Daniel Dennett’s Science of the Soul
&gt; “Right,” Dennett replied. “He would be so different from regular lions that he wouldn’t tell us what it’s like to be a lion. I think we should just get used to the fact that the human concepts we apply so comfortably in our everyday lives apply only sort of to animals.”<p>That&#x27;s just silly. We taught Koko the gorilla how to talk, the effort was supremely insightful in helping us to understand animal cognition. Animals communicate with us all the time, they just do it non-verbally. We often just choose not to listen.<p>A talking lion would still be a lion. He wouldn&#x27;t be able to tell us <i>directly</i> what life on the fields is like, but that&#x27;s what the researchers are for.<p>I would not continue the 17th century delusion of non-sentient animals any further than we absolutely have to. Animals have exceedingly rich inner lives, and so do humans that don&#x27;t have language. They just lack certain tooling. I&#x27;d put not having language on par with not having sight. A handicap for sure, but you&#x27;re still a person and you still have thoughts.<p>There is, literally, a part of the brain that if you shut it off, you lose language. Dennett would have you believe that it&#x27;s that one part that makes us human.