It seems like the authors would disagree about "whether chimpanzees' vocalizations suggest that they may possess the capacity to attribute mental states to others" because the author of passage A states "chimpanzees do not appear to adjust their calling to inform ignorant individuals of their own location or that of food" while the author of passage B states "recent research with chimpanzees and other animals calls into question not only the assumption that...animals respond mechanically to stimuli, whereas humans speak with conscious understanding and intent." How is that not the case?
Also, what does "the difference between animal and human communication is qualitative rather than merely quantitative" even mean?
Reply
Create a free account to read and
take part in forum discussions.
Hi, I think the author of A is uncertain about D. While there is one case in which chimps appear to not be able to understand the minds of others, the author seems to note that the evidence is mixed on the matter around line 10. Since the author does concede that they may actually possess this ability in line 10 I think the author might actually agree with d.
To the latter question, that means that they would disagree as to whether the difference is a difference in kind, or that humans communicate in a way that is truly different from animals, or a difference is degree, that is, that animals and humans do indeed do the same kind of intentional communication and that humans simply do more of it than animals do.
