If they are getting “facts” in areas I’m informed about wrong, I have difficulty trusting the facts they present on subjects about which I’m less informed. Also a closer reading of the underlying assumptions inherent in their statements would be interesting, but I don’t have the energy for it right now.

The first part of the documentary seemed to diminish much of the research that has proven that animals such as primates have very rich and complex societies and communication skills – we’re only beginning to grasp the extent of this kind of intelligence. So while I liked their example of the various orders of thought processes (1st, 2nd….5th) I feel it’s perhaps a bit premature to make the claim that animals only possess 2nd order. We cannot simply judge them on how well they understand US; we must further observe how they understand each other.

To quote Confucius “Those who know don’t talk. Those who talk don’t know”

I realize the irony in my statement saying anything at all.

Collette, while this is a nice sentiment, expressed slightly differently by D-K ‘the message is all, not the envelope it is in’ is in my opinion false. The envelope you put it in reflects the object inside, if you write a brilliant letter to someone, but your envelope is covered in dirt, slightly torn, and no name on the front, well the message won’t carry the same weight, and in fact may never even be received or heard of, because the way in which it appears is not conducive of the brilliant, insightful thoughts inside. Yes, the message is what’s most important, but how you deliver/present it, makes or breaks whether or not people pay any attention, at least that’s my take on it. Not that good things can’t come in cr*p packages, but I think you know what I mean :)

This mystery is far from being solved.

I am so glad to have had this conversation with you. Relative perspectives never worked for me. I always had to chisel away at all possible subjective/relative perspectives till I was left with something indisputable, which i then hold precious.

To each his own. tc

I too have pondered many a night on this very issue, after which I decided that classification has no priority and that defining the concept of man to myself seemed insignificant and redundant.

I opted to take a relative perspective.. makes a lot of questions simpler in my opinion.

With this: “Some say emotions and complex social structures, others say superior intellect and some simply trace it back to our ability to overcome instinctive behaviour” I merely intended to demonstrate how varied and flexible the term is. There is no consensus, personal definitions are pointless.