You would not want to say alligators think, would you? — Athena

Their thinking is on a fairly rudimentary level. They do have a cerebellum, as do lizards and turtles, so the 'reptilian brain' is not quite as you depict it. The alligator's lifestyle doesn't pose many intellectual challenges. They're also stronger and more in their element than a human child alone in a forest.

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. — Athena

And so, other people take care of them, even in adulthood. That feral kid doesn't survive with the use of its mighty jaws or its social support system; it only has its little hands and big brain to provide itself with food and shelter while avoiding predators.

Now if we agree rational thinking requires words, — Athena

Which we still do not,

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

Oh, we can be quite irrational in language, too. Just listen to a speech by.... never mind.
Humans have an enormous brain, only a small part of which is required to run the vital physical systems and another small part for reflex actions and survival instincts. The rest is available for learning, memory, language, culture, skill acquisition, storytelling, convictions, wealth accumulation, altruism, invention, emotional complexity, deceit, social bonding, philosophy, ambition, superstition, delusion and madness. As well as reasoning and assessment.

That would not cover rational thinking would it? — Athena

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

As noted, I think this distinction is resisted in contemporary culture because it's politically incorrect. There's an aversion to the Christian doctrine of mankind's sovereignty over nature as it is associated with religion and old-fashioned cultural attitudes. It's today's 'popular wisdom'. — Wayfarer

The only political component I can see is the enacting of laws against cruelty to animals. The same factions are working to reduce cruelty to other humans. If that goes against Christian dogma - oh, well, it's had its 2000-year reign (sometimes of paternalism, sometimes of terror.)

Through it, we become different kinds of beings, namely, human beings, and we're not just another class of primate. — Wayfarer

Nobody's tried to take that away from you. So why insist on taking away from those "lesser" beings a faculty they possess in common with us? Does crossing a threshold require you to sever all ties?
Many people have declined to do that; have retained their links to the natural world and other species and are the healthier for it.

What is needed is engagement of a particular kind, so that one can grasp that animals in many ways will engage with us in many (but not all) of the same ways that we engage with other people. — Ludwig V

There is the undeniable and ever present imbalance of power to take into consideration.

Now, given the irrefutable truth that all of which is not a possible experience for us, is impossible knowledge for us….by what right can we say we know of rational thought/belief in those animals the cognitive machinations of which are inaccessible? — Mww

By the same right that allows us to discuss distant suns and galaxies to which we have no direct access, and the way we learn the relationships of atoms in molecules or the events of geological time: though observation, theory, prediction and experimentation. What makes animals easier to understand than chemicals and mountains is that we are more closely related to animals and thus better able to recognize behaviours that are similar to ours and extrapolate that the motivation and thought process that prompts the same behaviour may also be similar.

My first dog, whom I greatly loved (just like the other two) and who did have an Alpha personality (a Bouvier des Flandres weighing 120 pounds healthily) knew how to (try to) deceive us. I'd say "come" at a distance after he'd misbehaved and he'd sit his ass on the ground and calmly stare in all directions except toward me, as though he was not hearing what I was saying. — javra

The "I'm deaf" tactic. And then there is the "Who, me? I was just standing there, minding my own business. It was the cat." And the "Toilet paper? What toilet paper?" gambit. And "I don't know anything about a magnifying glass. Huh? How'd that get in my bed?"
As to innocence - They lie, they cheat, they steal, they hold grudges and they're spiteful. IOW, a lot like us, which is why we love them.

But one feels that the version for other people is not the truth, because it doesn't represent the dog's point of view accurately. — Ludwig V

It doesn't reflect the human's accurately, either, but that doesn't matter, because a common language gives us a thumbnail picture of what is in the other's mind. We don't need every detail to understand the gist of their meaning.

I had heard of the language problem. Do you have a reference that would tell me more about the symbols and patterns that they use? — Ludwig V

Of course not. The feral children - and there have not been many - cannot communicate how they think, because they're inept in our language, even if they can learn it, and we have no access to theirs.

