Computers are tools. They don't reason; they do exactly what they're instructed to. A stick can solve a problem too, but it's still a tool, because it only does exactly what you tell it to. This will be true until we develop an AI with intrinsic agency.

Furthermore, I'd say that your over-focus on reasoning is misguided. There are many aspects of cognition and consciousness, and reasoning is just one of them. (And, as others have mentioned, there's plenty of evidence for various forms of abstract reasoning in studied animals.) Wikipedia's article on Animal Cognition has a convenient listing of different aspects that have been studied:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_cognition

This whole comment chain started because the quote missed the core part of first sentence.

"The core difference between humans and animals is that humans can reason; we possess cogitative powers." (I have emphasized the point that was missed.)

A core difference between humans and animals is the cogitative powers of humans. Animals simply do not show the same cogitative powers. Animals do have cognition. I don't question that at all. I'm saying, in regards to cogitation (introspection), animals pale to humans.

Disagree. This has been a "fact" which has been steadily eroded as time goes on. It started with humans using tools... Until we found animals using tools. And it's been a series of dominos falling ever since, with the current studies on animal linguistics just being another one in the line.

For instance, your invocation of "introspection" is covered in the linked article by "theory of mind". And maybe in the second paragraph covering metacognition in "consciousness". I think this quote covers the ideas succinctly:

"Convergent evidence indicates that non-human animals have the neuroanatomical, neurochemical, and neurophysiological substrates of conscious states along with the capacity to exhibit intentional behaviors. Consequently, the weight of evidence indicates that humans are not unique in possessing the neurological substrates that generate consciousness. Non-human animals, including all mammals and birds, and many other creatures, including octopuses, also possess these neurological substrates." [0]

We've found evidence in some animal or another for pretty much everything we've ever thought was unique about human cognitive abilities. So far, the only unique thing about humans is how broad and powerful our cognition is. Which is maybe what you mean, and are having a hard time expressing.

[0] http://fcmconference.org/img/CambridgeDeclarationOnConscious...

I too disagree. I'm discussing cogitation rather than cognition. I'm in no way saying animals are not cognitive. I'm saying animals do not possess even close to equal cogitative powers as humans do. Animals are conscious, but if we are frank, their consciousness is not as deep as our own. A sword does not make one a soldier if he does not use it as a soldier. Animals don't have, or possess only the simplest, language. They have no means to express their cogitating or cogitation. We do.

Someone else already pointed this out to you: absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. What evidence do you have that animals don't have an internally-rich, deep, contemplative life? Your only substantial point is that they haven't walked up to us and start talking about it... If your barrier is "human language and socialization", then of course by definition no other animal has the capability! It's a self-serving definition. But I have certainly had many different animals communicate with me in various physical and verbal ways -- they certainly can express themselves, and in ways that we can understand. And they have certainly verified that they can understand to some extent our language and communications.

Meanwhile, anyone who has a dog knows they have both dreams and nightmares, which is certainly some form of internal contemplation.

The evidence that I have is observation. Animals can feel, can have sensations, and can act with volition, they get hungry and they get tired. They get excited and they get sad. But to what extent can you say they wonder why they are that way? Can you assuredly say you have seen that? As Hacker argues in Human Nature: The Categorical Framework, "They can intelligibly (truly or falsely) be said to think only what they can express in their behaviour....

with us, unlike other animals, those limits are set by the linguistic expression of thought. If one has mastered the use of tenses and of temporal referring expressions, one can think of the past and the future. One can remember not only where – as exhibited in an animal’s seeking or homing behaviour – but also when. Non-human animals may prepare for the future – bury food for later consumption, build dams or dig burrows, but only man can plan for the future."

What particularly defines an "internally rich contemplative life" besides what is possible for humans, and not assigned to animals by humans?

Animals have an internal life. They are conscious. But by what means do we have to understand them as self-conscious? Can they distinguish between myself and my self? There is considerable debate about this. You end up in philosophy. You end up in conceptual analysis.

Eventually, it comes down to principles of sense and nonsense in language. What does it make sense to say of animals? Does it make sense to say a dog is planning for the next walk on August 30th? Or does it make more sense to say I think he is planning? The two say imply different things about the dog's capabilities.

If they can learn a technique on one problem and then use that technique on a completely different problem based on some observation, then sure. Why not?

Monkeys, crows, ravens, octopuses and other animals have been shown to be able to do stuff like this.

> but that is no reason to imply all animals can

I don't think anyone was making the claim that all animals can. (In case you're not a native english speaker, GP said "all sorts of animals", which means "many different kinds of animals" and not "all animals")

>Computers can solve puzzles too. Would you say, then, that computers can reason?

Obviously yes. There's nothing special to reason that requires a human.

animals solve without being told how to by a human, in contrast to a computer. of course newer AI is different, and it's called AI for a reason.

Newer AI is entirely limited by the algorithmic and logical frameworks assigned to it by others than itself. Machine learning is not "true" AI. It's called AI because it's slick marketing.

Animals can solve puzzles. Solving puzzles, however, doesn't mean you can reason in the same way humans can. For instance, humans can ask why they are solving the puzzle. That's an expression of cogitative ability that animals don't have.

This whole discussion is just about people unsure whether something else is smarter than thdm or not.

If you ask a human why they are doing something they will often make up a reason and not even realize they're doing so. Especially when emotions are involved.

That's true, but rather than "make-up" they are assigning a reason to their actions because they did them voluntarily. That is a rational thing to do, that gives a why for their action through their introspection, or sheer need for justification. If it is not voluntary, they'll often say that or it is immediately apparent, or they are ill.

And we are fully capable of investigating that reason, that why, to find out whether it is reasonable or whether a better why can be provided. Animals cannot assign a reason, nor can we "investigate an animal's reason", because that's nonsense. Animals don't give why's.

computers solve puzzles because we program them to do so. animals solve puzzles because it provides a reward to them, the same way it does for us.