Steve: As I understand it, Adler believes that scientific observation to date of animals and other humans (through extrospection) requires us to conclude that non-linguistic animals engage only in perceptual thought, and humans engage in both perceptual thought and conceptual thought. Adler believes that perceptual thought is a material power (the brain is a necessary and sufficient condition for perceptual thought), but conceptual thought is an immaterial power (the brain is a necessary but insufficient condition for conceptual thought). He says that if we ever develop machines that can engage in conceptual thought (a Turing machine that can carry on a conversation in the same way humans do), that would mean conceptual thought is merely a material power. If that’s the case, we would be required to conclude that humans and non-linguistic animals are only superficially (not radically) different in kind. According to Adler, reaching that conclusion has serious implications. It undermines the basis for saying it is okay to treat animals differently than humans and not okay for more intelligent humans to treat less intelligent humans as their servants. Jack
