S
- Status
E
edwest2
Guest
B
buffalo
Guest
Darwin’s mistake: explaining the discontinuity between human and nonhuman minds.
Over the last quarter century, the dominant tendency in comparative cognitive psychology has been to emphasize the similarities between human and nonhuman minds and to downplay the differences as “one of degree and not of kind” (Darwin 1871). In the present target article, we argue that Darwin was mistaken: the profound biological continuity between human and nonhuman animals masks an equally profound discontinuity between human and nonhuman minds. To wit, there is a significant discontinuity in the degree to which human and nonhuman animals are able to approximate the higher-order, systematic, relational capabilities of a physical symbol system (PSS) (Newell 1980). We show that this symbolic-relational discontinuity pervades nearly every domain of cognition and runs much deeper than even the spectacular scaffolding provided by language or culture alone can explain. We propose a representational-level specification as to where human and nonhuman animals’ abilities to approximate a PSS are similar and where they differ. We conclude by suggesting that recent symbolic-connectionist models of cognition shed new light on the mechanisms that underlie the gap between human and nonhuman minds.
Over the last quarter century, the dominant tendency in comparative cognitive psychology has been to emphasize the similarities between human and nonhuman minds and to downplay the differences as “one of degree and not of kind” (Darwin 1871). In the present target article, we argue that Darwin was mistaken: the profound biological continuity between human and nonhuman animals masks an equally profound discontinuity between human and nonhuman minds. To wit, there is a significant discontinuity in the degree to which human and nonhuman animals are able to approximate the higher-order, systematic, relational capabilities of a physical symbol system (PSS) (Newell 1980). We show that this symbolic-relational discontinuity pervades nearly every domain of cognition and runs much deeper than even the spectacular scaffolding provided by language or culture alone can explain. We propose a representational-level specification as to where human and nonhuman animals’ abilities to approximate a PSS are similar and where they differ. We conclude by suggesting that recent symbolic-connectionist models of cognition shed new light on the mechanisms that underlie the gap between human and nonhuman minds.
A
Alethios
Guest
Catholic theology is accepted on this Catholic thread as the ultimate authority for Catholics. Non-Catholics may not accept this rule, but we pray that they will - someday.
Catholics won’t/can’t accept as valid any scientific analysis that conflicts with Catholic theology.
Re theology - used here to mean the deposit of faith
Re science: we used science to disprove Darwin in our last posting. To review: arguments were presented based on faith, reason and science,
If you were a theologian, you’d be in trouble invoking science to explain all of Revelation.
We distinguish theology from the deposit of faith: Scripture, Tradition and Magisterial docetics. The former can change, as it depends on the subjective knowledge of truth. The latter cannot change, as it it is the truth.
Rather, thanks go to Fr. Harrison, who did the archive research… right under the noses of the Vatican Jesuits.
AMDG
S
StAnastasia
Guest
I am a theologian. I don’t invoke science to explain revelation. I also don’t reject science when it explains something in scripture that is clearly symbolic, like the hexemeral creation story.
StAnastasia
H
hecd2
Guest
As usual, you’re quote mining. Here is what the authors themselves say in the paper that you either have not read or do not care to truthfully represent:
“Let us be clear: all similarities and differences in biology are ultimately a matter of degree. Any apparent discontinuities between living species belie the underlying continuity of the evolutionary process and largely result from the fact that many, and often all, of the intermediate steps are no longer extant. In the present paper, our claim that there is a ‘discontinuity’ between human and nonhuman cognition is based on our claim that there is a significant gap between the functional capabilities of the human mind and those of all other extant species on the planet. Our point, to cut to the chase, is that the functional discontinuity between human and nonhuman minds is at least as great as the much more widely acknowledged discontinuity between human and nonhuman forms of communication. But we do not doubt that both evolved through standard evolutionary mechanisms.”
