry, I'm confused. If the growl warns others not to be aggressive, I would have thought that they were aware of the dog's belief that they are being regarded as a possible threat. Is that what you meant by awareness of the awareness? I would also have thought that the dog was aware of it's own awareness that the others present a possible threat. Perhaps that's what you mean?

The growl has efficacy, no doubt. It is meaningful to both the growling dogs and the others. I would even agree that it could be rudimentary language use, but it's nothing even close to adequate evidence for concluding that growls function in a social context in the same way that our expressions of thought and belief do. — creativesoul

So we agree at least to some extent. I wasn't making any claim about equivalence of that function to our expressions of thought and belief. Though it does occur to me that when I feel threatened by someone, I will make placatory and/or self-confident signals, whether by body language or in speech in order to warn them off. That seems to me to be performing the same function as the growl. The difference, I would say, is the difference between the simplicity of the growl and the complexity of the messages we can convey through the complexity of language. There is similarity and difference.

Yes. The question of the significance of the difference(s) is likely the trickiest one of all.
— Ludwig V
How would that be judged?
— Patterner
Good question. One way is to assess the ethical implications of the differences we find. Another would be to examine and explore why people get so strongly committed. It would be at least helpful to know why people think it matters. But the difficult bit is that how one sees animals is very much a function of the relationships one has with them, so there isn't a purely objective basis for the judgement. There isn't a matter of fact that makes the difference - it's a question of how one chooses to interact with them. — Ludwig V

I think we're having different conversations. I'm talking about whether or not we have abilities that language-less species do not have, and, if so, whether or not language is responsibile for those abilities.

I think you are talking about how we use those abilities.

I think we're having different conversations. I'm talking about whether or not we have abilities that language-less species do not have, and, if so, whether or not language is responsibile for those abilities.
I think you are talking about how we use those abilities. — Patterner

That's odd. I thought you were asking how we might determine the significance of the difference between animals and humans.
It's just that we can argue endlessly about the differences between animals and humans. But, in the end, each species is different from the others in some respects and similar in others. So it seems to me that it is an empty debate (whether the glass is half full or half empty). Yet we we think the question is really important? Why? What is at stake?
It seems likely that language is important in enabling the human way(s) of life. Probably our opposable thumb is also important, not to mention our large brain. None of those differences means that we are not animals or that we are justified in pretending otherwise.

Could this be the simple basic building blocks of societal constructs such as language like ours? — Ludwig V

I will say "no." Sound is not the only way animals communicate. They also communicate with smells and behaviors. The reaction is as automatic as jumping when one hears a loud crashing sound. We would not have survived if we didn't react automatically to threats when a fast reaction is essential. However, unlike the dog, we are not going to continue barking and growling when we realize the mailman is not a threat. However, some humans do react by grabbing a gun and pulling the trigger and expect to be exonerated no matter who they shoot. The point is like animals we react without thinking and that is not equal to having language.

We slip into language when we start making pictures and then start telling stories with pictures. This is the development of conceptual thinking. True, there are some animals that paint pictures when given paint brushes and paint, but these pictures are splashes of color, not portraits of other animals and objects.

Animals may learn human language but it is not instinctive. However, I suspect if a group of bonobos learn a language and teach their children language, over many generations the ability to use language will either end or become part of their inborn abilities. Abilities can be passed on through parents and genes. We are on the same evolutionary branch as Chimpanzees and Bonobo and not all humans are like modern man but were more a transition from ape to human.

However, my speech acts are meaningful to myself and others (including my dog), so there may well be something to the comparison. — Ludwig V

I believe we share much in common with other animals because we are evolved animals. Aboriginal people around the world learned about life by studying animals. Life lessons came from the crow and the wolves. etc..

