I read your other post, which thankfully had some reasoning in it, unlike the earlier one.
I'm the first to concede that humans operate on a higher intellectual level than the animal world, mostly as a result of our possession of complex and abstract linguistic skills.
However you seem to just start the argument by saying:
"As it can be safely assumed that animals make no theoretical constructions."
Rather than simply assuming, is there no empirical evidence you can draw on?
A simple observation that springs to mind is the use of tools by animals. Birds and primates use tools to achieve tasks, and probably so do other animals.
A tool is used to achieve a manual task. By definition then, the tool is an extension of the animal's body. So the use of a tool immediately shows that the animal is aware of its body. So when a primate sees a nut that needs cracking, it is mentally constructing in it's mind a picture of what is inside the nut. It is also aware that its own body is incapable of cracking the nut. So the animals surveys its surroundings to locate a tool to achieve the task. In doing so it is viewing each prospective tool and thinking about whether or not the tool will be suitable. A fistful of mud won't be suitable, and nor will a soft limb of a tree. Some rocks are too big, others are too small. By choosing the right sized rock, the primate is demonstrating the ability to think theoretically about the rock's potential to crack open the nut to release the kernel inside. That seems like theoretical awareness to me.
My comments on your thinking though are:
Why define knowledge with such strict criteria?
Why argue almost entirely rhetorically? It's more the style of the thinking of Hume, Aquinas, or Locke. The notion of animal cognition is a behavioral science, so it can only be studied and commented upon with reference to empircal results.
I read your other post, which thankfully had some reasoning in it, unlike the earlier one.
I'm the first to concede that humans operate on a higher intellectual level than the animal world, mostly as a result of our possession of complex and abstract linguistic skills.
However you seem to just start the argument by saying:
"As it can be safely assumed that animals make no theoretical constructions."
Rather than simply assuming, is there no empirical evidence you can draw on?
A simple observation that springs to mind is the use of tools by animals. Birds and primates use tools to achieve tasks, and probably so do other animals.
A tool is used to achieve a manual task. By definition then, the tool is an extension of the animal's body. So the use of a tool immediately shows that the animal is aware of its body. So when a primate sees a nut that needs cracking, it is mentally constructing in it's mind a picture of what is inside the nut. It is also aware that its own body is incapable of cracking the nut. So the animals surveys its surroundings to locate a tool to achieve the task. In doing so it is viewing each prospective tool and thinking about whether or not the tool will be suitable. A fistful of mud won't be suitable, and nor will a soft limb of a tree. Some rocks are too big, others are too small. By choosing the right sized rock, the primate is demonstrating the ability to think theoretically about the rock's potential to crack open the nut to release the kernel inside. That seems like theoretical awareness to me.
My comments on your thinking though are:
Why define knowledge with such strict criteria?
Why argue almost entirely rhetorically? It's more the style of the thinking of Hume, Aquinas, or Locke. The notion of animal cognition is a behavioral science, so it can only be studied and commented upon with reference to empircal results.