It appears to me that many people take it for a fact that human beings are intellectually superior to all other animals. Just because natural selection has conferred upon us the chance to live on earth, it doesn't mean that we are cleverer than all other creatures. Let's not forget, humans can stand upright and have opposable thumbs; these factors contribute greatly to our ability to manipulate tools. For all you know, dolphins or white mice could be contemplating at the meaning of life; just that they can't manipulate tools well enough to use the environmental factors to their own advantage.

It is human to think themselves superior to those whom they do not understand. Enough of those "arrogant ang moh" examples; in the Qing dynasty the Chinese considered the Manchurians and Caucasians as barbarians(man2 yi2) and the Japanese were derogatorily referred to as "short thieves"(wo1 kou4). People can even think themselves superior to their own creed, if they are separated by enough time; I think people who take KI can sense that we are being introduced to the idea that the morality nowadays is superior to the morality in the past, when people felt it was right to keep slaves and did not treat all human being as equals, as though we have access to some moral knowledge that our ancestors did not, as though morality is out there to be discovered.

How do you know if another being has language, and that this form of communication is not based on instinct? Whenever you are at a loss at how you can substantiate your idea that humans have language and other animals don't, you can just claim "Oh, it's animal instinct" and get away with it. I refuse to let myself off in this case (of course, unless I'm doing a KI essay on language; in that case I'll do exactly what I just described, simply because I don't understand animal language well enough to discuss the metaphysics of it).

I would suppose that an alien observer that is capable of predicting human behavior would find it easy to conclude that human behavior is all based on instinct. Resorting to this instinct argument is cheating, because to us, an instinct is an action that we make unconsciously. To find out whether a particular animal is acting on instinct or has it all planned out, one would need to know whether that animal is consciously doing so. I don't believe it is possible to find the center of consciousness, so I don't believe that we can ever conclude if a being other than oneself is acting on instinct. It's like, "Lion, I don't know whether you can think. But since I don't understand you, I shall assume you can't. After all, we humans are surviving better than you, and that must mean we are superior to you in some way; if not in the brawn, then certainly in the brain. So let's just say you can't think. Then all your actions must be due to instinct, and since it's all instinct, you can't possibly have language, as it takes conscious thought to sort out the semantics of any language."

It kinda gets on my nerves when Animal Planet and National Geographic lump all the amazing feats that animals can pull off as "raw animal instinct"; with its condescending tone thinly veiled by exaggerated astonishment, like "Wow, that's amazing for a being that can't think!" I await the day that an alien observes a String theorist at work and exclaims, "What amazing power of raw animal instinct!"

One can easily apply the above circular reasoning to any being whose consciousness we don't understand. This applies to any being other than oneself, including babies and computers. If someday you catch yourself saying "But they can't possibly think like us!", then I beseech you to think again.