“Our disagreement with Darwin is, indeed, hedged. Contrary to Darwin’s ‘mental continuity’ hypothesis, we have argued that there is a functional discontinuity between human and nonhuman minds—specifically, that only human animals are able to reason about higher-order relations in a structurally systematic and inferentially coherent fashion. But, at the same time, we have acknowledged from the outset that this functional discontinuity must have evolved largely through incremental, Darwinian processes. The question that naturally arises, then, is this: what representational- and physical-level innovations explain how this functional discontinuity between human and nonhuman minds arose in the first place?”
Alec
evolutionpages.com
S
StAnastasia
Guest
B
buffalo
Guest
Did I falsify something?
Quote mining? That is why I post the link to the article. All of us should find these relevant to the discussion at hand. Let us all read some of the raw research before it goes thought the evolutionist filter.
The point if I remember is that crows are smarter than monkeys. (I think it was this paper)
B
buffalo
Guest
Darwin’s mistake: Explaining the discontinuity between human and nonhuman minds
PREVIOUS TITLE: “The relational reinterpretation hypothesis: Explaining the discontinuity between human and nonhuman minds”
R
reggieM
Guest
That’s a great term: “must have evolved”. That’s a bit different than simply: “did evolve” but for purposes of putting a spin on the text, “must have evolved” works very well. Quite often, the softer, “might have evolved” or “probably evolved” (giving no mathematical precision to the term “probability”) is the preferred terminology.
Here’s Darwin of the gaps at work. We can draw definite conclusions even when there is insufficient evidence – and even when the entire argument of the study refutes the conclusion that is tacked on to the end to protect the political base (or protect one’s job and reputation among Darwinian academics).
In this case, “quote mining” left out a part of the document which only strengthens the case.
O
Orogeny
Guest
Actually, no, that is not what is being said at all. Read it again. The phrase “must have evolved” refers to the processes and implies that evolution clearly happened. There is nothing in that text that even implies a doubt that evolution happens.
Only if you don’t read the excluded text as it is written.
Peace
Tim
R
reggieM
Guest
I fully agree. It does imply that evolution happened.
S
StAnastasia
Guest
Thanks, Buffalo!
H
hugh_miller
Guest
My goodness so you are a theologian. What do Alethios, Ed West, Buffalo et al. do now? Punt the ball because you have stopped them cold with with your superior assumption that something in scripture “is clearly symbolic, like the hexemeral creation story?”
My dear theologian: I will pit the writings of St. lawrence of Brindisi against any of the assumptions that have been drawn about the six days of creation by the skeptical theologians of the 20th century, yourself included. It seems that you all have been deceived by the silly and false assumption that because all species have a similarities [homology] they must have evolved [over a long period of time which is also an assumption based on erronious data].
Now what are some of those similiarities as noted in the quote you use at the bottom of your commentary? Well let’s go right to the 10 page brochure by the American Geological Institute entitled, “Why scientists Believe in EVOLUTION.” Right on the front cover is a sort of tree of life for the evolution of man from 65 M years ago up to the present. At the bottom are the artistic rendurings of two four legged rat-like critters then a lemur [Ida I suppose] then two more chimp-like critters in assending order followed by a man-like creatukre with hands, then ancient man then three faces of modern man, oriental, African and caucausian. The similiarities are all have four appendiges incuding the mastodon, Llama, sabre tooth tiger and a couple of mammels I don’t recognize Oh yes and a bat-like critter thrown in for good measure. Now hat then are the similairities amongst all these artistic rendurings?
Why all have four appendages for locomotion, they also have two eyes, two ears, mouthes with which to consume food for energy and noses with which to to breath.
The first conclusion is that so what does that prove? Nothing! The above shared characteristics and much more are all necessary and would be the logical way that an intelligent designer would have created all those in the animal and insect kingdom etc. No proof for evolution there. No evidence against the six days of creation there.
But right under the lowest critters on this imaginary evolutionary “totum pole of life” is a Triceratops with its horns sticking through the top soil where the big rat-like critters are walking.