Those behaviors have a multitude of very different and equally accurate explanations for why the dog is behaving that way. — creativesoul

Of that specific cluster of behaviours at that same time every weekday, but not on weekends or holidays? Show me three of that multitude of accurate explanations.

Anthropomorphism looms large. — creativesoul

And terrifying! Why? Similarity and commonality are not diseases; they're a natural result of sharing a planet and a history.

A candidate not only has to have an intuitive sense of the passage of time, but it also must possess some means of differentiating between timeframes such that they also know that other periods are not that arrival time. They have to think along the lines of different timeframes. — creativesoul

You're overcomplicating something simple. A biological clock: so much time has elapsed; at this interval, something is supposed to happen.

The arrival of the train meant the arrival of the human, to the dog that is... due to the correlations the dog had drawn, time and time again between all the regularities surrounding the five o'clock train. — creativesoul

And that's not rational, because....?

Sometimes. Lots of folk dread Monday, simply because it's Monday. — creativesoul

No. Because it's the first day of a new work-week. Early rising (possibly with hangover) (possibly lover departing), rigid morning routine, uncomfortable clothing, commute, staff meeting, unpleasant colleague regaling you with their spectacular weekend adventures, bossy department head dumping unwanted task on your desk.... Some people who enjoy their work actually look forward to Mondays; most people don't enjoy their work. Pity!

To the dog, the train means the human. — creativesoul

No other train, just the five o'clock local.
But never mind, I have lots of other examples you can explain away.

It pleases us - me, anyway - to believe that we have some limited freedom to choose within the given restrictions of physics, biology, environment and social organization. We operate on that assumption, and it mostly works. Since we have no other option, we might as well be pleased.

Perhaps "rational" is being equated with "the way I think"? (If only subconsciously.) — wonderer1

Indeed. Can you point to species not only capable, but very often guilty of acting, speaking and thinking in ways that are anti-rational? I can.... So, "like me" is not a constant, perfect benchmark.

Perhaps another issue worth considering in this thread is, do animals think critically? Do humans think critically? What percent of humans? — wonderer1

That's a very difficult question. It appears that a very large percentage of humans do not think critically about some issues. But are they capable of critical thinking? Do they never think critically about anything, or are they selective in the subjects on which they choose to be uncritical? There is no way that I can know.
Nor am I confident in my understanding of the criteria for critical thought. I know how I do it, have theories on how it ought to be done; I actually taught a short night-school course. But I don't know when, how or even whether someone else does.

Dogs - the subject with which I'm most familiar - discriminate in their preference for situations, locations and associates. They vary widely in their preferences and standards. In general, I've found that dogs distrust dishonest people - that is, the dog didn't like the person from first encounter and the humans didn't find out until much later. (I've seen children under six exhibit the same discernment.) They generally dislike ambiguous situations, for instance when the humans in their life disagree, and environments with too much busyness, noise, competitive odours and motion.
i don't know whether any of that qualifies for the definition.

But it depend whether the dog is going to generalize in the same way that we do. — Ludwig V

Why would they need to think exactly the same way we do in order to be considered rational?

We choose our words to balance the understanding of the dog and the understanding of the people that we are speaking to. — Ludwig V

And only to communicate with other people. In fact, when we refer to the weekend, what we actually mean - exactly like the dog does - are two days of leisure. You would enjoy them even if your days off were Wednesday and Thursday and not at the end of the named week. It's not a vacation you're longing for - that's just a word. You're longing for two weeks on a hot beach, or on a ski slope, or in a hotel room with a desired other, or on the road with your Harley. The names are a convenient way to refer to a whole package of experience. All of that experience can be unbundled, laid out in sequence and lived in fantasy or memory without labeling the images and sensations.

But that only demonstrates that it is possible to think unconsciously and without language. — Ludwig V

Consciously, but without having any verbal labels either on the physical environment or on the processes of dealing with it. If they're over about 10 years of age when found, they've missed language acquisition during those three years years when the most intensive neural network formation takes place. And they've developed a non-verbal set of symbols and patterns that work for them. That style of thinking may not be able to encompass abstractions like "What is the purpose of life?" or "How do we look deeper into the macro and micro universe?", but it still contains a vast amount of information about his accustomed environment and how to operate it in it safely - things that don't clutter up the heads of people who can always look things up in a book.

