By FRANS de WAAL: refuted (Introduction)

by dhw, Friday, November 11, 2016, 11:46 (2933 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw:Intelligence is not to be gauged by how far apes can adopt human language and culture! If a human expects an ape to behave like a human in order to show its intelligence, maybe the human is not as intelligent as he thinks he is. Perhaps the reviewer should initiate a conversation with Alex in Alex’s own language, and then maybe he’d have a different story to tell.

DAVID: Some language! Chimps have about 30 'sounds' but use sign language and body language to communicate:

ALL organisms have their own form of language. Sign language and body language are language. It is absurd to suggest that chimps are not intelligent because their language is not like ours.

DAVID: You are correct, animals are more independent and we as humans are interdependent. Their thoughts shows intentionality. Introspection, no.

I haven’t read de Waal’s book, but I’d be surprised if he argued that animal intelligence is on a par with human introspective intelligence. There are different levels of intelligence and consciousness, but the fact that an animal does not spontaneously try to behave like a human does not, in my view, “refute” de Waal’s claim that animals are intelligent!

Under “cognition forecasting”
QUOTE: From a statistical perspective, the orangutan data was indistinguishable from human data. Both species seemed to make consistent choices about future events even if they had no prior experience to guide their decision-making.
"'An ability which was previously thought to be uniquely human presumably has evolved earlier, so that it's shared with orangutans and presumably with chimpanzees as well."
"… it may be that we will soon mark yet another skill off the list of things that were once thought to be the sole domain of our species. Perhaps what's truly unique about us is our ongoing quest to find something unique about us."

David’s comment: I have no idea why these researchers are so surprised. They have assumed in advance that he did not have this capacity […] The usual point is the research folks are trying to disprove how different we are. They failed.

I am also surprised at their surprise and at your conclusion. The fact that you knew they shared this ability with us means you knew how similar they are to us, not how different.