During this course of study, the concept of language as a demarcation between animal and man prevailed. Furthermore, as we have seen in our class readings, many argue that it is through language that our "consciousness" and our "cognitive" abilities develop. Consequently, these skills are necessary to interpret and conceptualize our world. What follows is that, because we have these abilities and "brute" animals do not, animals do not possess the ability to analyze or think about their world. Presented this way, I was almost convinced that it was a plausible depiction of mental development. However, I found that I still had a nagging feeling that it couldn't be true. Upon further investigation, I discovered that language is by no means the only way to interpret or communicate in the world. The significance of this statement is that if my thesis proves valid the results are twofold: it refutes the behaviorist and Cartesian claim that language is the boundary that separates animals and humans; and supports the theory that animals not only have language, but also possess the capacity for cognitive thinking. No one will argue that animals possess visual and auditory abilities. However, the concept that animals have language and are capable of thinking is a bitter pill to swallow for some. I believe they are also capable of thought and even intention. Of course, language development is often used as an indicator of mental aptitude in humans: “Language competence is intimately linked, or perhaps even definitive, to our concept of human mentality” (Atherton and Schwartz, 137). However, although language is a resource that allows people to conceptualize their world, it is by no means a necessity. This is demonstrated by the ability of physically handicapped people (e.g., the deaf) and mentally handicapped people (e.g., victims of cerebral palsy) to communicate using symbols. It is also demonstrated by the reliance on kinesics, body language, in young children. Numerous studies attest to the ability of monkeys and baboons to communicate using symbols and body language. These studies are the first steps to demonstrate the existence of the animal mental system. Griffin argues that many scientists do not accept the concept of animal mental states due to the difficulty of defining abstract concepts such as... As Savage-Rumbaugh states, "As long as behavioral scientists follow in Descartes' footsteps, assuming that nonhuman animals they are simply robots made of flesh and blood, they will refuse to give up their paradigms built on the methods of physics and science." chemistry." (Savage-Rumbaugh and Lewin 255). Language is based on comprehensiveness. Comprehensiveness is demonstrated by a wide range of language-related skills. These include the ability to draw inferences, evaluate relevance, participate in social practices , provide justifications, and use language to guide and plan activities (Atherton and Schwartz 14 Most studies of ape language indicate that animals possess the cognitive aptitude to perform all of these activities, although not to a high level). sophistication comparable to that of human beings. Perhaps another way to approach the question of animal consciousness would be to try to think in terms of the animal mind rather than in terms of the human mind. In any case, look at the question, after considering the facts presented in “Kanzi,” there can be no doubt about the validity of the argument that many animals possess a level of consciousness and understanding.