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

by David Turell , Wednesday, August 26, 2020, 19:16 (1336 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: They didn't 'know' the future. I apologize, I misspoke. I meant to say they experienced food scarcity, ate less, and therefore had less sex. Reduction in reproduction did not require conceptualization.

dhw: That was the second hypothesis, which was meant to illustrate concrete thinking. The first, crystal-gazing one was meant to illustrate abstract thinking.

dhw: The first bee OBSERVED the flowering of the bitten plant. She didn’t have a crystal ball. She simply remembered what she had done and linked concrete cause to concrete effect, although without doubt either she or her buddies would have tried again a few times before it became an established strategy. I am still bewildered by your belief that leaf-biting demands “the same degree of conceptual thought that we use”, and I stand by the previous article’s definition of concrete as “particulars” and abstract as “universals”. But regardless of definitions I also stand by my belief that our fellow animals, birds and insects are perfectly capable of linking concrete cause to concrete effect. We had agreed to differ on this, so I don’t know why you have reopened the discussion.

DAVID: Because as in the bold, 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.

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