Michael Egnor, here, at Evolution News & Views:
Regardless of the strengths and weaknesses of the evolutionary argument that humans are descended from apes, the differences between humans and apes are so profound as to render the view that humans are apes abject nonsense.
It is important to understand the fundamental difference between humans and nonhuman animals. Nonhuman animals such as apes have material mental powers. By material I mean powers that are instantiated in the brain and wholly depend upon matter for their operation. These powers include sensation, perception, imagination (the ability to form mental images), memory (of perceptions and images), and appetite. Nonhuman animals have a mental capacity to perceive and respond to particulars, which are specific material objects such as other animals, food, obstacles, and predators.
Human beings have mental powers that include the material mental powers of animals but in addition entail a profoundly different kind of thinking. Human beings think abstractly, and nonhuman animals do not. Human beings have the power to contemplate universals, which are concepts that have no material instantiation. Human beings think about mathematics, literature, art, language, justice, mercy, and an endless library of abstract concepts. Human beings are rational animals. More.
Not only so, but even human beings who have severe neurological deficits can display these qualities, imperfectly or in fits and starts.
As I wrote here,
When Canada effectually legalized euthanasia, I was dismayed. Dementia victims, certain to be targets, can be got to “consent” without any fixed or firm idea what they are doing. With the ageing of the world’s population dementia has become the new leprosy.
Legislators have sniffed the wind. People with dementias are looked on as beings apart, as lepers once were.
But dementias are not different in principle from other disabilities.
Dementia: The brain is an organ; when challenged, it tries to heal, like any other organ. And it often succeeds, up to a point, just by rewiring (neuroplasticity). So dementias go forward and backward, depending. They are more of a problem in some areas of life than others.
In that respect, dementias do not differ much from, say, mobility issues. It is true that mobility declines with age. But it is also true that seniors who arrive in rehab in wheelchairs routinely progress to walkers and canes.
Mental awareness is like that too. Just for example: I was in the dining room in an old age home a couple of months ago. Some residents were complaining that it was too dark for that time of year.
Well, no surprise there, five light bulbs were burnt out. I said, I am going to grab one of those deaders, go get five like it, and just screw them all in. (How big a committee do we need for this? How many meetings?)
Then an old fellow diagnosed with dementia—who usually could not speak clearly—rasped from the back of the room, “Maybe you should leave that to the landlord.”
I realized he was right. If I did it myself, I’d be personally responsible for any consequences, no matter how unforeseen. Following his implied suggestion, I spoke to the front desk, and they got Maintenance to do the job.More.
To think that way, he needed a type of life experience involving many abstract concepts, some of which had stayed with him in the gathering darkness. And one of which would never have dawned on an animal.
Follow UD News at Twitter!
Egnor:
Is anyone else surprised by the highlighted part of this statement?
Especially when taken together with this:
Militant atheists, (if they had a mind), should learn to never mess with a brain surgeon when it comes to debating issues of the human mind:
Of note: Egnor’s contention that the Human mind is ontologically different than the animal mind is born out empirically, in that there is ‘no evidence to support the notion that we gradually became who we inherently are over an extended period, in either the physical or the intellectual sense’.
More interesting still, the three Rs, reading, writing, and arithmetic, i.e. the unique ability to process information inherent to man, are the very first things to be taught to children when they enter elementary school. And yet it is this information processing, i.e. reading, writing, and arithmetic that is found to be foundational to life:
As well, as if that was not ‘spooky enough’, information, not material, is found to be foundational to physical reality:
It is hard to imagine a more convincing proof that we are made ‘in the image of God’ than finding that both the universe and life itself are ‘information theoretic’ in their basis, and that we, of all the creatures on earth, uniquely possess an ability to understand and create information.
I guess a more convincing evidence could be that God Himself became a man, defeated death on a cross, and then rose from the dead to prove that He was God.
But who has ever heard of such overwhelming evidence as that?
Verses and Music:
I’m not sure if any of the above addresses my question. Do you agree that nonhuman animals are purely material beings, and in particular that their mental powers are purely material?
daveS, if you did not notice, I was not addressing you.
Dr. Egnor writes:
“Regardless of the strengths and weaknesses of the evolutionary argument that humans are descended from apes, the differences between humans and apes are so profound as to render the view that humans are apes abject nonsense.”
