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

by dhw, Wednesday, July 22, 2020, 10:06 (374 days ago) @ David Turell

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”. 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?

DAVID: Your questioning again demonstrates you do not know or understand my point. Thanks for recognizing you used my quote in total error.

It’s not in total error! The bee DOES the deed, so according to you it DOES use the same degree of conceptual thinking that we use, but according to you the conceptual thinking it uses is provided by God through a personal dabble or a 3.8-billion-year old computer programme for leaf-biting. I simply don’t agree that leaf-biting is on a par with philosophy, and I must confess that the intelligent bee theory seems to me almost infinitely more convincing than your own.

DAVID: 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.

Since these are your beliefs, we must leave it at that.

DAVID: I view this as part of your continuous attempt to make human less 'different', which indicates your level of fear of Adler's argument.

My belief that other life forms have their own form of intelligence does not in any way involve downgrading the exceptional intelligence of H. sapiens. I have emphasized this over and over again, so please stop knocking down this straw man of your own making.

Complete thread:

 RSS Feed of thread

powered by my little forum