What Do You Believe?
This debate raises fundamental questions about human nature, morality, and the meaning of life itself. — Cadet John Kervensley

We ask those questions all the time, regardless where stand on free will.

Are we truly free, or are we simply following a predetermined path?

Of course we're not 'truly' free. In order to live, we must be constrained by the environment that nurtures us and the demands of at least subsistence. We are limited by our physical and mental capabilities. We are further restrained by the society on which we depend for security and co-operation. Individually, we may also have freedoms curtailed by dependents, family ties, obligations and contracts. At most, we have freedom in a narrow range of available choices.

Is there room for personal responsibility in a deterministic world?

It doesn't matter. We experience life as a series of options and decisions. Whether by fate or intent, we judge, act and arrange our relationshipsas if all parties were free and responsible agents. And if it's predetermined that we so, we cannot change it. If we could stop judging and acting as if we are free, we would actually disprove determinism. There's your paradox.

How do you reconcile the tension between autonomy and external influences in your own life? — Cadet John Kervensley

By accepting my limitations with as much grace as I can muster, and becoming frustrated when I can't muster enough.

But what is thinking without words? — Athena

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

Still, when the signs appear, there is no doubt and we well might say the dog is excited because it's the week-end, while acknowledging that that does not reflect how the dog thinks about it. It could be "the day breakfast is late" - but even then, we don't suppose that's what the dog is saying to itself. Perhaps it is more like the response to the fire. I don't think there is a clear answer to this. — Ludwig V

It was a clumsy example of how dogs sense time. I subsequently found an article about it that does a better job. Yes, they know how long it should be between when you leave for work and when you return, between when each child leaves for school and when they return, between breakfast and dinner, between walks or rides. My clever German shepherd would go fetch her leash (no mean feat in itself, since it hung on a coat-hook) at a 11:15 on days my mother was on evening shift, so we could go meet her at the subway station, so she didn't have to walk home alone. When my mother worked days, we took our walk right after supper, and she didn't ask again.

There's a complication here, that how the animal thinks about it may not be how we think about it. — Ludwig V

If it looks like a duck, waddles like a duck, quacks like a duck, why would we assume it's something - anything! anything! - other than a duck? Because recognizing similarity and commonality with other animals violates the exclusively-human commandment? I don't worship at that altar.

Still, when the signs appear, there is no doubt and we well might say the dog is excited because it's the week-end, — Ludwig V

Not because it's the weekend; he can't think in the same terms as working and school-attending humans; he doesn't have that experience.* What he's anticipating are the events that take place at five-day intervals: family all present and relaxed, more playtime, activity, maybe the excitement of visitors or outings something of interest going on.

It's also because dogs are intelligent that they're easily bored. A chew-toy may keep a spaniel busy all morning, but a poodle needs more stimulation, lest he turn my friend's leather jacket into artwork. (She solved the problem by getting another dog to keep him company.)
That same shepherd would sometimes get bored when my mother slept late; a couple of times she woke up with her pillow and hair covered in autumn leaves that the dog had fetched from the back yard, one mouthful at a time. Why? A show of affection - both dogs and cats offer gifts to their people - or just something fun to do, like eating the roses - just the petals - from a vase way high on a dresser, or laying the items from the medicine cabinet in a neat row on the bathroom floor?

* Well, in fact, working dogs do have that experience. A security guard dog, for example knows when his shift begins and ends. A sheepdog knows when it's time to collect the flock. A cattle dog when his charges are supposed to be let out to pasture and when they should come home again. Guide dogs, tracking dogs and rescue dogs work unpredictable hours; they recognize duty (serious, pay attention, be disciplined and silent, don't fraternize with bystanders) and off duty (free to play, run, bark, make friends, accept treats) by what they're wearing.

