Philosophical Question - Amiguing

[Linde]

The ability to converse in abstract concepts, such as the above?

A lot of animals have unique capabilities beyond those of humans. They may not be able to converse in abstract concept, but then again, who decided that that was such a remarkable ability? That's right, we did that ourselves. In a world guided by simple morals, we use those concepts that distinguish us from everyone else as an absolute measure of worth to rationalize our belief of superiority. This not only goes for animals, but for other cultures and human ethnicities as well.

[Linde]

There is a difference between being ignorant of someone's beliefs and not believing in them.
 
Some people have reinterpreted the Quran based on scientific discoveries, but why were Gods revelations to Muhammad based on the incorrect scientific beliefs of the time it was written?

God could simply have been revealing the revelations in terms comprehensible to the prophet. Given that I don't believe any god exists outside the mind of the prophet (nor that anything else anyone perceives exists outside their minds), but is rather the product of some divination through drug/starvation/sensory depravation induced hallucination, I find it hard to believe that any assertions about the age of the world or the circumstances of its creation would check out with scientific findings a couple of thousand years later. Hell, I don't even think that the current scientific notion of that will make sense in another couple of thousand years.

Both science and divination is based on the exploration of observations. The scientific method might be more refined, but they are both equally useless when it comes to finding absolute truth. While I respect anyone who builds their beliefs on the basis of arguable conclusions and observations, I wouldn't blame anyone for believing X or Y about the creation of the earth. As far as I'm concerned, the scientific explanations are only plausible within the scientific models built on what little we are able to observe, and the religious explanations are just based on hallucinations and philosophical musings. In the end it doesn't really matter to most people by any other means than to satisfy their curiosity. "Knowing" something is simply the result of arrogance, but we are able to afford that.

[Linde]

Why you like something is undefinable. You like something because you like something. That's just how it works.

Why you like something can often be expressed in terms of other things you like, qualities and properties you admire. If not, it can be explained in terms of your experiences and values. So that's not just how it works.

[Linde]

But why? The revelations were supposed to be giving knowledge about facts, twisting the facts to make them understandable & never following it up when scientific knowledge has caught up seems a little strange.

Maybe it won't if you take the rest of my post into account.

[Linde]

Who said anything about superiority? Wasn't I. The person I was responding too made no such mention, nor did the person he was responding too. Special != Superior.

The post before those you mention said "The human body is not more special than the body of any other animal, it's just flesh and bones.", which is what was being questioned, i.e. being _more_ special in any sense. I don't think you'll ever find someone argue that humans just aren't special.

As to "remarkable abilities..." I find myself highly amused by your remarks on the subject...

Writing in english is hard enough for me without taking into account that some people on the internet will think that I sound pompous for using a perfectly valid and widely known word. I am more or less ignorant when it comes to the history of the language and its cultural nuances, but I don't think of it as a handicap.

By the way, you consistently spelled "to" wrong in your post.

[Linde]

Yes you will :p I think humans find themselves special, fantastic, and what not.

Oh, sorry. I actually meant the exact opposite of what I wrote

[Linde]

I find it hard to believe that any sentient being could somehow have non-abstract thoughts. Down to the very basics of language and cognition, everything we know is abstract concepts. Nobody has an immediate and intuitive understanding of the underlying processes.

That aside, you have to draw the line somewhere. I have seen a video if a crow picking up a piece of metal and bend it into a hook in order to obtain food. The bird was able to recognize the piece of metal as not only that, but a potential tool. The bird figuring that out on its own is evidence of abstract thought, if anything.

I've seen another video of a pigeon, that in order to grab a fruit out of its reach within an enclosed area too small to gain flight in, pushed a box underneath the fruit and stepped onto it. That way, it was able to eat the fruit. Seeing the fruit and the box, it was able to conceive a solution.

There's another story of an experiment with chimpanzees which I'm not sure is true or not (the description of it usually comes in the form of a badly compressed jpg forwarded by an old person). In the experiment, they put a few chimps in a cage with a banana. If any of them tried to take it, they would all be punished. After having figured that out, they stopped trying. Then a new chimp was let into the cage, not knowing the consequences of trying to take the banana. When it tried, the other chimpanzees beat it up.

This was repeated while the original chimps were replaced one by one. At some point, none of the chimps had experienced the initial punishment, but they would all beat up whatever new chimp would try to take the banana.

I'm not sure what exactly it would prove, but it's interesting.

[Linde]

As for toolmaking...as you say, it depends on where you draw the line, but to my way of thinking that's still a practical, concrete notion. It certainly is impressive that the crow can recognize something's potential as a tool, but I don't think it proves anything about whether they are capable of considering more abstract issues. "Can I use this to get food?" is a lot more of a concrete question than "is what I'm doing right?" or "where do we go when we die?" or what-have-you.

