It seems that other members of the ape family also have the ability of abstract thought, though not to the degree nor sophistication of humans. That kind of removes the whole "human alone" part of the equation. Not that this invalidates the rest of your syllogism. I just find it entertaining when people state that humans are somehow unique in our ability to reason abstractly. T'ain't so.

Also, we don't know the limit of other creature's ability for abstract thought. Cetaceans, for example, seem to have a fair capacity.

Of course it has a place in our natural quest for survival. Our ability to reason abstractly allows us to plan for the future, whether ten minutes from now, or next month. The ability to reason about our observations of the natural world has a clear survival advantage.

For instance, our ability to reason let us see that if we could stand back and poke at a predator with a stick, the predator couldn't get close enough to eat us or our children. And so spears were born. Our ability to reason let us see that, during a drought, other places may not be in drought. Where a "dumb" animal would just stay and starve, groups of humans would leave the afflicted area. Later, our reasoning let us see that we could divert water and irrigate fields even during a drought (assuming there was a source of water nearby).

Our ability to reason abstractly has gotten us out of many sticky situations.

And, there are many abstract challenges. Such as drought.

Claim #2 goes against common sense, let alone against years of evolutionary study.

It's from a natural quest for survival, as indicated by point #2.

Invalid conclusion, as point #2 is an invalid assertion.

 

Here we definitely agree, as we can both reason abstractly about existence of things that exists.

Here's a question: is the converse true? Does anything that exist, stimulate? (This has nothing to do with the issue at hand. I'm just curious what you think.)

This is a huge leap. Where in your rationality did you allow for supernatural being(s)? Why not just a supernatural abstract process?

There are many forces at work in evolution. The two best-known are "mutation" and "natural selection." They are also two of the most misunderstood, and I think you exhibit some of the symptoms of that misunderstanding.

First, "mutation" doesn't mean a sudden change. It just means change. The source of mutation is not always chaotic, either. For instance, cross-species recombination via viral interaction has been observed. It might even be that viruses are one of the important driving forces of mutation. This goes against the whole radiation-induced-two-headed-monster common perception of mutation.

Also, mutation is a creative force. It builds up the raw materials necessary for evolution. That is, it helps create genetic variety within a given population. Then, when the environment changes, that population has a better chance of survival, as some of its members may possess traits better adapted to the changing environment.

Natural selection is a sculpting process. It takes away that which is detrimental to survival. It doesn't select for the best-adapted (not fittest -- adapted); it strips away the least adapted. In practice, it amounts to the same thing, mostly, but it's a subtle distinction that leads to many assumptions, such as the ones you demonstrate.

By selecting out those least adapted (again, not "fittest" ), many traits may exist that give the population no distinct advantage, as long as those traits don't create a disadvantage. Your assumption in point #2 is incorrect, as stated. Abstract thought does give us an advantage. But even if it didn't, there's no selection pressure against it. And so it would survive, assuming an otherwise-well-adapted population.

Good shot, though. I've seen this argument (expressed in various ways) many times, but yours is probably the most concisely-stated. And, I love arguments posed in syllogism form.

I would appreciate a concrete example of an uncommon assumption and a non-sequiter from my argument, please. It is not enough simply to say that there is one.  This does destroy my argument, if it proves true. But I see no evidence of its truth. Agreed. I think you use the word "experiment" too loosely here. Experimentation itself seems to apply the abstraction capacity; experimentation presupposes hypotheses on possible outcomes, something which the evolutionary process is incapable of. If the evolutionary process includes experimentation as I represented it, then it does indeed. Can a mindless selection process really perform experiments?  That's what this is -- an argument for supernatural existence.

Can you give an example both of an ape that demonstrates the abstraction capacity and a concrete example of such a demonstration? It is not enough simply to say that there is one.

Some whales demonstrate a capacity to understand artistic endeavors, which are certainly abstract, that is true. But the abstraction capacity as I defined it also includes the application of such knowledge, which is not something any Cetaceans does, as far as I know. Might you give a Cetacean-specific example of an application of the abstract knowledge Cetatacians are capable of perceiving? It is not enought to simply say that there is one.

