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.

What counts — creativesoul

Depends on one's philosophical stance, doesn't it? The words have no fixed meaning, apparently - only relative value as to what counts and what doesn't.

I'm talking about a philosophical position or even assumption, that the only true rational process is articulate reasoning which can only be laid out in language. I could have been clearer. — Ludwig V

The philosophical positions are clear enough. Humans philosophize; nature does not.
It's probably foolish of me (and obviously futile) to hold out for the integrity of that very language some people deem essential to reasoning. The usage of words determines the content of a discussion and the direction of reasoning on a topic. If you change the meaning of words, you change the essence of the subject.
I've lost this one.

For some definitions, possession of a suitable language is critical and whether animal communication systems count as a language, never mind one suitable for rationality, is a moot point. — Ludwig V

Sure. If you define a word to mean what you want it to mean it will mean what you want it to mean.
I have not seen that particular definition: "rational thought is that to which possession of a suitable language is critical" in a dictionary. Nor have I seen ethics mentioned as a necessary adjunct to reason in any work on neuroscience.

duly noted
and very poetic

That almost sounds like you are suggesting there are areas of thought that are only seen in humans. — Patterner

I don't need to suggest; you've listed most of 'em. I never contested the uniqueness of humans or the feats of cogitation they required. All i said was that these are the product of rational thought, which, before the herculean humans endeavours, were expressed in the purposeful, conscious use of tools and other innovations by rational entities of lesser endowment, but nevertheless, with similar brains.

You have not attempted to make any points in opposition to mine. — Patterner

I wasn't opposed to yours. I considered them incomplete. I had made a case, with citations, before you made any points - consisting of a list of uniquely human accomplishments which were never disputed. I didn't repeat all of the evidence I know of other species thinking rationally; I merely referred to the definition of the critical words.

You just say I'm wrong. — Patterner

I think you have a narrow vision.
"This" was simple exasperation, capitulation. If it troubled you, I'm sorry.

What does rational thinking mean? I mean, what is its value? — Patterner

In the first instance, survival. Rational thought is simply the most effective approach to solving problems. All species are confronted with problems every day. The ones that don't panic, observe the situation and find ways to overcome the difficulty go on to have more and better offspring, whom they can teach how to solve problems.

Yet there is no spark of understanding. They somehow simply happened to stumble upon using X to accomplish Y, and they kept doing it. — Patterner

You haven't seen any of the intelligence tests set for various other species by scientists? They do not, once in a century, 'stumble upon' solutions; they work them out logically and in a timely manner.

Och, never mind. Yes, yes, you are incredibly special! You have totally cornered the market on thinking.

We are alone in these areas, not merely above. — Patterner

You are truly and indubitably alone in all these strictly human areas. My contention is that reason and rational thought are not confined within nor limited to these human areas. Reason in other species predates and precurses these uniquely human flights of cerebral virtuosity.

No other species thinks about the differences between the ways different species think. No other species thinks about thinking. What are the intermediary steps on a scale of magnitude between how any other species thinks about these things and how we think about them that reveals it all to be the same scale of magnitude, rather than different kinds of thinking? — Patterner

Can't you be special, bigger, smarter, wider, more powerful, more dangerous, more imaginative, more poetic, the only one that looks into space, builds skyscrapers and nuclear missiles and poisons it own own water supply; can't you be more, more, more, more... without denying an entire aspect of mental function to all other species? Does more have to mean: It's all mine, nobody else can have any?

We are unexceptional in that we are the product of evolution, like every other species is, bacteria to sequoias. We designed ourselves no more than any other species did. We are on the continuum along with every other animal.

Where we ARE exceptional is that we are much further out on the continuum (than other species) in our ability to reason, invent, think, etc., and enact the rational and irrational motives driven by our far superior lust for aggrandizement. — BC

Sure. My objection was to the definition of the word, precisely because evolution accounts for the many traits common to species with a common ancestry. Nothing suddenly happened to strike man with reason; reason was developed in many species over millions of years. That man took it into further realms of imagination and language is interesting, but it makes him unique only in magnitude, not in kind.

The distinction between h.sapiens and other creatures is something we have to take responsibility for, rather than denying the obvious. — Wayfarer

It's okay to distinguish the various attributes of species. It's less okay to tamper with the meaning of words.
Oxford: reason - the action of thinking about something in a logical, sensible way;
rationality: the quality of being based on or in accordance with reason or logic.

There is nothing in there about more or different applications or Aristotle or language. If solving complex problems not found in the subject's natural habitat is not the result of logical, rational reasoning, what is it?

Could I draw your attention to a source I've been studying of late, Awakening from the Meaning Crisis, John Vervaeke, a professor of cognitive science at the University of Toronto. It's a long series, of which the first three or four address the pre-historic origins of distinctively human consciousness. YouTube playlist can be found here. — Wayfarer

Thanks. I'm sure the philosophical segments are interesting. But I steadfastly disagree with human exceptionalism.
eta And reject this definition

Reason is a faculty that differentiates h.sapiens from other animals, enabling the invention of science, among many other things. — Wayfarer

The opening about God and the Void. — Ludwig V

It's not The Void; not a concept. It's just a word for empty that was translated to void. The world is already here, just kind of messy.

