[MHGinTN]

... there is no evidence of "knowledge," which requires conceptualization of the percepts that are recognized. Language acquisition would seem to refute your assertion. also, that an animal can be shown (repeatedly if necessary) where something they want is hidden and then they can go to it and take it from hiding seems to refute the assertion.

Octopuses can learn how to take a desired food thing out of a bottle, simply by watching a neighboring octopus do it, and the process of removal can be somewhat complex, as in removing a stopper from a bottle to get at the food. If the animal can learn the action and repeat it without first trial and error discovery, that would appear to refute your assertion, also.

When Koko's --the Gorilla who learned amislan-- kitten was killed and the handlers brought another of very similar size and color to her to become her pet, she refused to call it 'allball', insisting that it was not allball, though she hadn't touch allball after it died out on the street outside her enclosure.

[Hank Kerchief]

I distinguish between signs and symbols, which many animal researchers are not careful to do. Animals can be trained to react to many complex signs, but are not able to form a concept which is associated with symbol (such as a word).

The distinction is this. A concept can be learned and associated with a symbol without the learner ever having to perceive the thing the concept is of. I can teach a human being what a book is without them ever seeing a book, and with that description they can recognize the first book they see, and know it is a book. The knowledge they had from the description (definition) of the word book is a concept.

A sign does not require a concept. It only requires a particular response. The response may or may not be related to what the sign, "signifies," and all that can be observed is how the animal behaves in response to the sign.

Hank