And the biggest problem is that you guys are trying to analyse animal thought process via human thought process. Unless they actually think in the same way we do, it can't be done. It's like you trying to imagine what you would be like if your mind and brain worked in a different way. Or if what you would be like if you were somehow on some other plane of existence. It can't be done because of the simple fact that our minds work the way they work and we can't change them to work in any different way.
Precisely. And with that said, time to respond to a whole ton of stuff.
No, it's different. The animal can't think 'I enjoy this', or 'I want this for me',
That, my friend, is an issue of LANGUAGE. Not of feeling or thought. If an animal experiences something it likes, it will KNOW it likes it, because it's brain will tell it that it likes it. That's how a brain works. The human brain is identical in this respect. If we did not have language, we would not think 'I enjoy this'. That's just WORDS. But we would experience satisfaction for sating a desire, just like animals do.
Just because animals do not have language we can comprehend, doesn't mean they do not think.
That's a reason, yes it is. But you are mixing meanings. One thing is the reason (cause) that makes things happen, another thing is to reason, that means to think. The animal doesn't think about it, it can't, it just does it. That's why it can't to follow or not its instincts.
A blatant assumption based on nothing but your own feelings of superiority over animals. Why wouldn't it think about it? We have already explained that animals can learn, and that they can make choices. Just because they don't have philosophy doesn't mean they do not think. Your definition of 'reason' is a philosophical definition, not scientific. There are plenty of arguements to suggest reason is merely an illusion.
You are contradicting yourself now: "It will always do things because it has developed a reason to do so and thinks it is the right choice." As you said, we can determine what we want for ourselves. What I'll consider good for mankind in this debate is what we are genetically determined to do. Must I repeat again? This proves that animals have no personality, since they can't act against thier instincts.
We have already explained that animals DO have personalities, but your mind seems to think personality means something entirely different to the dictionary definition.
Also, personality has no relation to the existence of free will, which is what you are arguing about. We do NOT determine what we want for ourselves; what we want for ourselves is determined by our experiences and our social reactions. Again, this is an issue about human society, not about intelligence. The only reason a human feels unhappy with it's lot is because it's basic instincts are not being fulfilled, or that society has taught it that there is a better way to live.
Oh, by the way, Toan, I was refering to the limitated group of elements that, combined according to certain rules, allow the speaker to transmit an infinite numbre of messages, breaking the time and space barriers, not the organ.
Time and space? Eh? Last I checked humans cannot change the rules of the universe, but there you go.
And plenty of animals can transmit a variety of messages. Animals have rudimentary languages too.
Lena, for the (three-legged) flamingo's, I've been telling this through all the thread: "Reason is a term used in philosophy and other human sciences to refer to the higher cognitive faculties of the human mind. It describes a type of thought or aspect of thought, especially abstract thought, and the ability to think abstractly, which is felt to be especially human.", what Wikipedia says. Reason is what basically makes us different from animals because it allows us to control our instincts. Have mercy, don't make me repeat this again. 
And following on from that definiton...
'However, there is much disagreement between philosophical schools about the nature and function of reason, as well as about the extent to which it is unique to human beings, and the above definition is not universally accepted.'
So yah boo sucks to that archaic definiton of reason. I should point out that that definition you state was from a 1913 edition of a dictionary.
Okay, animals are capable of making operations, I've always agreed with that, but not of abstract thought, and they can't reason according to what I'm holding. Here, we agree with one meaning, but disagree with another one, correct?
How do you know they can't use abstract thought? In fact, on a very basic level, they can. Since certain animals can learn what words like 'sit', means, that's an abstract thought in itself. The concept that 'sit' means to put your ass on the ground is an abstract thought. The concept of 'abstract' is related to language itself.
No, that's not true, because animals don't have different toughts. Plus, the article says persons are the ones who have personality.
Well, no, animals would die if their brain stopped working, but they aren't capable of having thoughts, nor interpreting things differently while being conscious of that.
What the bloody hell do you think a 'thought' is? It's simply your brain telling you something.
Neither animals can think abstractly, nor comprehend complex ideas.
Assumption.
Sapience is the ability to think, so animals are unconscious.
Disturbingly weird assumption.
So only humans can override instincts.
Another assumption. Already proved this to be false with my merecat example. If animals could never resist instinct they would be like robots. But animals learn. The very concept of learning is defying instinctual behavior.
Animals don’t have moral.
Assumption. Animals don't have complex societies in which morals are relevant. However, I have already proved that some animals, who do live in social groups, have basic grasps of justice, etc, so in that respect, they do have morals.
The concept of 'morals' is a social construct, anyway, and irrelevant to thinking.
My point, Showsni, is that it depends on how you intepret it. According to Wikipedia, which gives the official definitions that psychology and etology use, animals don't have a personality, since it involves thought. Howver, taking colloquially, qe could say animals are intelligent in part (they can solve problems), they have personality (all of them are different), and they can think (they can process info), but strictly speaking, and using the scientifical definitions, not.
Unless Fyxe says something, I may conclude this had a happy fairy tale ending.
You seem to use philisophical definitions rather than scientific ones. And also, Wikipedia is NOT official, it gets it's information from other sources, and it's hardly in-depth. Wikipedia itself says that it's definition of reason, for example, is highly disputed. And the thing is, you say stuff like 'reason is something only humans have, so only humans can do it'. Until you PROVE that only humans have a physical construct of 'reason' where animals do not, then you cannot just claim that the definition of philosophical words proves that animals do not perform these things.