Wolves mean a lot to the Native American community and it is a dominant role in the Ojibwe tribe. In the Ojibwe tribe creation story, wolves are often described as family members to the tribe. Wolves were referred to as a brother or sister along with a perception that if whatever happens to the wolves, it will happen to one of the Ojibwe tribe, they also traveled the world together and spoke the same language.[4] They have a strong relationship tied with the wolves because wolves are a symbol of their culture and tradition. https://wildwisconsinwolves.omeka.net/natives#:~:text=In%20the%20Ojibwe%20tribe%20creation,and%20spoke%20the%20same%20language.

philosophers think that linguistic behaviour is, in some way that escapes me, something different from behaviour. I can't think why.
— Ludwig V

Might have something to do with the fact that not all behaviour involves using language. All linguistic behaviour does. — creativesoul

Thank you both of you. As I was working on my previous reply I started to wonder why I think language and thinking are so important. Humans can be incredibly destructive and that is far from being intelligent. Our creation story making us to be not animals but as angels made separate from the animals. ? What is that? Might that creation story be harmful?

I think we need to understand we are evolved as are the rest of the animals. Equally important is our heart. If our hearts are not in tune with nature might be an evil force on earth?

None of those differences means that we are not animals or that we are justified in pretending otherwise — Ludwig V

I haven't read all of the thread. I know this was being discussed early on. But I don't know who actually said they held that position, and had no idea anyone in still saying it. I know with absolute certainty I never said it.

I'm just saying there is a significant difference between humans and animals. I think this is evidenced by many of the things we do and manufacture. I also think we think about things no other species thinks about. Of course, I can't prove my cat isn't pondering the nature of consciousness, trying to find an easier way to locate prime numbers, or amusing himself with the thought of the cat who shaves all the cats who do not shave themselves. But, if someone invented a machine that allows us to listen in on his thoughts, I would be willing to bet anything that he isn't.

I'm just saying there is a significant difference between humans and animals. I think this is evidenced by many of the things we do and manufacture. I also think we think about things no other species thinks about. Of course, I can't prove my cat isn't pondering the nature of consciousness, trying to find an easier way to locate prime numbers, or amusing himself with the thought of the cat who shaves all the cats who do not shave themselves. — Patterner

A fetus becomes conscious before being born and early self-conscious emotions appear during at age 15-24 months. Yet ask yourself, if nobody had talked about consciousness to you, you wouldn't have read about it or been taught about it, would you have come to think about the nature of consciousness?

If you answer yes or even perhaps, then how would you talk about it? What level do you think your ideas would be about it if you wouldn't have any reference to science or philosophy about the issue or the basic biological understanding we have now. Just look at this thread and notice how much people refer to biology, science and philosophy. The previous discourse about the issue.

Not only do you need a very complex language to talk about the nature of consciousness, you need a lot of information to talk about it.

Now your cat might not think about Russell's paradox, but it quite likely can count. It could be argued that it has some primitive feline mathematical system, because counting is very important for situational awareness. Logic is also quite important in situational awareness.

Hence the huge difference isn't a biological difference, but a social and informational difference.

Hence the huge difference isn't a biological difference, but a social and informational difference. — ssu

Yes. But why don't they have the social and informational systems we have? They haven't developed these things, despite being in our homes, seeing and hearing us do everything we do, and being spoken to extensively, for a very long time. Countless generations. Many people have even tried to teach them. Is the reason for the social and informational differences not a biological difference? Their brains cannot do the same things ours can.

You might ask yourself first why the closest relatives to us are the chimpanzees. The simple answer is: we ourselves.

There's no Neandethals, Denisovans, Homo erectus, Homo rhodiensis, Homo naledi, Homo luzonensis, homo floriensis walking around anymore, even if there were 300 000 years ago. And all because of us, not because of climate change etc. Those that could have children with us, they now are part of our genealogical roots. It's telling when Alexander the Great made his genocidal journey of conquer to the outskirts of India, the Greeks had a brief "battle" with strange little humans that fled to the trees, until someone told them these were actually animals called monkeys and they wouldn't be a threat to them or a population to be subjugated.

Animals do use tools and for example the Neanderthal could make a fire, so the question is that would these other hominids of our tree be able to invent or copy agriculture, have the written word? Very likely, but they are no more.

Hence to your question, why wouldn't any other animal have the social and informational systems than we have, is because if they would, they would have posed a threat to us and we would have exterminated them.

