Different in degree or kind: animal minds (Introduction)

by dhw, Monday, January 11, 2016, 13:01 (3022 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: I am at a complete loss as to why we are discussing the balance of nature anyway! 
DAVID: The reason is you doubted the importance of the balance of nature as a food chain supply issue. It supports the energy needs as evolution proceeds to its end point, humans.-I do not doubt that organisms need food to survive, and I do not doubt that if life had been wiped out before humans arrived, humans would not have arrived. This does not explain why God had to design the weaverbird's nest, the parasitic wasp and jellyfish, especially since “human existence has nothing to do with the balance of nature”.-Dhw: Ah, so the elephant and the sparrow are only different in degree, and humans and chimps are “truly” different in kind, though you believe they both descended from a common anthropoid ancestor. The only way you can possibly defend this stance is to say that the definition of “kind” is the degree of consciousness. And since humans have a degree of consciousness that is a “vast advance” on that of other organisms, they are different in degree AND kind. 
DAVID: Exactly. no other being has consciousness of the magnitude we have. Adler's reasoning.-I don't think any of us would disagree that the degree (“magnitude”) of our consciousness makes us vastly more conscious than an elephant and a sparrow. So what exactly is your point?
 
Dhw: If you don't know why God had to “help” (private tuition, presumably), might that not be because he didn't?
DAVID: Again, you are back to God's reasons. I think he wanted humans, based on our arrival with our vast consciousness.-Yet again, if he wanted humans, why did he have to “help” the weaverbird design its nest? Please don't say the balance of nature, because (again!) you tell us “human existence has nothing to do with the balance of nature”. (Just to remind you, that is because you believe nature is balanced so long as there is enough food for any sort of life to continue, human or other.)
 
dhw: Chance is not an issue between us, so you needn't keep flogging it in discussions with me. 
DAVID: I keep flogging chance because the only other alternative is design. Nature's balance doles not have a direct relationship to humans. It supports the process of evolution so humans could evolve.-So the weaverbird's nest (plus hundreds of other such wonders) had to be specially designed so that humans could evolve? It doesn't make sense, unless you believe humans would NOT have evolved without the nest!
 
dhw: Your hypothesis now seems to be that God wanted to create humans, so he designed lots of organisms (99% of which died out) that did lots of weird and wonderful things - all designed by him - so that life could go on through a balance in nature, though that had nothing to do with humans. Then he...what?...did something or the other to produce humans (his real purpose), who are “truly different in kind” although they actually descended from earlier anthropoids. But even if they all died and nothing was left except bacteria, we would still have a balance in nature. I hope you can see that there is no logical pattern in this collection of non sequiturs, but perhaps you will correct it so that it makes sense. Otherwise, I suggest you might as well tell us that whatever happens, happens because that's how God wants it to happen, and we don't understand why.-DAVID: I can accept your final sentence. I think I see what God wanted, humans. The other issue is, is God logical? Perhaps not by our logic. But you want Him that way.-No, I want YOU to be logical. Since you have not corrected my version of your illogical hypothesis, I assume you accept it. My point is that your lack of logic can easily be overcome if you stop insisting your God designed every step and wonder throughout evolution in order to produce/feed humans. If he exists, he could still have produced humans while our dear old friend the weaverbird designed its own nest in an evolutionary free-for-all that saves you from all the intellectual contortions I summarized above.