G 1:2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.

Why would God want us not to know about morality — Ludwig V

His pet humans were not required to have a morality. They were supposed to do as they're told and not question or form their own judgment. Most religion still demands the same.

Is it probable that they habitually acted on what they didn't think? — Vera Mont

I don't quite understand what you're getting at here. — Ludwig V

You say we know how their habits, but not how they thought. Don't people usually have an attitude or idea before they decide on a course of action, which eventually becomes habitual? Don't their actions give us an indication of what they think?
A king of Assyria decreed massive lion-hunts, sometimes with caged lions in an arena and commissioned a huge bass-relief monument to the sport. Does this give you an inkling of his thought-process? He recorded his thoughts, and they match his actions perfectly.

Sure, it's not rocket science. But that doesn't mean it is not rational. — Ludwig V

It's perfectly rational - and intelligent. They were not interested in rockets, but they sure devised a lot of ways to get what Mako wanted.

We know about their habits. What we don't know is how they thought about them. — Ludwig V

Is it probable that they habitually acted on what they didn't think?

And Genesis is an example and that's much later than 3000 BCE, isn't it? — Ludwig V

No, it probably originates in Sumer. The gods created mankind to work the land and worship them - i.e. obedient servants. The biblical version is more nostalgic: it harks back to a pre-agricultural past and views farming as punishment. The discrepancies were not entirely edited out. The flood figures largely in Sumerian lore (They did have a pictographic alphabet before cuneiform, a good deal of wall art.) The pastoral people that became the Jews and eventually wrote down their oral chronicles, including stories picked up in their herding nomadic years.

Oh, well, if you are talking specifically about climate change, — Ludwig V

That, the rapid eradication of biodiversity, continuing expansion of devastating resource exploitation, the rise of fascism, and the likely collapse of the global economy.

Levin’s study published last week shows a slime mold, a brainless blob called Physarum, sensing cues in its environment and making a decision about where to grow. The findings suggest it’s “able to build a picture of the world around itself using a kind of sonar. It's a kind of biomechanics,” — Andréa Morris (Forbes)

Even if you call 'a kind of biomechanics' intelligence and growth in favourable conditions decision-making (which definitions are not widely shared), that clever pre-universe mold would have needed a substrate on which to live and grow and make decisions about.

There's so little to go on. — Ludwig V

About the interim steps? Pastoral peoples were migratory or nomadic and didn't leave many records. Still, we know that they herded livestock - which is a huge step from respect for to control over and ownership of other species. It also reduced all other predators from a threat to be feared to rivals to be hated and exterminated. Settled agriculture did the same to land and vegetation, water and forest.
The Genesis story (which originates in an oral tradition before Judaism) already shows the drive to "subdue and fill the earth" as well as nostalgia for pre-agricultural life.

Every civilization has left records. Their beliefs and lifestyle are generally depicted in representations on walls and in tombs. The architecture itself speaks volumes about how people lived. There is also considerable literature from about 3000BCE onward.
Then, with rapid population growth which required ever more intensive use of land and hostility toward all competing species, also came increasing urbanization and alienation. And the unspeakable practices of the Enlightenment period, and the depredations of European colonial expansion... right up until the late 18th century and the industrial revolution. About the only counter attitude came with the Romantic movement, as a reaction to that assault on the countryside. But that's just art - it has tears but no teeth.

Surely there is some room for thinking that when more and more individuals start to change, sometimes the movement gathers weight and pace and ends up changing things at the macro scale? — Ludwig V

That would apply if a) there were not a much more powerful trend to destroy more of the environment faster and b) we had unlimited time in which to make the change before our environment becomes uninhbitable. Yes, I know that's a pessimistic, depressing view of our reality, but I see no other.

In my opinion intelligence must have been pre-existing and manifested (or re-manifested) itself in life and nature and through us human beings. — kindred

If God made the universe, yes. (Where he lived before he made the universe is anybody's guess.)
Otherwise, no: intelligence had to wait until a brain evolved someplace. Maybe not only here; maybe many intelligent entities have been and are scattered across the galaxies. Odds are, we'll never meet one to compare IQ's.

Even brainless plants have the means to warn other plants of threats, and are able to mount targeted defenses (within a fairly narrow repertoire). — BC

That extensive mycelial network! Pretty amazing, actually.

Human civilization, as it has evolved to the present, has become incompatible with the most optimal balance of resources of the natural world. What should we do about it? Were we able (which we are not) we ought to be far-sighted about the long-term consequences of our industrially powered production--everything from our own numbers, to the automobile and airplane or laundry detergents and cheap meat. — BC

At some point - about 7000 years ago, but there were interim steps that took much longer - humankind turned against nature and began to treat it as Other/the enemy. We lost a good deal of our own nature and have been paying for it ever since in mental illness, discontent, strife and a sense of loss. It's a big hole that we keep trying to fill with religion, technology, spectacles, self-aggrandizement, overconsumption and lots and lots of wars.
There are people - a growing number of people - who take their own path to simplicity and balance. Global economy, global culture are too big to be changed, but individuals are capable of change.

.

New Zealand Kea