Re: Origins of human thought

• Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]
• Next message: Thomas Clarke: "Re: Aquatic ape theory"
• Previous message: UrOpiate: "Re: Origins of human thought - needinfo"

Perhpas it might be judicial to think more about what is considered
*Abstract thought* ....so far in replies to this inquest for references,
the author of the original request has recieved little if any help in
sources...

it might be questionable to consider cave art as abstract...these could be
seen re-presentation...which isnt very abstract at all...

one might consider "abstract to thoughts that arent tied to real
objects...ex. many people have a tendency to apply the term abstract to
"primitive" religions.. most of which have a tendency to
animistic...Animism is not very abstract...imbuing natural objects with
the charateristics of your fellows is terribly removed from you immediate
and viewable world, as one can both see and witness those objects and the
attributes of your fellow people..

in cognitive sciences abstract thought is usually seen as an off-shoot of
writtne language..where the idea is seperable from the object....to think
about multiplication without envisioning any objects actually
multiplied...

perhaps fundemental abstract thought may have sprouted in the process of
being able to communicate thoughts and ideas about things which are not
present, something that has not been seen in primates( this is pending
that symbol test with primates to truly verified and have the doubt of
scientist cueing the participating chimp removed!)...to discuss lions
without lions present in the most basic beggininng of abstract thought

chris

• Next message: Thomas Clarke: "Re: Aquatic ape theory"
• Previous message: UrOpiate: "Re: Origins of human thought - needinfo"