You are speaking of abstract reasoning in response to immediate and concrete stimuli. The abstractions I am speaking of cannot be adequately classified as reasoning, but are better exemplified in artistic endeavors and philosophy. These are two non-related classifications of abstract information.

This is another example of immediate and concrete responses to stimuli; there is nothing abstract about it. 

This is another example of immediate and concrete responses to stimuli; "dumb" animals leave droughts as well.

This demonstrates an application of the abstraction capacity. It involves holding one idea in the head and connecting it with a seemingly unrelated (hence abstract) piece of information, then applying it in a useful manner. No known non-human is able to do that.

Every existent thing that I know of stimulates, but this is not to say that active stimulation is an inherent property of existence. Its simply an accident that all existent things of which I am aware exist in such close proximity to one another that interractions (and thus, extraordinary stimuli) naturally occur.

Don't define "being" too strictly. A "being" is not necessarily animated; it is just "something that exists". So such a process would be a "being".

Aside from that, processes are means by which one entity accomplishes a certain end. If the supernatural being which gave us our abstraction capacity is a mere process, that presupposes some entity that gave the process the specific purpose of giving us the abstraction capacity. In other words, it presupposes some entity that "wanted" us to be able to think about that entity.

I think not, but you forgot "genetic drift", which is more useful to the evolutionary process than even mutations.

All in agreement. I am somewhat estute in the process of evolution, I think; at least I do not hold any of the common naive misconceptions.

No disagreements.

Nevertheless "fittest" can be defined simply as the best adapted for a given scenario. Thus what "fit" connotates can change with the environment, and so the natural selection process can be appropriately said to push the "survival of the fittest".

This is true. I said in my argument that, since natural survival could be discounted, there can only be two sources of the abstraction capacity: some other natural quest or supernature, and then ruled out other natural quests. But I forgot about chance; that is a natural process that can result in the functional development of those it affects. This could even be in the form of genetic mutation, and thus our abstraction capacity could indeed be accomplished by the evolutionary process, though it would be very unlikely.

This would be like humans gradually developing into the dominant species, and then randomly getting the capacity to keep it that way effectively. One might confuse such an event even for divine intervention, it would be so fortunate and unlikely.

Dude, I am so going to steal this. Your explanation is much  clearer and more visceral than my stupid drought example.

Uh, dmar198? Just pretend I wrote this in my example, instead of the stupid drought thing. kthnx. (I slay me.)

Please demonstrate that other primates' tool use does not qualify. Also demonstrate that sea otters' use of environmental tools, such as using rocks to open mollusk shells, also does not constitute similar 'abstraction'.

That would clear up his meaning. 

Like that mutation piggybacked on another one. The abstraction capacity might be a byproduct of our ability to determine motivations, because they are so closely related. Then when determining motivation became so advantageous, there was no chance that the abstraction capacity was going to leave.

This would answer my charge, if there is any evidence for it. But then, we would also have to find the gene that triggers our abstraction capacity and see what it is tied to. We haven't really found it yet.

Wow, we're really on the same page. I just said the same thing a few seconds ago.

Very good work. Shall we call this case closed?

Non-human primates and sea otters use tools, but they don't think of a tool which's purpose meets their needs and then construct them accordingly. They might pick up a stick and put it into an anthill, but that's about as complicated as it gets. It shows an interrelation of cause and effect, of saying, "Hey, X gets me Y, I'll use X more often." They don't say, "X is what I need to get Y, this is how I can make X, so I'm off to make it".

The closest you get to the last in non-humans is the nest of birds. They need a nest to hold their eggs, they know instinctively how to make a nest, and so they make it.

That should keep you busy for awhile.

How about doing math? Communicating using sign language with other members of their species?

http://www.npr.org/programs/morning/features/2001/dec/orangutan/011219.orangutan.html

http://www.sciencenews.org/articles/20060902/bob10.asp

These are just lay reports of specific research, but I'm sure you can find your way from there. (Yes, I know. You are referring to abstract application of concrete knowledge to a new domain. But your original statement was, "The human alone of all known life-forms has a brain capable of perceiving and applying abstract concepts." And using communication is an application of an abstract concept. That's the statement to which I replied.)

