Back to David's theory of evolution of abstract thought (Evolution)

by David Turell @, Sunday, July 19, 2020, 21:16 (26 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: How did repeated observation make the bees connect the two separate events? It requires complex analytic thinking, not concrete thinking to make the connection. We can do that, not bees. Repeated events put into memory still require an analysis of thought about it at some juncture. Just memory is not enough. Surely you can understand that. A realization of the correlation must happen! That is never concrete thinking.

dhw: You wrote that this observation involves “the same degree of conceptual thought that we use”. If you see one event repeatedly following another, you do not have to be an Einstein to figure out that the first event causes the second event.

This proves you do not understand the difference between abstract and concrete reasoning.

dhw: Using your criteria, I would then suggest that bees are capable of rudimentary conceptual thought. But personally, I would regard it as concrete thought: "When I did (a), (b) happened. Let's see if it happens again." I remain surprised that you should think this strategy is so complex and so necessary for life to go on that your God decided to teach it to this one species of bee. I see if it happens again."

This proves you do not understand the difference between abstract and concrete thinking. The connections requires correlation, an abstraction. Remainder of this discussion deleted as your making the same unreasonable invention of bee complex thought. The bee is not you.


DAVID: All of the bush is purpose, and needed for food supply.

dhw: Food supply for what? I agree that if God exists, the whole bush must have been part of his purpose. I do not agree that the whole bush was directly designed for the purpose of providing food for directly designed non-humans until he could directly design the only species he wanted to design, which was us. If, however, you now think that he had another purpose for spending 3.X billion years directly designing all the extinct non-human life forms and natural wonders, please tell us what it was.

DAVID: I'll stick with humans as the prime endpoint. The bush provides the necessary energy for 7.3 billion and burgeoning human population.

dhw: End point is not the same as purpose. It may well be that evolution will not produce any organism more intelligent than us. But that has nothing to do with the theory bolded above, and if “all of the bush is purpose”, WHAT is its purpose? 3.X billion years’ worth of non-human bush does not provide food for 7.3 billion humans who do not yet exist!

Same illogical complaint. As noted God knew what our population would grow to. And endpoint can be considered as purpose, if one views it as a goal to be reached.


DAVID: Now your limited view of God is that He doesn't/cannot realize what the future holds for the population of reproducing humans running the planet?? Weird line of reasoning.

dhw: The weird line of reasoning is that your God only wanted to directly design one particular species plus its food supply, but spent 3.X billion years directly designing billions of now extinct non-human life forms and food supplies.

I don't know why you can'g accept that as God's choice of method.


Complete thread:

 RSS Feed of thread

powered by my little forum