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

by dhw, Thursday, August 27, 2020, 14:36 (34 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: I am convinced conceptual thought is required for the bees. And I'll keep trying to convince you, when I see other examples to make the point.

dhw: Please don’t. We have already agreed that regardless of definitions, the difference between us is that you do not think bees are intelligent enough to link concrete cause to concrete effect, whereas I do.

DAVID: Two concrete observations separated in time require abstract thought to link them. Bees don't have it. Only you and I do. That is why we are so different from all animals. But part of your belief systems requires minimizing the difference. Which is why you try to ignore the force of Adler's argument.

This discussion has absolutely nothing to do with the almost infinite superiority of human intelligence compared to that of bees, so stop dancing on this dead horse. Concrete thought entails thinking about concrete particulars. Abstract thought entails thinking about abstract universals. But if you think establishing a link between a concrete cause and a concrete event requires abstract thinking, that's OK with me. Then the difference between us is that I think bees are capable of that degree of abstract thought, and you don't. We should leave it at that. Apparently you also believe that linking a bitten leaf with a flowering plant requires the same degree of "conceptual" thought as your lifetime’s pondering over science, philosophy and history in order to draw the conclusion that life and the universe were created by an unknown, sourceless, eternal being whom you call “God”. If that is what you believe, then so be it.


Complete thread:

 RSS Feed of thread

powered by my little forum