Regarding the dot on the forehead experiment: It was first tried
on human children. Until a child reaches a certain age, give or take
a few months, they always fail that test (I think it’s somewhere between
18 to 24 months).
Regarding the OP: It depends on what you mean by think.
Certainly animals other than human have demonstrated the ability:
[ul][li]to learn to solve concrete problems/puzzles;[/li][li]to learn concrete categorization (‘things that are blue,’ ‘things that[/li]will hurt me,’ ‘sounds and tones which mean I’m going to the park!’);
[li]to learn to respond with basic emotions in concrete situations; and,[/li][li]to learn to use concrete tools.[/ul][/li]
Note the learn part. There are instinctual behaviors
which seem like the animal is thinking, but it isn’t. For
example, being mammals and pack animals, a dog will naturally follow the
*alpha human *and seek to cuddle with the other members of the house
– that’s not learned, and therefore, not a sign that a dog that is thinking.
Also, being trained to do something is not the same as thinking.
Now, note the concrete part. Animals haven’t demonstrated
the ability to abstract ideas and concepts at a higher order of intelligence.
For example, a dog may mourn the loss of a member of the house who has
moved out – but the dog doesn’t know whether that person has moved away
or has died. And, if that person died, the dog wouldn’t be plunged
into the existential grief of trying to figure out the meaning of life.
A dog can jump at a door and figure out how the handle on a screen door
works. But the dog couldn’t use math to come up with an equitable
distribution of bones between itself and the other dog in the house –
it wouldn’t even know the concept of being fair (though it could be trained
not to touch the other dog’s food).
Animals can concretely reason, they don’t seem able to abstractly think.<font face=“DF Diversities LET”><font color="#FF0000"><font size=+3>c</font></font></font>