Re: (Re)Introduction, Art, Nature, Periods of the Day
|From:||Andreas Johansson <andjo@...>|
|Date:||Thursday, June 5, 2003, 7:36|
Quoting Ajin Kwai <yasmin4@...>:
> But, insects, as far as is known, lack humans'
> tendency for symbolic/magical
> thinking; if art is 'defense against wilderness', it
> is a spiritual rather
> than physical defense, while the anthill, apparently,
> more closely corresponds
> to more practical human pursuits - the building of
> houses as shelters against
> unpleasant weather comes to mind.
> And this n-th degree might even include what we call
> intelligence. Perhaps it may be well to recall also
> that not all cultures assume lack of symbolic thinking
> where other species are concerned...
Well, in my experience westerners are only too prone to ascribe very human-
like thoughts and emotions to other animals and even inanimate things
(computers come to mind). But I'm not aware of any scientific evidence of
insects having any capacity for abstract thought - hence my "as far as is
> Actually, that Western assertion has long intrigued me
> as a major inconsistency in the strict materialistic
> outlook espoused by most scientific thought. All that
> is real should be measurable and quantifiable, yet
> "science" makes all sort of wild assumptions about a
> phenomenon we have yet to be able to measure or
> quanify: thought. Could it not merely be the way our
> brains perceive the flow of quantum information?
> Unfortunately that perspective makes us and our
> "acheivements" seem all the less special...
If "thought" is only a quantum mechanical process reduceable to known physics
(that's a big if), that does not change the fact that humans are capable of
what we call 'abstract thought'.