So, they have some intuitive sense of time passing, as I mentioned earlier... perhaps accompanied by pattern recognition? I'm still not sure that that counts as knowing what time their humans are expected to arrive home. — creativesoul

Dogs surelook expectant! You get clues off the standing up, prancing and sitting down every two minutes, tail wagging every time a car goes by and slobber all over the glass.

The dog clearly connects the five o'clock train with the master's arrival... but hope? — creativesoul

Why else would he keep going there every day for three years? The train had nothing for him. He never accepted treats from the staff or made friends with anyone on the platform. He just waited. (The priest gave special dispensation to bury him beside his master. Unmarked, of course. I wish I'd had time to know that man; he must have been remarkable to be loved and respected by so many.)

What does "looking forward to going for a car ride on days the human doesn't drive away on" miss? — creativesoul

I don't know. I suppose the fact that he didn't leave after breakfast. But why would they start getting excited at breakfast - which would take place later than on weekdays? Time sense, probably.

I claimed, not Wayfarer, that looking forward to Thursday requires knowing how to use the word. — creativesoul

Sure, the name of the day is needed to convey your anticipation to another human. But what you're actually anticipating is not the day, or its name, but the event. You could as easily say, "I look forward to seeing my father every week." They don't really need to know that he comes to dinner on Thursdays, it's just quicker and less self-revealing to say the day and not the event.

We are the only one who invented knowledge and concepts and base our actions on these. — Fire Ologist

Well, sometimes....
That's the extreme end of the cognitive spectrum. Unfortunately, this also leads to the highest rate of cognitive dysfunction. The narwhal is at the extreme end of ecolocation. The mantis shrimp is at the extreme end of colour discernment. The leaf-tailed gecko is at the extreme end of camouflage use. The peregrine falcon is at the extreme end of speed. Every spectrum has ends and somebody has to occupy at each end.

We know that no other known creature is capable of knowingly looking forward to Thursday. — Wayfarer

Why does a human look forward to Thursday? Does he celebrate Thor? Or is it because something pleasant usually happens on Thursdays? Suppose that pleasant even were moved to Tuesday? Would the human still look forward to Thursday because of its name, or would he change his anticipation to Tuesdays? What if the pleasant thing once happened on a Monday? Would he reject it because it's on the wrong day, or would he say: "You're early!" and be happy?
What he's actually looking forward to is the particular event that usually takes place. Do we also know that no other animal can guage the interval at which a routine pleasant event usually occurs? To a small child, to whom Thursday means nothing, one would say: two more sleeps until Grandpa comes to dinner. And a dog who never gets to ride in the car when his human is going to work, and doesn't even ask, looks forward to weekends.

What would such a dog's thought, belief, and/or anticipation/expectation consist in/of? — creativesoul

Dodi kept hoping his beloved master would arrive on the train at the time he used to arrive. When the train stopped at the platform, he would watch the doors eagerly as long as the train was in the station. When it pulled out, he went home.

I see no ground whatsoever to conclude that dogs know what time their humans are expected home from work or school. — creativesoul

Other than getting there at 4:45, or positioning themselves by the front window 10 minutes before their human normally gets home, or waiting on the lawn for the schoolbus? These are standard behaviours, not anomalies.

A 2018 study at Northwestern University found that an area located in the brain's temporal lobe associated with memory and navigation may be responsible for encoding time much like it does episodic memories. The experiment used mice, but results have been extrapolated to other animals and it seems that many animals do have a true sense of elapsing time, even if they can’t actually read a clock. Neurons in their brains are activated when they expect a certain time-dependent outcome. If the expected outcome doesn’t occur at the expected time—for instance, a pet is normally fed at 5PM. If the pet is not fed at 5PM—the pet may display agitated behavior.

If you would even say “only one” you should able to see my simple point. — Fire Ologist

Knowing that there are extreme ends on every spectrum does not require to accept everything other poeple impute to some aspect of that spectrum.
I see your simple point and reject on the basis of my experience and observation.

So sometimes animals are irrational? — Fire Ologist

Yes.

And there is mental illness? — Fire Ologist

Sure. In domestic animals. I think that it's generally caused by human activity, deliberately as in laboratory experiments, or inadvertently as in stressing the animals through violence or environmental degradation.