I am not a scientist, but a science-interested clergyman. So the question I have is an earnest inquiry, not a veiled attempt to quibble with the good doctor.
*Is* the evolutionary argument that “humans are descended from apes?” My understanding is that modern evolutionary thought posits not that humans are descended from apes, but that humans and apes are *related* through descent from a common ancestor. Is this a correct understanding, or have I missed something (a very real possibility)?
My apologies.
DaveS
I hold that view how best to describe it?
Brad Stine does it best
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=kfXu9V9ggoU
Hi daveS,
You might like to read my recent post, The immateriality of animal consciousness: why I’m agnostic . I hope it answers your questions. Personally, I agree with Dr. Egnor that there is a real, qualitative distinction between human and animal minds, but I think that Aristotelian Thomism tend to over-simplify this distinction somewhat, by drawing a sharp dichotomy between concepts (which are immaterial and which are supposedly unique to rational beings) and images (which even sub-rational animals with sensory capacities are capable of possessing). This dichotomy overlooks the intermediate category of a mental schema, which has a clearly defined internal structure. While a mental schema can certainly be represented in diagrammatic form, its reality is not exhausted by any particular physical representation of it. Mental schemas thus seem to possess a universality that mere images do not.
Animals certainly lack the ability to form concepts of immaterial objects, or for that matter, concepts which can only be expressed in language. At the same time, I believe that some animals are capable of having rudimentary concepts, which do not require language. They appear to have the primitive concept of a physical object, and they may have a primitive concept of an individual as well. There is no evidence that non-human animals have concepts of immaterial objects.
As regards animal rationality: animals such as crows appear to be capable of directing means to wards suitable ends at approximately the level of a seven-year-old child, although they are of course unable to explain why they selected the means that they did, since they lack the use of language.
Dr. Egnor might want to address the evidence regarding crows’ impressive cognitive capacities, in a future post.
DaveS, I am sooo with you on this. As a pet owner I am well aware that there is more going on in the noodle of my dog than Michael Engor, Brad Stine and the vast majority at least that hold to ID give credit to.
Do I think that my dog is capable of pondering “mathematics, literature, art, language, justice, mercy, and an endless library of abstract concepts”? No.
But do I think that my dog is not “conscious”, that my dog’s mind is somehow “material” vs. mine which is, um, transcendent? Well I do think that my dog is conscious, empathetic, loving, hating, worrying — truly emotional like I am. There is vastly more difference between my dog’s mind and that of a computer than there is between my dog’s mind and mine.
As Brad Stine charges, do dogs fear death? Yes, I believe that they do.
I think that the diminishing of the mental capabilities of animals is driven by ideology, not by observation and analysis.
My dog went for an op today. She had cherry eye. Here is the issue. She can’t fix the problem. She does not know what the problem is. We as humans can do it for her, diagnose and fix. Did she have any concept of the discussion we had in the Vet room prior and to the lead up to the operation? Did she take her own medication at set intervals?
Why do I believe animals are pure meat machines with limited cognitive abilities?
To answer that I have to put on my Christian hat. God would be an awfully cruel God if he gave animals the same immaterial mental capabilities as us but no free will to choose Christ.
I love Jessie and this has been an awful year for us pet wise as both my old cats passed on. One I had to make the choice of putting her down after losing her battle with cancer.
My favorite proverb in the world.
“The rightous man takes care of his animals the mercy of the wicked is cruel.”
“*Is* the evolutionary argument that “humans are descended from apes?” My understanding is that modern evolutionary thought posits not that humans are descended from apes, but that humans and apes are *related* through descent from a common ancestor. Is this a correct understanding, or have I missed something (a very real possibility)?”
George Gaylord Simpson who was a prominent evolutionist said this
“On this subject, by the way, there has been too much pussyfooting. Apologists emphasize that man cannot be descendant of any living ape—a statement that is obvious to the verge of imbecility—and go on to state or imply that man is not really descended from an ape or monkey at all, but from an earlier common ancestor. In fact, that earlier ancestor would certainly be called an ape or monkey in popular speech by anyone who saw it. Since the terms ape and monkey are defined by popular usage, man’s ancestors were apes or monkeys (or successively both). It is pusillanimous [cowardly—BT/BH] if not dishonest for an informed investigator to say otherwise”
@Andre
Did the vet crack open the origin of species to see how to treat your dog?
hahaha
My apologies but Dr Egnor doesn’t have anything to support his claims.