Well, to check to see if this “totum pole theory of life” is valid I began my own investigation over 25 years ago. Of course I too began with a bais. I believed that Christ and the early church fathers were correct in requiring us to believe in essentials of Genesis 1-11 but would science support a literal scripture?
The results are now in: (1) That Tricertops at the bottom of the totum pole and all dinosaurs which several teams from Texas to Alaska have C-14 dated are only 22,000 to 31,000 radiocarbon years old at the most - the same age as saber tooth tigers (12,000 to 28,000 RC years, one giant bison @ 31,000 RC years, mammoths etc. (2) Based on their fossil footprints together in several locations in the USA dinosaurs and humans have coexisted in time as proven by cat-scan studies I helped excavate an 11 inch long pristine human footprint with dinosaur footprints in the same stratum in 1983 and again in 1988 and a 13.5 inch one in 1989. (3) There is no 65 millions years between dinosaur and man based on dinosaur depictions World Wide.
Again as has been pointed out in other threads the late Dr. Larry Azar of Iona College, NY, without even knowing the above hard evidences, came up with a book based on his studies of evolution claims entitled, “Evolution and other fairy tales” (2006-Amazon).
Thank you St. John Damacene who wrote in De Dacronibus that dinossaurs lived in his time about AD 725. He wrote that they were not ghosts and that they laid eggs and were 35 {feet} and more long.
Moses was right and Darwin got it wrong. God bless our church fathers who believed without seeing.
O
Orogeny
Guest
A
Alethios
Guest
Re Pope Benedict: The basis for theological evidence in this thread is the deposit of faith, not what the clergy - from parish priest to Pontifex Maximus - may offer as their:
opinion, belief, assessment, assumption, conception, conclusion, conjecture, estimate, fancy, feeling, guess, hypothesis, idea, impression, inclination, inference, judgment, notion, persuasion, point of view, postulate, presumption, presupposition, sentiment, slant, speculation, supposition, surmise, suspicion, thesis, thought, view or viewpoint.
Re common descent: A *primo ad litteram *reading of Scripture supports common descent of humans - and all other life forms - from their progenitors of the same kind/baramin, in the Hexaemeron.
Re theologians: Most theologians of the fourth century believed that Christ was created.
Oops.
All but a few theologians of the 1960s recommended to Pope Paul that the pill be approved. The Spirit of God - via Pope Paul - repudiated this opinion in 1968’s Humanae Vitae.
Oops.
A former priest told us he was crushed that the pill was not approved… “Why”, he asked, “would the Popes allow us to discuss contraceptive changes, if they didn’t intend to change doctrine?”
Oops.
This is a good modern model to distinguish the doctine of faith as being discussed - by theologians - versus being defined and declared - by the Magisterium.
Also for our evolution ‘discussion’ among theologians and scientists, now 60 years in progress, a model that the ‘Church’/theologians may lean far left, but the Magisterium stays on the straight and narrow path to truth.
Try to enter by the narrow gate, for the path to destruction is wide open …
AMDG
S
StAnastasia
Guest
An interesting idea. Have you proposed a paper on this at a scientific conference? The question and answer session could be enlightening.My dear theologian: I will pit the writings of St. lawrence of Brindisi against any of the assumptions that have been drawn about the six days of creation by the skeptical theologians of the 20th century, yourself included. It seems that you all have been deceived by the silly and false assumption that because all species have a similarities [homology] they must have evolved [over a long period of time which is also an assumption based on erronious data].
S
StAnastasia
Guest
Well, the pope accepts common descent. And we’re not likely to get a magisterial statement on evolution, since that is a scientific, not a theological question.
StAnastasia
B
buffalo
Guest
Actually, whatever science claims can be accepted by the Pope unless it eliminates Adam and Eve, Eve from Adam, original sin, etc…
And remember Catholic teachings accepts the common descent from the first pair and has for a very long time.
O
Orogeny
Guest
Unless he has changed (and based on his post he hasn’t), Hugh doesn’t believe in publishing in peer-reviewed scientific journals or presenting at scientific conferences.
Peace
Tim
- Status