re: #790 Prononymous, rogue demon hunter

I’m not really surprised about that. What surprises me is how cold you view the world and that we are somehow so unique in it.

Are personal jabs really adding anything here?

Is charity less good if the person does it because of social programming rather than because they empathize with the recipients?

Yes.

I didn’t say prove.

You said demonstrate. Whatever. You agree it just provides evidence for.

What sort of kindness involves abstract thought? I suggest instead that kindness is an emotional response.

This is a change; previously you agreed kindness was not an emotion.

What more is needed for abstract thought? An analogy is an abstraction. So if these animals are analoging then is that not a form of abstract thought?

No, not any more than making sounds that communicate content is a form of language. I’m saying that analoging is a part of abstract thought. I can’t really be any clearer about that.

Are you saying you think that parrots engage in abstract thought the way humans do?

But it has been demonstrated in several groups by introducing animals to problems they have never seen before. For example, spontaneous sequential tool use:

It’s kind of odd to me that you keep referencing birds. Do you believe birds have cognition in the same way humans do?

The last thread of that article says:

Seemingly intelligent behaviour can be achieved without the involvement of high-level mental faculties, and detailed analyses are necessary before accepting claims for complex cognitive abilities.

And:

Do I think what what descends all the way down to protozoa?

Er, the subject of the conversation. You said:

But I see it as a difference in the magnitude of our capability rather than as something unique to us.

I’m asking you if you think that magnitude argument applies all the way down the line; are we just much better at cognition than a protozoa? Is there any line of demarcation for you— not a bright line, of course, but is there any difference other than magnitude?