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

by David Turell @, Saturday, July 25, 2020, 20:41 (96 days ago) @ dhw

dhw: I don’t object if you consider that abstract thinking is needed in order to observe two events over a period of a couple of weeks, and then to repeat the observation and draw a conclusion that they = cause and effect. That depends on your definition of “abstract”, though yours clearly differs from the one offered in the article, which distinguished between thinking about universals and thinking about particulars. I do not regard leaf-biting followed by early flowering as a “universal”. However, I object very strongly if you consider leaf-biting followed by early flowering as requiring “the same degree of conceptual thought as we use.” I would regard theirs as rudimentary compared to the conceptual thinking that has led you from your scientific studies of the complexities of life to the concept of an invisible, eternal, universal mind whose one and only purpose in creating that life was to design a being with a unique degree of consciousness. I would say that you are vastly more thoughtful than a bee. “Why not admit your error?”

DAVID: I'll stick with the need for an analysis to correlate the two events. That requires abstract thought bees do not have. Correlating particulars still requires abstract thought. Trying to use the difference between universal and particulars does not answer the question between us.

dhw: I have said above that I have no objection to your claim that it requires abstract thought – this simply depends on your definition of “abstract”, which you have not given us. There are several questions between us. I do not share your belief (stated as fact) that bees do not have the intelligence to link two separate events as cause and effect, and therefore God must have preprogrammed leaf-biting 3.8 billion years ago or, alternatively, stepped in to give bees a course in leaf-biting. I believe that bees and other organisms are intelligent enough to observe causes and effects, even over time, and indeed if they did not have that ability, they would soon become extinct! You agreed that abstract thinking focused on universals. I do not think leaf-biting is a universal. And do you really believe that leaf-biting requires “the same degree of conceptual thought” as your theories about God and evolution?

I gave you my definition of abstract thought in comparing abstract and concrete thought. All animals think concretely, while it requires analytic thought to relate two disparate events in time on the same rose bush. That is so obvious I can't believe you don't accept it. Observing cause and effect over time requires conceptual analysis that reaches a conclusion. My theories about God are at the same degree of conceptual thought. Conceptual thought ability cannot be graded into levels. We have it, animals don't. As for universals and particulars, we can think in universals, animals don't, ever. I'll stick with the authors of "Natures' IQ". God is in charge.


Complete thread:

 RSS Feed of thread

powered by my little forum