Agreed. I think much of the western received wisdom on animal cognition actually comes from religious attitudes of the unique specialness of man and his God-given dominion over the birds and beasts.

In general I think we are still adjusting to what science tells us about who "we" are.

For example, we know we're animals. As animals, we experience a concept of "self." So why would we assume that no other animals experience a concept of self?

We know that the mind arises from the brain. So why would we make a distinction between our concept of self and the "other" parts of the brain? The title of the above article is essentially clickbait, in my opinion. There is no scientific basis for distinguishing between the brain and the self.

It seems like there is a fundamental difference between awareness of a fit back signals from various systems (fear, hunger, cold, pain, etc.) and awareness of the self as an separate entity. Animals obviously have fit back awareness but probably does not have the concept of the self, like toddlers and young children.

Self comes with language acquisition, which rewires the brain. That's why almost no one remember their baby days, it seems.

Before that language conditioning you are a perfect animal.)

I've read about various research data that suggests animals may very well have a rich internal life which may well indicate they have their own "you" minds (although I can't cite any off the top of my head right now...)

I agree that an unqualified sweeping statement - possibly just regurgitated from various religious sources - shouldn't be blindly accepted. That sort of religiously-prescribed attitude also conveniently justifies maltreatment of animals at slaughter, even though research suggests that, e.g. the slitting of an animal's throat causes far greater suffering rather other more modern approaches.