So more rational is better than less rational or irrational?

Better? According to whose values? Based on what standard? Measured by what metric?

You didn’t address any distinction between instinct as a cause of behavior and thinking as a cause of behavior. — Fire Ologist

Yes, I have. Often.

And you missed the distinction between seeing rationality in something, like seeing it in the pile of characters “2+2=4”, and using thought and logic and reason to form a choice and then acting on that thought and choice. — Fire Ologist

No, I didn't miss that conceptualization. Nor do I miss the actual difference when observing behaviour in humans and other animals. I just didn't think further comment was needed.

Saying they do is just a quick and easy explanation, making them like us, like reason is so special and instinct is less special. — Fire Ologist

It's not the explanation that makes all living things similar; it's evolution on the same planet. All animals are aware of the self/environment distinction, and respond to stimuli. Most exhibit hard-wired responses to certain situations. A large percentage have instincts and emotions; a smaller percentage use reason; some have imagination and foresight; a few are complex enough to develop psychological problems; only one - so far - is capable of inventing technology, medicine, politics, religion and torture.

By “see” you mean more precisely “conceive of” because we are talking about thinking, not just vision. — Fire Ologist

Used your same word is all.

So the creature who uses reason, the human, sees rational thought all over the universe - — Fire Ologist

I'm fine with more precision.

If you think animals think, then you are saying animals must conceive of a lot of things that aren’t there as well. — Fire Ologist

Did I say that rational thought must include the entire range of human thought and imagination and mental illness? No. However, sometimes domestic animals do chase imaginary prey or cringe from non-existent threats.

It is certainly rational to pull one's hand out of fire if one wants to keep one's hand from being destroyed. — Fire Ologist

Instinctive behaviour can usually be explained rationally. However, when pulling one's hand out of a fire, one has no time to think, rationally or otherwise, one - whether the subject be human or other - simply reacts.
Behaviour that purposeful and reasoning can also be explained rationally. (A firefighter heads toward the fire, rather than running away from it, because his purpose is to douse the fire and end the danger it poses.)
So can emotional and irrational behaviour be explained rationally. (A man whose child is inside the building may rush into the flames, even though reason clearly indicates that he cannot reach the child and survive; he does it because love and distress impel him to act.)

We can't explain their behavior without saying it is like our behavior, — Fire Ologist

So... we have a reasonable explanation, which is declared false, even though no alternative explanation is offered. The example, incidentally, is within the range of an intellectually challenged Afghan. It would be harder to 'splain away what a search and rescue dog is expected to do.

Couldn't their instincts be so highly developed that they never need any thoughts to move from the present into the future? — Fire Ologist

In unnatural situations, in unfamiliar environments, to tackle human-constructed challenges - no.

So the creature who uses reason, the human, sees rational thought all over the universe — Fire Ologist

Most of us only we see it in living entities that evolved alongside of us, in the same environments, under the same conditions, and share a large percent of our DNA, when they behave in the same way we do in similar situations.
Some of us see it in inanimate matter, and some choose to see it only in fictional characters and their authors, while denying it in other flesh-and-brain entities. Humans see a lot of things that are not there; some of these things are more plausible than others.

Saying my dog is communicating with me when he begs for food is placing a mind of his own in the dog. — Fire Ologist

No, it's not your saying that causes him to have a mind; it's his brain.

This places all of the epistemological problems of knowledge, the mind-body problem, questions of free-agency and choice, all in the dog.

Why the hell would you do that?? Indeed, why would you even do it to yourself?

I prefer Mark Twain's distinction : "Man is the only animal that blushes. Or needs to."

But I'm also saying that rational and conceptual thought and language are strongly related. — Wayfarer

I know you've been saying that. I didn't see it demonstrated. In any case, 'strongly related' is not the same as 'dependent on'.

Animals and other organisms plainly exhibit problem-solving behaviours etc, but I don't agree that they rely on abstract thought and reasoning to do so. — Wayfarer

What are they using instead? Is there a demonstrable non-reasoning faculty that exists in other animals that could account for the similarity between their approach to a problem and human subject's?