Never underestimate the viciousness and utter cruelty of this species we call Homo Sapiens, mankind. Just look how cruel we can be for our own fellow man, even today. We aren't peaceful Kapybaras, you know.

I quite agree. However, while that may explain why there is no species with which we don't have such a social and informational difference, it doesn't explain the social and informational difference. The reason no other species does what we do socially and informationally is that their brains aren't capable of it. When other species have been in close contact with us for millennia, watching and hearing the things we do and how we do them, us attempting to teach them, what other explanation could there be?

I'm just saying there is a significant difference between humans and animals. — Patterner

Most mammals don't fly but bats do fly. Would that difference mean a bat is not an animal? It appears you are saying humans are not animals. We have a larger cortex than other apes and vocal cords that apes do not have. We are different but how does that difference equal humans are not animals?

When other species have been in close contact with us for millennia, watching and hearing the things we do and how we do them, us attempting to teach them, what other explanation could there be? — Patterner

Baboons do not learn from chimpanzees. The baboon can see the chimpanzee stick a twig in a rotting log and get termits but it never attempts to do so. Interestingly, the female chimp learns a lot from her mother but male chimps are less likely to pay attention to what their mother is doing until they get older.

Here is a lecture on animals and social learning.

It appears you are saying humans are not animals. — Athena

Let me rephrase. There is a significant difference between our species and every other species.

Bats are the only mammals that can fly. I'm not saying bats are not mammals.

How about love. What is it? What does it consist of? Will the lion ever learn to "love" its neighbor? — Athena

Love is older and more deeply rooted in sentient beings than rational thought. Love is a complex of emotions that connect one individual to another. In its most primitive form, the mother's tender concern for her young, closely followed by the bond between mated pairs. In the more evolved species, close friendship are formed between individuals - and not only of their own species. Many lions love their tiger, canine or human friends. Most humans are also picky about whom they love, and it's rarely their neighbour.

How does a god exist? — Athena

By inhabiting the human - exclusively human - imagination. Gods come into being through human projection and/or wishful thinking and are then sustained by application of rational narrative and social infrastructure to an irrational central idea.
Animals don't do that. If they're in awe of something, it's because that thing has got real power, not because they've they've conjured it up from their own murky subconscious.

Most mammals don't fly but bats do fly. — Athena

And bats cannot communicate with iguanas and condors have little in common with zebras. Species within the same family are more like one another than they are like members of another family; human are more different from chipmunks than they are from gorillas. Gorillas are also very different from octopi, even though both are capable of rational problem-solving, neither can do algebra, but I expect both can be taught to play the piano. There are similarities and differences between species throughout the animal kingdom and its evolution.
But humans are super-duper-special; utterly different from other species in so many ways that are hugely important to humans.

Thank you both of you. As I was working on my previous reply I started to wonder why I think language and thinking are so important. Humans can be incredibly destructive and that is far from being intelligent. Our creation story making us to be not animals but as angels made separate from the animals. ? What is that? Might that creation story be harmful? — Athena

Sadly, intelligence is not restricted by ethics. It enables us to do wonderful things, and also to do terrible things.
Well, our creation story doesn’t mention angels. But God does decide to prevent Adam & Eve from eating the apple of the knowledge of good and evil for fear that “they might become as one of us”. Food for thought. I think the harmful bit in our creation story is the idea that God gave us “dominion” over everything. If only they had said “stewardship”…!
Plato thought that we are a combination of animal and god.

I think we need to understand we are evolved as are the rest of the animals. Equally important is our heart. If our hearts are not in tune with nature might be an evil force on earth? — Athena

Yes, heart is important – arguably more important than intelligence. I understand the feeling that being out of tune with nature is a bad thing. But the natural is not always a good thing. Nature, in itself, is neither good nor bad but just what it is – or perhaps sometimes good and sometimes bad.

I haven't read all of the thread. I know this was being discussed early on. But I don't know who actually said they held that position, and had no idea anyone in still saying it. I know with absolute certainty I never said it. — Patterner

I’m sorry, I shouldn’t have referred to the earlier discussion without identifying exactly where it is. I never wanted to accuse you of saying it. The earlier discussion centred on the consequences of Cartesion dualism for our treatment of animals.