It's a practical idea, but abstract in its conception nonetheless in that the bird not only took its exact circumstances into consideration, but was also able to form the idea of itself using the metal piece as a hook in the future, before deliberately realizing it. As far as I know, that's quite a few levels of abstracttion beyond a dog going after a ball, for example, or a cat opening a door after having observed a human doing it. We probably both agree with all of this so far, but as I said, my position is that any thought is abstract, and unless we are talking about a very specific level of abstraction there is nothing to argue about.

[Linde]

As I've pointed out, it's a question of degree. As John has pointed out, where do you draw the line? The practical use of a tool as described might be a level of abstraction, but it's only one level removed from the practical.

How exactly do you measure the number of levels of abstraction?

Now, how many birds can understand the abstract concepts of logic gates and computer buses as a method of communication between devices designed to perform functions not found in the natural world? How many birds can understand the concept of a modem, or envision an array capable of arranging pixels that use photons against a photosensitive surface to display symbols that represent the phonemes emitted by a species to convey the very concepts we are discussing now?

If you are trying to prove a point here, rest assured that no one here has said that birds are able to deal with concepts on the same level of abstraction as humans. If this is meant to be an argument, you've built a serious straw man.

For the first time in the history of life, a species now has the ability to not only understand itself, but the ability to control it's destiny unlike any before it.

I'm sure there have been many points in the history of life where a creature has had the ability to control its destiny unlike any before it. Humans didn't just pop out of the blue, as far as we can tell.

If that ain't special, I don't know what is.

That's special, but not inherently more special than any other unique capability of any other creature.

[Linde]

Not really. The Quran says the universe was created in six days.
That information came from God & he was trying to give us information we didn't have. Whether he said it was a week, a year, a billion years would be irrelevant. He just needed to give the actual number.
 
Science has shown that it took a lot longer than six days, so people have redefined what God meant as a day.
 
http://www.miraclesofthequran.com/scientific_33.html
 
Assuming God speaks to us in our language (how else could we understand him?) one would also expect him to use the same time measurements. A day/hour etc is a time measurement that we invented, suggesting that there is a universe day/hour etc that God didn't bother to mention would seem like an oversight.
 
However, for arguments sake he did use universe days instead of earth days. What other things could have been misunderstood? Wouldn't God have realised any mistakes that were made?
 
The conclusion on that page "Science has once again confirmed a fact revealed in the Qur'an 1,400 years ago." is incorrect. The "fact" revealed in the Quran was the universe was created in six days. Science hasn't confirmed that. There are scientific theories on the age of the universe that haven't been proved that when adjusted with another theory is sort of close. Similar to how Nostrodamus predictions can only be understood when misinterpreting them after an event has happened. http://listverse.com/2007/09/14/top-10-prophecies-of-nostradamus-debunked/

Hey, still didn't read my post? Nothing that I am saying is in conflict with any of this.

[Linde]

I point out it's all a question of degree to which you respond with a question. You then go on to ignore the actual example of the degree between people and other animals by pretending it's a straw man.

I didn't say that you made a straw man. I'm saying that if the part I quoted was meant to be used as an argument, you made a straw man, because you certainly aren't arguing with anyone here.

Clearly, you are one who doesn't like his world view challenged and I'm wasting my time. I can think of better ways to spend it. Ciao!

"You clearly don't like like to have your world view challenged" *runs off from discussion*

You then return to your argument that, because some animals might abstract, man is no better than them. This is like saying that because baby can lift five pounds, Superman's no more special despite his ability to lift five million.

I am not saying that man is no better than animals on the grounds of their ability to abstract. I'm saying that man is no better than animals because being able to converse in abstract concepts isn't inherently more valuable than being able to live off insects. It's _you_ who try to decide which is better on the basis of obviously subjective values. If you are going to talk about which is "better" you're going to have to apply some sort of value system, and unless that value system is somehow objective, you are just explaining your opinion, not arguing with any sort of factual basis.

@ At all who are arguing that Special somehow equals Superior.

See above, you aren't exactly consistent with this yourself.

So, a parent who thinks his child is special is somehow arrogant?

Parents are arrogant when it comes to their children. Also, bears do **** in the woods. Not that the message you were replying to had anything to do with what parents think of their children, but it'd make another nice textbook example of a straw man.

[Linde]

The value system exists, we live in it.

Is it objective in any sense? If so, how? I can think of many value systems, but they all differ and are - if not completely arbitrary - inherently biased.

Eating bugs isn't going to get you laid, so you're not going to have children. Keeping your DNA going is the only mark of success.

Eating bugs is going to get you laid if it is what you do to survive. Also, even if you disregard the fact that this is a completely evolutionary perspective, even from that standpoint it's total bull****. You have no idea of what you're talking about if you think that having children is the only way to further genes and keep "your" DNA going. The advancement of genes have little to do with the individual animals, and most of all nothing to do with "success" in a general sense. Success in procreation is success in procreation, nothing else.