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

by David Turell @, Tuesday, July 21, 2020, 18:34 (96 days ago) @ dhw

dhw: I agree that the connections require correlation. And I have agreed that if that constitutes “abstract thinking” by your definition of it, then OK, the bee is “capable of rudimentary conceptual thought”. You have deleted your claim that the bee “[uses the same degree of conceptual thought that we use[/b]”. Do you stand by that statement? The article defined abstract thinking as “thinking in terms of universals”. Do you regard a connection between a bitten leaf and the plant flowering as “thinking in terms of universals”? [This was in contrast to “just particulars”.]

DAVID: I don't believe the bold is something I wrote, or I missed correcting a misprint. Bees do not think conceptually is my strict point. I accept the 'universals' statement. It is 'not OK' to grant bees any smidgen of abstract conceptual thought.

DAVID: (Tuesday July 14) The bite/earlier flowering of course is obvious to us. For the bee it requires the same degree of conceptual thought that we use. You are implying reasoning ability to bees they do not have. they only think concretely.

dhw: I should have put the word “uses” before the inverted commas. However, the bee DOES link the leaf to the flower, and therefore according to you, it DOES use the same degree of conceptual thought that we use! But since you think it is incapable of such thought, you tell us God does the thinking for the bee. Questions: 1) Do you really think that leaf-biting/flowering requires the same degree of conceptual thought as your analysing life’s history and concluding that there is a designing God; 2) do you really believe that your God directed one species of bee to bite a leaf and told it to watch out for early flowering? And 3) do you really believe that leaf-biting/flowering constitutes thinking in universals – a definition of abstract thinking which you accept?

Your questioning again demonstrates you do not know or understand my point. Thanks for recognizing you used my quote in total error. 1) YES; 2) Most likely, yes; 3)the bee activity of biting leaves to induce early flowering definitely requires analytic abstract reasoning at our level of thought. Bees cannot do this. The only reason I presented the article was the obvious problem of explaining the activity from the bees' viewpoint, a la' Nagel. I view this as part of your continuous attempt to make human less 'different', which indicates your level of fear of Adler's argument. You are trying to be blind of the analytic issue involved in understanding the relationship of two concrete events separated by weeks of time. The bees observe, nothing more.


Complete thread:

 RSS Feed of thread

powered by my little forum