I'm just saying there is a significant difference between humans and animals. I think this is evidenced by many of the things we do and manufacture. I also think we think about things no other species thinks about. Of course, I can't prove my cat isn't pondering the nature of consciousness, trying to find an easier way to locate prime numbers, or amusing himself with the thought of the cat who shaves all the cats who do not shave themselves. But, if someone invented a machine that allows us to listen in on his thoughts, I would be willing to bet anything that he isn't. — Patterner

There are differences between human and animals. There are also similarities. So the interesting part is what “significant” means.
Actually, I think the significant differences are the ethical ones. We have moral obligations to animals – essentially, not to treat the cruelly. But they have not corresponding moral obligations to us; in fact they can’t be judged by our ordinary moral standards – though one could argue that they do have something like the beginnings of a moral sense.

A fetus becomes conscious before being born and early self-conscious emotions appear during at age 15-24 months. Yet ask yourself, if nobody had talked about consciousness to you, you wouldn't have read about it or been taught about it, would you have come to think about the nature of consciousness? — ssu

Yes. Most of the abilities that seem to differentiate us from animals depend on our being brought up in human society. The “feral” children who turn up from time to time have great difficulty in making good what they missed.

Now your cat might not think about Russell's paradox, but it quite likely can count. It could be argued that it has some primitive feline mathematical system, because counting is very important for situational awareness. Logic is also quite important in situational awareness.
Hence the huge difference isn't a biological difference, but a social and informational difference. — ssu

Your point about the cat is well made. It’s the usual thing – every time something is identified as different and specifically human, it turns out that animals (some animals) have the beginnings or foundations of them. It’s just that we have supernormal development of them.
The point about mathematics and logic also seems to be right. But it does seem that our capacity to learn all those human skills and practices has a biological basis – over-developed cortex, opposable thumb, bipedalism.

The point about mathematics and logic also seems to be right. But it does seem that our capacity to learn all those human skills and practices has a biological basis – over-developed cortex, opposable thumb, bipedalism. — Ludwig V

The point that @Patterner also made of our brains being different might be the real difference, but even that might be smaller than we think. Bipedalism and our hands are reason why we can use so extensively tools. Also it has been studied that Homo Sapiens could have more children that lived up to adulthood than our hominid brothers. Yet the real question is hypothetical, could for example the Neanderthal been capable of creating a civilization? They could speak, at least a bit and could make fire, which obviously shows their sophistication. To dismiss the possibility outright based on biological differences we cannot do as it's now purely a hypothetical question.

And let's face the fact that if humans would have remained as hunter gatherers, there simply couldn't be so many of us and we would have molded the Earth as we have now. Without agriculture there wouldn't excess food production and hence there couldn't be division of labor, job specialization. Agriculture and trade and writing are simply crucial for our development to what we are now, especially if it has anything to do with our society or our scientific thought.

Agriculture got started just somewhere around 11000 BC and writing is even a more frequent invention, so what has made us different from the hunter gatherers (whom many of our extinct fellow hominids were too) has happened only a while ago.

But humans are super-duper-special; utterly different from other species in so many ways that are hugely important to humans. — Vera Mont

Can I take that as suggesting that the things that make humans so special are not necessarily important to other creatures or, necessarily, to the planet? The planet, at least, seems poised to wreck our civilizations and we seem incapable of doing anything much about it.
The thing is, it seems to me that since, for better or worse, we are animals in so many ways, it doesn't really make sense to say that we are "utterly" different from other species.

Sadly, intelligence is not restricted by ethics. — Ludwig V

Not buy a long shot.

The earlier discussion centred on the consequences of Cartesion dualism for our treatment of animals. — Ludwig V

Which is all nonsense. People who want to be cruel will spin whatever they can to justify their cruelty.

There are differences between human and animals. There are also similarities. So the interesting part is what “significant” means. Actually, I think the significant differences are the ethical ones. — Ludwig V

Nothing matters more. What makes humans different from other species? What is there answer to the Hard Problem of Consciousness? How did life begin? Did anything exist before the Big Bang? All fascinating topics. And we are driven to explore the unknown, and try to answer questions. But if we do not treat others, human and others, well, then we're filthy creatures pretending to be better than we are.