But they lack language in the human sense, which is based on an hierarchical syntax and the ability to abstract concepts from experience. — Wayfarer

And how does the lack of syntax prevent someone from rational thinking? Communication is not required for solitary activities, such as opening a gate or finding a way to steal the bisquits from the top shelf of a cupboard.

What, about animal behaviour, cannot be described in behaviourist terms, i.e., when confronted by such and such a stimuli, we can observe such and such behaviour. — Wayfarer

What about human behaviour cannot be described in behaviourist terms? (Fortunately, that fad has faded)

Being able to keep track of the time between one week and the next - by name - is a bare minimum. — creativesoul

Why is the name of the day required? Why not an interval? It's possible that other animals have shorter periods of anticipation (as they also have shorter lives) but every dog knows what time his humans are expected home from work and school. My grandfather died on one of his regular trips and never came home again. His dog continued to meet the five o'clock train, hoping.

They'll be weighing the leap up before acting. But I don't see any justification to say that this implies they're thinking. — Wayfarer

Then what, precisely, are they doing? If a human stood on that same bank, assessing the distance and scanning the far shore for safe landing spots, would you doubt that he's thinking?
ETA Moreover, exactly like the man, if the leap is deemed not worth risking, a cat will walk some way up and down along the bank, looking for a place where the water narrows or there is a stepping-stone.

https://www.uh.edu/news-events/stories/2017/november/11012017Buckner-Animal-Cognition.php

https://academic.oup.com/pq/article/74/3/844/7278884

https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/cambridge-handbook-of-animal-cognition/BDA9DE35B6D696DE312068AF8FA258DE

https://indianapublicmedia.org/amomentofscience/animals-use-reason,-just-like-you.php

I thought the issue was what you are calling 'human exceptionalism', that is, you are contesting the view that the human capacity for reason and language entails a categorical distinction between humans and rest of the animal kingdom. — Wayfarer

That's the inevitable outcome of using words according to their actual meaning. I was attempting to correct a misapprehension that resulted from a biased definition.

Myself along with several others are saying that there is a real distinction to be made, that h.sapiens are fundamentally different in some basic respects to other creatures. — Wayfarer

Yes, I've been aware of that. The evidence I've followed contradicts that assertion.

I'm saying that conceptual thought is dependent on language. — Wayfarer

Why? How do you know? How does 'conceptual thought' differ from 'rational thought'? And if they do differ, why have you shifted the discussion from rational thought, which was the thread topic, to conceptual thought, which has not been defined as anything beyond 'thought that needs human language to perform'? I have not shifted from rational thought - i.e. purposeful, practical identification and planned action to solve a problem.

I thought you were saying that it is not dependent, — Wayfarer

The definition of reason and rational thought does not include language as a prerequisite.
Reasoning:

the action of thinking about something in a logical, sensible way. Oxford

the process of thinking about something in order to make a decision. Cambridge

It [rationality] encompasses the ability to draw sensible conclusions from facts, logic and data. In simple words, if your thoughts are based on facts and not emotions, it is called rational thinking. Rational thinking focuses on resolving problems and achieving goals.

If there is any objective way to test or measure this faculty, other than the setting of problems that do not occur in the subject's customary environment, I'm unaware of it. Granted, I have not read ever with post with close attention.

You're making the case, it requires more specifics, don't you think? — Wayfarer

The case I've been attempting to make is that words have ideology-neutral meanings, and are not defined by "philosophical stance". When that is not the case, the very communication that's supposedly a prerequisite for rational thought is degraded. Science cannot operate according philosophical bias.
(But then who needs science when you have metaphysics?)

What, pray tell, is the school of thought that says that language is *not* a prerequisite to rational thought? — Wayfarer

Probably lots. I only checked Oxford, Collins and Webster and they don't mention language.

