Unanswered questions: a review of Adler's thoughts (General)

by David Turell , Tuesday, August 20, 2019, 20:04 (1704 days ago) @ David Turell

The Difference in Man and the Difference it Makes:

https://www.amazon.com/gp/customer-reviews/R3EDU8UH4NBPRF/ref=cm_cr_dp_d_rvw_ttl?ie=UTF...

"The answer to this question of the difference in man and animals is neither purely scientific, nor purely philosophical; rather a combined approach is needed. The relevant question to be answered is "Does man differ from the rest of the animal kingdom by degree or by kind, and if by kind is this difference radical or superficial?" Adler, using a traditional Aristotelian and Thomistic analysis of the modern research while combining it with the more recent positions of other philosophers and scientists, concludes that it is a difference in kind and that this difference is indeed radical. Man is a different "kind" of thing than the other creatures that inhabit our planet.

***

"The argument for difference in kind turns on man's ability to articulate "designators", that is verbalized concepts in both their connotative and denotative form. There is no evidence that animal communication is expressive in this way. The data that has resulted from inquiring into animal intelligence suggests no more than an ability of perceptual abstraction, whether memorized or immediate. Mankind articulates designators and these articulations cannot be explained by mere sense perception or any perceptual generalization for the very fact that such designators are inherently non - perceptible. Not only does man attribute and recognize particulars as members of abstract classes or the classes themselves, he has the additional ability to express concepts that are not empirically observable at all; i.e. "God", logical relations such as "inference", pi, etc. Thus, the negative edge of Ockham's razor prevents us from attributing conceptual awareness on the part of animals yet the positive edge of this principle of parsimony demands such additional attribution to mankind.

"Next, Adler, using a traditional argument from Aquinas and Aristotle, argues that this ability must be immaterial due to the immaterial nature of the concept - a "class" or "universal" that cannot by definition be material and hence not merely an act of the physical brain.

"Adler is fair throughout his contention. As an example he admits that his immateriality position would be falsified by a "Turing machine" a computer robot that would be able to communicate with humans via propositional words and sentence formation. This is the third prong of the "Cartesian Challenge" as asserted by Rene Descartes centuries ago. If a purely physical machine can achieve conceptual thought and propositional language, then Adler admits his immateriality theory on which conceptual thought is based would be falsified."

Comment: Can an uncontrolled process of evolution produce the immaterial consciousness of humans. Along with Adler, I think not.