We have moral obligations to animals – essentially, not to treat the cruelly. But they have not corresponding moral obligations to us; in fact they can’t be judged by our ordinary moral standards – though one could argue that they do have something like the beginnings of a moral sense. — Ludwig V

Some do. But it doesn't matter. No animal other than us can be judged for cruelty. They aren't thinking cruel thoughts when they do anything. They aren't choosing to be cruel. Only we have that capacity.

Can I take that as suggesting that the things that make humans so special are not necessarily important to other creatures or, necessarily, to the planet? — Ludwig V

Of course not. Why should they be? Every individual member of every species is primarily concerned with its own survival, secondly with the survival of its family, flock or colony, thirdly with making their life less difficult. Only those with an unusual amount of physical security and leisure time have the luxury of reflection, self-assessment and thinking about how to think about their own thinking. Only a diminishing minority of humans are lucky enough to have that. Some felines and canines under human protection have the leisure, but they use it differently.

The planet, at least, seems poised to wreck our civilizations and we seem incapable of doing anything much about it. — Ludwig V

That's only because our civilizations wrecked the planet, and when we became aware of this fact, refused to do anything about it.

The thing is, it seems to me that since, for better or worse, we are animals in so many ways, it doesn't really make sense to say that we are "utterly" different from other species. — Ludwig V

I've never thought so. Even rabbits are capable of destroying their habitat.

But humans are super-duper-special; utterly different from other species in so many ways that are hugely important to humans. — Vera Mont

To deny that humans are leaps and bounds above any other species in significant ways is willful ignorance.

Proportionally, we are not the fastest, strongest, or most durable. We can't fly, we can't burrow, we can't swim underwater for more than a few minutes. Yet, because of our intelligence, we surpass every other species in all of these ways, and more. And we can do things no other species can do to the least degree, or is even trying. Such as travel to other celestial bodies, store information outside of our bodies, communicate instantly with the other side of the world, create intelligent entities that are not our biological offspring, and make a good go at destroying life on the planet. There is no ELE like us. It might be a good idea to better understand the things that make us different, rather than deny that we are.

The thing is, it seems to me that since, for better or worse, we are animals in so many ways, it doesn't really make sense to say that we are "utterly" different from other species. — Ludwig V

We still die from diseases, just as other species do. We die if we fall from great heights, which many other species do not. We take in energy the way most other animal species do. Locomotion, respiration, vision, on and on, as much like the other species as they are all like each other.

To deny that humans are leaps and bounds above any other species in significant ways is willful ignorance. — Patterner

Who's denying it? I'm well aware of all the things humans have accomplished and are capable of that no other species - indeed, not all the other species put together - could have done or can do.
Surely, having all those superior attainments, possessions and complexity of intellect are distinction enough. Our power to destroy them all should be power enough. I don't see a reason to deny them basic attributes like affection, communication and rational thought.

No animal other than us can be judged for cruelty. They aren't thinking cruel thoughts when they do anything. They aren't choosing to be cruel. Only we have that capacity. — Patterner

Animals can be jerks. Yet I think the issue is that we have come up with smart the idea of ethics, which we relate only to us.

.
Yeah, they can be jerks. Which makes for great videos on fb. :rofl:

Why do you suppose we relate our ethical principles only to use? Why don't we hold them accountable for there pain and death they cause each other? Why do we often kill dogs that break their chain and attack people?

Mistake lol

Why don't we hold them accountable for there pain and death they cause each other? — Patterner

In what circumstances, according to what law, by what standards? The pain and death other animals cause one another are generally inflicted in the course of feeding to survive - the means and method of which they have much less control than we do, and we don't outlaw human mean and methods of obtaining food, regardless of the pain the captivity and death of that food entail.

Why do we often kill dogs that break their chain and attack people? — Patterner

Because in a human-controlled world, people are sacred - unless they've been convicted of a capital crime or inducted into an army - and dogs are not.