That's true, but they can all still be used in noun form!
In speech, yes. In a debate, it's a straight road to logical fallacy. It's always a better idea to deal with primary source, anyway.
First off, how do you define abstraction?
is the process or result of generalization by reducing the information content of a concept or an observable phenomenon, typically in order to retain only information which is relevant for a particular purpose.[/wiki]
Any relatively organised neural system will operate with abstractions just by analysing, storing and linking together data derived from neural inputs.
I looked into that, which brought me to Animal Cognition. Honestly, it seems way controversial and debatable.
Which is why I said you shouldn't talk about it. Basically, anything you've previously said is a)unscientific; b)completely unsupported; c)highly debatable; d)fallacious.
There is currently nothing to suggest that animal cognition is significantly different from human cognition, especially according to neurobiological/evolutionary/historical/psychological models; that a number of species can form concepts, abstractions, as well as exercise reasoning, emotion, free will and, in certain cases, self-awareness are long-confirmed facts.
Common sense: don't talk about something you know nothing about. Which is why I'm not going to say anything conclusive about animal or human cognition/consciousness here.
Oh bother, it appears I am a Warhammer/Dwarf Fortress fan.
Good for you.