A rather bold statement, is it not? Dogs, and other lesser animals sufficiently equipped with vocalizing physiology, seem to communicate with each other, albeit quite simply, which carries the implication of a merely instinctive simple skill. But it does not follow such skill necessarily involves conceptions, and, if conceptions as such are considered as abstract metaphysical objects, it becomes then a question of whether those lesser animals engage in metaphysical pursuits. And we end up kicking that can down a very VERY long road. — Mww

Language is a prerequisite to rational thought only according to one particular philosophical school of thought, not according to the meaning of the word. And what have metaphysics got to do with practical problem-solving? (or anything real, for that matter) got it.

Nahhhh….I’m not doing that. Reason is already defined by whichever philosophical stance incorporates it, either by what it is, and/or by what it does. — Mww

Right; got it. "Words mean what I want them to. If you don't speak my biased language, everything you say is wrong."

There’s no need for experiment: there is only that reason as a human thinks of it, and thereby there is only that reason as belongs to intelligence of his kind.

Nothing elliptical about that logic!

Yes!

A pack of wolves 'owns' its territory by marking it and defending it against another pack that may try to hunt there. Their 'right' to this territory is neither God-given nor inalienable: they designated it for their own use and can lose it to a more powerful pack.
Humans do the same thing. We simply occupied some ares of the globe, declared it to be ours, and defended it from other tribes - sometimes successfully, more often unsuccessfully. Nobody has a natural right to own anything; we just take what we want from the world and keep it if we're strong enough.

Social animals have rules to govern ownership and rights within the society, but can't impose those rules on any other society, unless by force of arms or negotiated agreement. There is always contention over territory, two or more tribes claiming the same piece of land. There is always contention over the ownership of land, resources and material goods within a tribe.

In the first example, if a man chops down a tree on common land where he is permitted to log, the tree belongs to him. If he does it on land legally claimed by a landowner, the lumber belongs to the landowner and the man is punished for poaching. If a lumberjack cuts down a tree in his capacity as an employee of a logging company on land in legal possession of a landowner, the landowner owns the lumber and the logging company is liable for damages. The lumberjack gets nothing but upbraided or fired for getting caught poaching. If he cuts down a tree as an employee on legally ceded land, he gets a paycheck and his employer own the lumber. The employer does not own him; they rent his skill for 8 hours a day and have no claim either on his private thoughts or his free time. The logging company also owns the truck and rents the driver's skill; the driver has no claim on the lumber and the company has no control over the driver's private life or free time. The lumber is then sold to a sawmill, which then owns it and alters it into a further saleable commodity to be owned by others once they'd paid for it.
While ownership may be disputed in certain situations, it is never ambiguous.

And you are right that animals don't seem capable of tolerating that kind of cognitive dissonance. They do seem wonderfully simple and direct by comparison with humans. — Ludwig V

Not unlike human children, until their culture teaches them not only to tolerate but to cultivate and promote double- and triple-think. Many of us cope with this extra complication with only a small amount of internal strife, frustration and substance abuse, but an inordinately large percentage become destructive, violent, turn against one another, fall into superstition and cult behaviour.

Given the irreducible condition of human reason, re: the propensity for inquiring after impossible results, how would it ever be concluded lesser animals exhibit congruent reason? — Mww

How it's normally done is: choose a dictionary definition of 'reason', rather than a philosophical stance.
Then, set a problem that requires awareness of cause and effect, rather than instinct or brute force.
Devise a test for the subject to solve this problem.
Observe how different species, including humans, go about confronting the problem, and whrether any species solves it successfully.

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. — Ludwig V

Exactly the kind of relationship you can't have with an automaton. Experiencing this mutual animosity, he yet insisted that dogs don't think and feel the way we do.

Humans are not the only animal that can hold a grudge, carry on a spiteful feud, suffer PTS or become disoriented and frustrated when confronted with contradictory data. But they can't be insane in the same way as humans because their relationship with their environment is direct and uncomplicated.
We are the only animal that can hold two or more mutually exclusive convictions at the same time, because we compartmentalize concepts, roles, feelings, other persons. (e.g. the sanctity of life .... reinstate the death penalty...) We can believe the opposite of what the evidence presents (see politics) and desire what is harmful to us (obsession, greed, ambition...) We are also intensely self-conscious, validation-dependent; we dramatize our emotions and aggrandize our ideas; our relationships with society and other persons are never simple. And that is why we are so prone to mental illness: the walls between compartments take a great deal of effort to maintain in good repair. When they leak, we are conflicted; when they break down, we become psychotic.

