> If you're going to start with a conclusion, "animals can be intelligent because pigs are intelligent, QED" where does that get you?
It's in response to this
> cows eat grass, what reason do they have for deep intelligence and thoughts
Where does that get us? It gets us thinking about how does that line make any sense.
> Why, exactly, are "pigs considered intelligent"?
There's plenty of research on pig cognition and it's not like you'd take my word for any of it so why not google it for yourself?
Here, I'll even start you off with one: https://escholarship.org/uc/item/8sx4s79c
> What I'm contesting is something like "approximately all animals must have the same capacity of thought as humans because humans are animals", or the original statement more like "we shouldn't be surprised if tests show animals do have because we should have been assuming that all along even without evidence".
Your objection was to someone else saying
> It continues to surprise me that humans are surprised at other animals having deep intelligence and emotions and thoughts.
This is not the same as
> approximately all animals must have the same capacity of thought as humans because humans are animals
That is you moving the goalposts.
> I disagree that they are intelligent in the same way that humans are
> if they haven't been shown to have human-level capacity for (invention, language, music, mirror neurons, communicating abstract information, symbolic manipulation, arithmetic, planning, teamwork), then we shouldn't assume they have it unless necessary.
Again, no one claimed that so you stating that you disagree is fine but who are you disagreeing with? I still don't understand why you feel the need to declare this.