As an IDist I would expect all organisms to have some ability to contemplate their existence for the simple reason being all life is special. Just because we are the only species to require technology to live doesn’t mean we are the only cognate beings here.
Andre:
What if only those capable of sin or who have sinned get to choose? If one lives a life free of sin one has chosen the right path.
Jack Jones, “My understanding is that modern evolutionary thought posits not that humans are descended from apes, but that humans and apes are *related* through descent from a common ancestor. Is this a correct understanding, or have I missed something (a very real possibility)?””
I think that your position is correct if you translate ape to chimp, or if you use the expression used by George Gaylord Simpson of “any living ape” as presumably each lineage: the gorilla, chimp, human etc. all have, according to theory, been adapting since the separation.
This whole line of reasoning is a “you don’t know the theory, you are stupid” argument. Nobody with any knowledge of evolution assumes that man descended from chimps or from “any living ape”, we all have a nice accurate little picture of LUCA.
The real question is whether the evolutionary model is correct, whether there are two parents for every child from you back until one of those parents was also the great, great … of chimps as well. Many IDers do not believe this (I happen to). Many IDers believe a “common design” hypothesis that says that the designer took existing master-code, modified it, and put it into a new body to make Adam, the first human.
So either you hold to common descent between humans and chimps, or you believe that re-creation happened to produce a truly new lineage. The latter, in my view, is primarily held because it fits nicely with certain theologies — as I believe that the philosophically naturalistic evolutionary view(s) provide a model that is based upon their a-priori philosophical position. Their views, in my opinion, do as much data fudging to “fit” as the “literal Adam” view does to make it fit. Both are philosophy first conclusions.
@16 bfast
The question is, Why would lots of evolutionists have to do their slippery dodge?
Is it because they are embarrassed by what their position entails or is it because they think that they would lose a lot of support for their position, if they did not use the common ancestor dodge?
Animals are free from sin thus they have no free will. They lack the capacity to choose to sin.
@Jack Jones #12,
Thanks for the Simpson quote.
@Bfast #16,
Jack Jones was quoting Simpson to answer my question, not posing his own. As I said in my original comment, I am not a scientist but an interested clergyman who finds ID compelling but is trying to de-tangle what is true of evolutionary theory from caricatures unwittingly picked up along the way. I am trying to heed the advice Stephen Meyer’s doctoral advisor gave him: “Beware the sound of one-handed clapping,” by learning what it really is that evolutionary biologists believe about common descent.
In particular, I’m intrigued by the interaction between Biologos-type TE’s and ID proponents and want to understand more.
@11 Andre
Dogs are great, loyal creatures.
May you have your dog around for long to come.
Thanks Jack!
Thanks for the replies, Dr Torley, Andre, and bFast. I will check out the post and the video later this evening.
vjtorley writes at 9:
—
I think that Aristotelian Thomism tend to over-simplify this distinction somewhat, by drawing a sharp dichotomy between concepts (which are immaterial and which are supposedly unique to rational beings) and images (which even sub-rational animals with sensory capacities are capable of possessing). This dichotomy overlooks the intermediate category of a mental schema, which has a clearly defined internal structure. While a mental schema can certainly be represented in diagrammatic form, its reality is not exhausted by any particular physical representation of it. Mental schemas thus seem to possess a universality that mere images do not.
Animals certainly lack the ability to form concepts of immaterial objects, or for that matter, concepts which can only be expressed in language. At the same time, I believe that some animals are capable of having rudimentary concepts, which do not require language.
—
This sounds right to me. An intelligent territorial animal can have a mental schema of his territory and of which conspecifics he will and won’t tolerate in it, where and when. But he has no theory about territory or territories in general.* Or whether hs or other animals’ views are right or wrong or productive or unproductive, or anything of the sort.
It is more complex than an image, but far less complex than a theory.