Ah! I didn't get that from your original statement. I apologize for my misunderstanding.

Artistic endeavours appear to be an offshoot of communication and social interaction, all of which have survival benefits. Early music helped with group cohesion and bonding. Early art celebrated the skills needed for survival (hunting, specifically). Cave art may not have directly affected survival, but it was a direct response to the skills and reasoning required for a successful hunt.

Organized philosophy came about as we had more leisure time. It was used as our evolved curiosity (which is a positively selectable trait) had time, energy, and stimuli to push it to more and more abstract thinking. No external, supernatural force required. Just Socrates orating about a specific position. They'd go home, hone their skills, come back the next day prepared to tackle Socrates and his ill-thought position. Then when they got there, Socrates'd be taking the exact opposite position.

That actually makes philosophy a selectable trait. The reputation as a thoughtful cranky old man had an affect on status. So, there's your selection pressure for our ability to spout logical nonsense.

I heartily disagree. Tool use is an abstract process. It might not be extremely abstract, but it is abstract. I was merely demonstrating in a casual fashion that even the simplest of abstract thoughts leads to a survival advantage. I used this to set up increasingly-abstract examples.

In this example, I was trying to demonstrate that an abstract model of reality would be a survival trait. Understanding that this one place was in drought, but other known places might not be, is abstract thought, and is therefore selectable. I apologize. I wasn't very clear on that.

As I said, I was just refuting what I thought you meant, which was that man is the only creature capable of abstract thought, which has been proven untrue. You didn't say (though you might have meant) that humans are the only animals capable of creative application of abstract thought.

None of it matters, though, as your core thesis doesn't depend on humanity's uniqueness.

Also, your absolute statement, "No known non-human is able to do that" is potentially false. A better statement is, "No known non-human is known to be able to do that." It's an important distinction.

Thanks for the explication. I really do appreciate it. I like to understand the person with whom I am holding a discussion.

Ah. I just read more into "being," as we tend to use it colloquially as a synonym for "sapient individual." Especially in the UFO cult to which I belong.

You are merely invoking the Kalam Cosmological Principle, which is essentially Aquinas's First Mover gussied up for the information age. This has been demonstrated as a logical fallacy many times.

If this is the root of your argument, please let me know. I don't want to debate about the evolutionary selective pressure on abstract thinking if all you are going to do is resort to the First Mover argument. We'll be talking at cross-purposes, and achieve nothing.

I didn't forget it. I just didn't know how much you really knew about evolutary processes. (I obliquely referred to it in the mention of genetic diversity in a population.) Your argument hinted that you knew almost nothing, so that was my initial supposition. I apologize for tossing you in with all the intellectual lunkheads who support intelligent design because "my diddy wasn't no monkey!"

Yes, but has been demonstrated, abstract thought is postively selectable. It is perhaps the single most selectable traight among all possible traits, as it is adaptable to almost any environmental shift. Your assertion that natural survival can be discounted as a selection mechanism is not founded in any kind of rational observation.

Our ability to think rationally is selectable. The fact that we also use that ability to create art, or think about mathematics, or argue the ontological necessity of God is part-and-parcel with our ability to reason. Creativity is a selectable trait -- a creative person is more likely to survive than a non-creative person of equal intelligence.  The ability to measure things abstractly is a selectable trait: a leader who is able to estimate the size of an opposing force is better able to judge whether to attack or to flee. A leader who is able to judge if enough stores have been laid in for the winter is more likely to see his group survive to see the next year.

Now, us being able to discuss the ontological necessity of God: that's probably a by-product of our natural curiosity and skepticism. Our minds are general information processing machines (and I use "machines" in the most-modern, least-deterministic way possible). The fact that we can think abstractly about almost anything, real or imaginary, is fairly unique (so far) in our observed experience.

However, evolution is more than sufficient to explain our intelligence, and ability at abstract thought.

Unsupported Presupposition = "The human alone of all known life-forms has a brain capable of perceiving and applying abstract concepts."
 

Unsupported Presupposition = "Abstract information has no place in our natural quest for survival."
 

