>>As of this moment, there is no example of an
animal making a tool with which he makes a second tool to perform a third
purpose. >>
That seems to fit the criteria -- though
abstract in a sense, it is certainly measureable. Thank you.
Those on the reflector who are cynics (surely NOT at this season!) <G>
may have already wondered at my motive(s) for asking the question.
When I posed it, I deliberately did not say if I was posing it
as a scientific or a philosophical question. But the
question, as posed, was very definitely a scientific one!
If it were philosophic, the requirement for the absolute measure
would go away. Statements like "only humans are self-aware"
would qualify.
And this points out (I think) the dangers of abandoning the MN
presupposition of science for a TR (Theologic Realism) presupposition.
I have always been influenced heavily by Lord Kelvin's remark:
"When you can measure what you are speaking about, and express it in
numbers, you know something about it; but when you cannot measure it,
when you cannot express it in numbers, your knowledge is of a meager
and unsatisfactory kind; it may be the beginning of knowledge, but you
have scarcely, in your thoughts, advanced to the stage of science."
What Kelvin does here (again) is define "science," he does not suggest
(nor do I) that investigative areas outside science are not useful!
So, if others on this reflector want to join in this discussion, and
I hope some do, think (if you will) on both issues:
1. What (scientifically) differentiates humanity from non-humanity?
2. Would the answer to #1 change if a TR approach to science were employed?
Almost time for Christmas shopping! <G>
Burgy