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

by dhw, Sunday, August 02, 2020, 08:19 (83 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: My example had nothing whatsoever to do with training! Do you honestly believe that if you kick your dog, you will then have to train him with repeated kickings until at last he learns that he should run away from your raised leg? But again we come back to belief. I believe that all living organisms possess sufficient intelligence to learn whether concrete events are good for them or bad for them, and to act accordingly. This entails recognizing the link between cause and effect. I do not share your belief that your God has to preprogramme or dabble such links as a bitten leaf leading to early flowering. And I do not share your belief that such observations require "the same degree of conceptual thought that we use.”

DAVID: You obviously do not understand the need for training animals who only have concrete thought. It requires constant repetition. Recognizing cause and effect is conceptual, not concrete thought. Believe what you wish, but your wish is not true according to those who study mind as does Dr. Egnor. Concrete thought cannot recognize cause and effect. Implanting instinct is required.

We are not talking about training animals, but since you insist, how do you think predator cubs learn to hunt if not by repetition, and repeated experience and observation of what does and doesn’t work? Do you think your God steps in to teach them? There is no need for us to get bogged down in different definitions of what constitutes concrete, abstract and conceptual thought. I have bolded my beliefs and disbeliefs above. If you wish to believe that our fellow animals do not have the abilities I attribute to them, and that linking a bitten leaf to an early flowering plant requires the same degree of conceptual thought as philosophizing about God, then so be it.


Complete thread:

 RSS Feed of thread

powered by my little forum