I am unconcerned with "uncommon assumptions."  That is an ad populum argument - only, in reverse (it's fallacious merely because they are "uncommon assumptions" is an invalid argument).

Furthermore:

Non-sequitur ="It follows from these that the ultimate source(s) of the abstraction capacity is/are (a) supernatural being(s)."

It is non-sequitur; because, the previous  premises are not valid; and, even if they were valid, your automatic assumption of the supernatural being isn't the logical conclusion.

Then, you are not looking.  There is no lack of consensus on evolution being an intelligent process (although, there is disagreement with regard to its consciousness).  Unless, you can demonstrate:

A - That evolution is a non-intelligent process, incapable of producing abstract thought.

and,

B - That abstract thought came from a different source than DNA.

 

 

But, that's not true.  In practical application, the failed experiments are eliminated, leaving only the successful experiments.  And, it is fair to call it experimentation.  To wit:

American Heritage Dictionary - Cite This Source - Share This

ex·per·i·ment       (ĭk-spěr'ə-mənt)  Pronunciation Key  n.   A test under controlled conditions that is made to demonstrate a known truth, examine the validity of a hypothesis, or determine the efficacy of something previously untried. The process of conducting such a test; experimentation. An innovative act or procedure: "Democracy is only an experiment in government" (William Ralph Inge). The result of experimentation: "We are not [nature's] only experiment" (R. Buckminster Fuller).

Evolution demonstrates  "innovative acts or procedures" in accordance with definition 2, above.  And, even definition 3 uses experimentation in the exact same context as I have used it.

Why?  And, how do you establish that the way you represented it is correct and tenable?

Of course, as I demonstrated, above. 

 

Well, it failed.

dmar198, please watch this brilliant video, and be sure to read the description on the right hand side of the page (click the 'more' link), which includes several links to videos about chimps that will clearly illustrate the fallacy of assuming that humans are the only animals with abstraction capabilities: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fJ8OQrgL6RQ

Actually, not so. For example:

http://biology.plosjournals.org/perlserv/?request=get-document&doi=10.1371/journal.pbio.0030380&ct=1

Note that while the first gorilla, Leah, does not remove the branch from the tree, she does first foray into the water without it, then returns and uses the stick to test water depths. The idea that she can compare the length of the stick (which has not been out of the water) against her own body in unknown water depth is an abstract construct derived from knowing how much of the stick is out of the water when compared to her own body in known water depth.

In the second case, the very idea that branches underfoot can help support the animal's weight across swampy ground can be viewed as an abstraction. If the branch had already been in place, it might be seen as simply choosing firmer footing, but the abstraction lies in the 'I can create firmer footing', or 'this does not have to be this hard'. The recognition of potential is, after all, abstract reasoning.

 

Are you sure that only humans can apply abstract concepts? Are you sure that only humans can inquire about the nature of existence? Why is it that almost all animals are aware enough of their own mortality that they are able to go off alone and choose deathbeds, often hidden and out of the way? With some animals, the other members of the group will hide the body of any of their fellow creatures if they die out in the open, or if they died some time ago, they will distribute the bones of the skeleton. Humans are no different. We hide bodies, too. We bury them.

Are you sure we're the only creatures that understand existence? Or are you just being speciesist?

 

There are plenty of ways abstract thought could help survival, and some of the other members have touched on them; but our specific methods of abstract though, seen in philosophical discussions and the like, are no doubt assisted by language, which is not at all incompatible with evolutionary advantage.

Many animals communicate with each other via a series of calls. Some birds have specific calls for warning their fellow birds about specific animals that are approaching. For example, one cry means "cheetah" or another "hawk". In that sense, we might even say that they have "words". Just as a child can say a single word, "juice", to mean a variety of things---"I want some juice", "that person is drinking juice", "that is where the juice is kept", "I spilled juice on myself", etc---a bird might use a single call in the same way.

More interestingly, some birds have been documented as telling lies. They will falsely call out the alarm for a certain animal so that the other birds fly away, and then they will attempt to horde the food. Is this not abstract thinking? How did they plan such a thing ahead of time with their small bird brains? It gets more interesting. Such liars are often caught, and they are not treated kindly. Do birds have an abstract concept of "justice"?

