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

by dhw, Wednesday, July 29, 2020, 10:24 (363 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: Concrete thought describes or explains what is in plain sight. Abstract thought involves concepts of relationships of events in this particular case. Concrete observations and abstract correlation of how one causes the other. What do I have to explain this obvious thought material to you?

dhw: I really can't believe that the bee asks herself HOW one causes the other! She observes two concrete events that are in plain sight. After further observation of the two concrete events, she concludes that there is a process of cause and effect. I don’t mind if you think this simple conclusion entails “abstract” thinking. I only question why you think the bee and other organisms are incapable of linking cause and effect, although without that ability none of them would survive! And I question your insistence that this ability requires “the same degree of conceptual thought that we use”.

DAVID: Animals are incapable of determining cause and effect. That is why God guides them, as shown in the book 'Natures' IQ', where the weaverbird nest appeared. I'm still with God.

So animals are now incapable of working out how to get food to keep themselves alive, of teaching their young how to get food, of avoiding anything that might harm them, including environmental hazards and other animals, and of learning anything new. Your God has to “guide” them by means of a 3.8-billion-year-old computer programme or private lessons for just about every action you can think of.

DAVID: For some reason you do not understand the difference between abstract and concrete. See my definition above.

dhw: Even if I accept your definition, it does not justify your conclusion that bees and other organisms do not possess the (limited) power of abstract thinking that will enable them to link cause and effect! Nor does it justify your conclusion that leaf-biting demands the same degree of abstract (or conceptual) thinking as philosophizing about God.

DAVID: We will continue to disagree. I suggest you study the difference between abstractions and concreteness. I don't think you fully understand the differences. Please tell me what you find, if it differs.

No matter what definition you apply to the two terms, I fully understand your belief that that animals are incapable of linking cause and effect, and that leaf-biting requires the same degree of conceptual thinking as philosophizing about God. And I disagree most profoundly with you.

Complete thread:

 RSS Feed of thread

powered by my little forum