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

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.

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.

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

I'm betting on the ants.

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.

Descartes had a pet dog which he treated with affection. However, the anecdote was not entirely devoid of fact, because students at a Dutch university who were followers of Descartes' mechanical philosophy did, in fact, perform those dreadful 'experiments', and it is true that Descartes believed that animals were automata without souls, as he identified the soul with the ability to reason. — Wayfarer

And he argued the proof as "they don't do philosophy". He argued the mechanistic view of animals against Cudworth over some period of correspondence. This is another example of the double-think my acquaintance exhibited.
It's not uncommon. A pathologist I knew had a pair of prized and pampered Siamese cats at home, and seemed to have no problem inducing tumours in laboratory cats.

hey always know. It's the body language. Kids are pretty good at it, too. But we lose the knack when we get grown-up. Pity. — Ludwig V

My observation at the time was the contradiction in him, not the dog. The anthropo-exclusive part says "They're nothing more than machines", while the responsive human part recognizes another sentient, responsive being.
Hate is not a reflex; it's a complex state of mind, made up of several emotions, experience, and memory. Machines can't hate. (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.)

Tangentially related anecdote:
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!)

Animal-watching is as fascinating to me as, if not more than, child-watching. Desmond Morris watched babies, but I find 4-8 year-olds more interesting. You have to be circumspect: everyone behaves differently when they know you're watching.

Is learning to open doors and gates rational thinking, or does it not meet that criterion? — creativesoul

Of course it is. If you don't interfere, you can watch the process, which is exactly the same as a human would do. Regard the obstacle. Can you go over or around? No. Will it yield to force? No. Yet people open it and pass through. There is a way to do that. Find the pressure point or lever. Try moving it this way and that. Aha! Next time, no hesitation. New skill learned. New headache for the human.
Works with cupboard and fridge doors, too. One of my dogs got bored while I was at work, figured out how to open the dresser drawers and artfully arranged my clothes all down the staircase to the front door.

Over the decades, I have known many dogs. They're as varied in temperament, proclivities and intelligence as humans. I've been privileged to have four particularly bright dogs - two German Shepherds (the first, a retired police dog, was my volunteer nanny) the border collie cross, and a terrier. Smart dogs are interesting to watch, but hard to govern.

But no distinct moment that you could identify as "thinking". — Ludwig V

Can you tell that a man is thinking before he says or does something? Sometimes, when he opens his mouth it becomes obvious that very little thought went into the product. (just watch any interview with MAGA cultist)

In the incidence you cited, I saw the looks and gestures - clearly, communication was taking place. I watched the collie try one side of the door briefly before reconsidering; the Pyrennese stood back, watching attentively, waiting for her turn to act.
On another escape attempt, they did similarly with the fence. The collie searched for and found a weak spot where the wire mesh was attached to the corner of the house and showed the Pyrennese where to pry. So, until the fence could be properly repaired, we tied up the roamer on a long rope. Damn if her co-conspirator didn't chew through it! Perfect combination of brains and brawn.
Of course, at the time I didn't find this behaviour admirable; I'd wasted a good deal of time and anxiety finding and catching them lest they got into trouble. Once they came back with barbed wire wounds and we spent all afternoon at the vet's and part of the next day washing blood off the inside of the car.
The dog book did say "Strong desire to roam" when describing Great Pyrennese; we had been warned. The collie could be let loose, she'd never wander off on her own: she was just helping out a friend. She was a little cleverboots, and sassy with it; very clear on her duty, her loyalties and her rights.

I concur.

Creatures capable of thinking about the world were doing so long before we began talking about it. — creativesoul

I know that and have been saying it for six pages now. But I'm in the minority.

Clearly, not all thinking is existentially dependent upon words. — creativesoul

That's the minority opinion.