Different in degree or kind: animal minds (Introduction)

by David Turell , Tuesday, January 12, 2016, 00:53 (3239 days ago) @ dhw
edited by David Turell, Tuesday, January 12, 2016, 01:00

dhw: 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”.-I don't know why you have to have those events explained. They are simply a part of the balance of nature, which is required.
> DAVID: Exactly. no other being has consciousness of the magnitude we have. Adler's reasoning.
> 
> dhw: 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?-The appearance of our amazing consciousness makes us special, something not expected in the stepwise advance of complexity in evolution. All other creatures follow patterns of shape and form (which I have mentioned before) as shown in college courses like comparative anatomy. In college I studied a frog, dog fish, and a cat anatomy to see the similarities. Brains also followed a pattern, but the jump from Chimps to us is like n o other advance. Adler's point. We Are different in kind. Therefore here is a God guiding the process. -> 
> dhw: 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.)-You've stated the point yourself: to get to humans everyone has to eat to survive. Evolution produced humans, with food supply providing part of the mechanism. Humans are related primarily to evolutionary processes; balance is a secondary issue.
> 
> dhw: 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!- Of course not. You are the one who wants to tie all of this together. It doesn't have to be other than the balance of nature is required. -> 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.-> 
> dhw: No, I want YOU to be logical. ... 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.-I am not contorted. You keep trying to tie everything together according to your sense of logic, while judging God's. God could certainly have designed everything if He had the power to create the universe and guide evolution. I believe He did. Faith does not require an explanation of every jot and tittle of reality.