There are other birds who pretend to be injured and flop around on the ground making all kinds of noise, acting as if their wing is broken, and making a commotion whenever a predator is near their nest. They know that predators will prey on easy food, so they attempt to divert attention from the helpless chicks by being MORE helpless.

Or what about birds that hide their food? Food-hiding birds are aware that their peers are also hiders of food. To prevent mooching, these birds will find a series of hiding places and then rotate their stores!

And this is just talking of birds. I can think of other examples. What about rabbits? You may have seen on the discovery channel, or perhaps in real life, that when a predator (or you yourself) approaches a rabbit, the rabbit will often stand tall out of the grass and poke up its ears. Why does it do this? Wouldn't the rabbit want to assure that it remains unseen? Yes, and before they stand up, they are generally trying to do just that. But when they stand up as tall as they possibly can this way, it is because they are signaling that they have seen you, and they are not afraid, because they know that they can outrun you. This may sound silly, but it actually works. Predators can't be bothered with chasing around a single rabbit all day when they could conserve energy by sneaking up on something easier. So when rabbits bravely stand tall and send their "nice try" signal, predators will often seek food elsewhere.

Is none of this abstract thinking? Does none of it have survival value?

Humans have their own ways of communicating. We have body language (most animals do), but we also have facial language. The only other animals on the planet that come close to matching our face system are the chimpanzees. Like us, they all have very different and very distinct faces that are capable of making a broad range of expressions. (Other monkeys are pretty good at this, but chimpanzees take the cake.)

Humans are very unique in their vocal communication skills, though. We are social animals and often work together to accomplish specific goals. In the stone age, we banded together to hunt mastadons. In 2008, we band together to expand the range of information available on Wikipedia. (Or to debate the god question on an internet forum!)

Complex communication skills would be VERY helpful to such an arrangement. There is a big difference between saying, "We can reach the mastadon by following the trail in front of that big tree," and saying, "We can reach the mastadon by following the trail that big tree is in front of." Our need to communicate and to understand each other has no doubt helped our intelligence---abstraction not excluded.

It's true that the physiology needed for human communication is very unique and doesn't seem to appear elsewhere in nature, but we can say the same thing about the trunk of an elephant, the exploding mixture fired from the ass of a bombardier beetle, or the glowing lantern dangling from the face of a deep-sea angler fish.

We are only fascinated by our unique qualities because we are us. If we were elephants, we would be more fascinated by trunks.

The need to convey increasingly complex ideas to peers.

We have seen in many tribal societies leaders that are polygamous and that are skilled orators. It's not hard to extrapolate that language may be to us what flamboyant feathers are to a peacock.

(Read: Sexy.)

Note: Most of my responses are coming at you from a linguistic angle, which is not the only possible response to some of your assertions; however, the point is that your assertions only work if supernaturalism is the only conceivable solution to some of these questions. By offering you other conceivable explanations (which I'm pulling from books and not making up for fun), I am showing that supernaturalism is not the only conceivable answer to these questions. In fact, it is arguably the least conceivable of many possible answers.

Since we have not established that abstraction has no survival benefits, we can ignore this for now.

The source of the abstraction capacity could easily be found in ourselves, since most abstraction is nothing more than increasing levels of generality.

"Georgette" is the name of a specific dog.

"Poodle" is a more general term that encompasses Georgette.

"Dog" is a more general term that encompasses all of the above.

"Canine" is a more general term that encompasses all of the above.

"Mammal" is a more general term that encompasses all of the above.

"Animal" is a more general term that encompasses all of the above.

The word "animal" is an abstraction. It means something we clearly understand, but it can only be defined by what it includes or what it is not. "Animal" does not have a specific reference at all, unlike the word "Georgette".

We can say the same thing about "Dog". It does not have a specific referent, but its definition includes less things and excludes more things than does "animal".

You could say that this communication skill is a product of our complex abstract though, but that would be a presupposition. Our complex abstract thought could just as easily be a skill that has been continually refined by language and increasingly complex human culture.

 

Again, this is not the only possible response, but since your entire argument depends on a supernatural source being the only possible explanation, any other possible explanation validly refutes it.