I don't disagree with any of this, but what is the utility of viewing this ability as "more advanced"?

What is the utility of denying it?

What do you or anyone else actually get from such obvious absurdity, I wonder?

If it helps - and I have doubts - does (say) a working knowledge of Galois theory require more advanced mathematical cognition than arithmetic?

Would it be immoral to introduce such ghastly, hierarchical language? Etc.

I see you ignored the obvious rejoinder downthread, which stated that the utility of classifying behaviours or capacities is to help you predict outcomes.

How much more help do you need here? It’s not very complicated, but you prefer to showboat.

Let's say you're about to embark on a cross-oceanic sailing voyage. For safety reasons, you think it's best to bring another living being with you who can help if things go south or you are incapacitated.

Are you going to bring another human, or a goat? Can a goat navigate while you sleep? Can it apply first aid to you? Can it respond on the VHF radio if you get hailed? Can it operate the bilge pump?

> I don't disagree with any of this, but what is the utility of viewing this ability as "more advanced"?

Because that's the most accurate description of what it is. The more accurately you describe something, the more effectively you communicate, an aspect of more advanced cognition.