*Among cats, territory can be quite complex. Top Cat may insist on the window ledge but only during the favourable portion of the day for viewing wildlife. Bottom Cat knows that he is entitled to sit in the window ledge, but only when there is nothing much to look at – typically midday. Middle cat may sit there alongside Top Cat if the latter feels like tolerating him – as long as he doesn’t get any ideas.
But, you see? I am explaining the matter abstractly, in human terms. The cats would not in the least understand my analytical approach to the situation. They know the rules. They do not know that they are rules.
If Michael Egnor believes that non-human minds have only “material mental powers”, then he would have to conclude that the Weaver birds, whose nests are clearly the product of intelligent design, are a prime example that natural/material forces can be creative.
Rhampton7
The ignorance is strong with you…….. Let me explain….
The molecules of an animal did not self organize to be come the animal. The animal did not design itself and them got smart. The animal was designed and given the ability to build designed nests in turn.
Great thread and well said.
i say the difference between us and apes is our soul. I think our memory ability is the same. So we just use our memory more gloriously then aoes.
Yet if we were given a ape memory it would make no difference. Unless it can be shown we have more memory capability.
In fact they talk about memory ability between creatures.
I say we have no brain but only a giant memory machine.
So dementia is not a brain issue but a memory one. Or rather a triggering mechanism issue with memory.
I think healing could be done with this presumption and not a brain wiring one.
Over on ENV Dr Egnor says:
OK, Mike, try that with a human. No training, which includes no teaching. See what happens. My bet is the human will act just like those other animals.
A human without any training couldn’t understand mathematics independently of physical objects nor could it understand imaginary numbers.
Apply your standards across the board, Mike, and humans are just animals with material minds.
Virgil
I guess the only way to test this is to lob a bunch of babies on an Island and see what happens….
as to:
“A human without any training couldn’t understand mathematics independently of physical objects nor could it understand imaginary numbers.”
Actually humans without training are shown to understand the basic principles of mathematics just as well as those with training:
A few more notes:
bornagain:
People in tribes have training. They have social skills. They have hunting skills. Try that test with feral children that were just brought in.
Chimpanzees show planning skills. Why doesn’t that count as abstract thought?
Virgil Cain,
If you want to argue for differences being ‘one of degree, not of kind’ you simply won’t have any solid empirical evidence to back you up
I am not understanding your point. I know that humans are/ can be smarter than other animals. Do you think that 2-4 year old humans could plan a trap for monkeys in trees?
Virgil Cain, don’t get me wrong, I’m believe that some animals have some type of rudimentary abstract thinking and feel that Dr. Egnor’s demarcation of animals being purely material in their thinking is much too harsh of a cutoff threshold.
The point that I am trying to make clear is best summed up by this quote:
and this quote:
While Darwin and his followers tried to downplay the gigantic chasm in the intellectual abilities of humans and animals, (i.e. “one of degree, not of kind”), the fact of the matter is that the gigantic chasm is real and remains completely unexplained by Darwinian presuppositions today as it was in Darwin’s day.
In fact, it was because of that gigantic chasm in intellectual abilities that Alfred Wallace himself, co-discoverer of Natural Selection, believed in a ‘soul’
Of related note, having set aside the ‘one of degree, not of kind’ issue, I, none-the-less, believe that a strong case can be made that animals have a ‘transcendent mind’.
For instance, around the 23:00 minute mark of the following video, several experiments are discussed that highlight the fact that some animals (such as dogs, cats, and birds) have a transcendent component to their being. A transcendent component that is able to sense, while the owner is away from the pet, what the owner’s intentions are for the pet. (of note: reptile pets demonstrated no such transcendent connection to their owners).
Here is a fairly vivid example that makes this point clear:
Andre,
I do not dispute your point about first cause or ultimate cause. However, when ID theory speaks to the creativity of nature, it disputes that nature can be a creative proximal cause. The Weaver birds, if we grant Michael Egnor’s opinon of animal minds to be true, would be evidence that ID theory, at least in this one case, is wrong.
Rhampton7
And if ID is to be considered science it must be falsifiable. ID is not right on every matter. If ID explained everything it would explain nothing. I happen to agree with Dr Egnor other ID propents here don’t but I do accept your point as a valid critism.
Andre,
The point is that there are some ID supporters that truly believe that nature has no creative ability via proximal cause. This is an example that calls into question the basis for such a belief.