The problem is, there is no data supporting the possibility that hearing fifths as “the same” could be valuable or even possible, either. So far as we know, no creature with auditory capabilities hears in this manner, so all that can be done is speculate. And all we can conclude is that , yeah, it could be possible, given some as-yet undefined set of circumstances, which, again, so far as we know, have not yet arisen, nor is there any necessary potential for them to do so.
That’s the problem with hypotheticals like this: they are not falsifiable; you can really only show that they can occur by finding a creature which actually exhibits the trait about which you are speculating. If such a creature has not been found, then nothing is proven either way. At best, you can remain agnostic about possibilities.
Evolutionary theory is predictive only so far as mechanisms go, or in demonstrating how a particular known trait may have arisen (“if trait X evolved from precursor x, then we should be able to find evidence of x[sub]1[/sub], x[sub]2[/sub], etc.”). It is not predictive in terms of being able to pin down future or “alternate reality” pathways for specific traits.
But Brain Wreck and some others on this thread have made the claim that it is impossible for a creature like the one we’re discussing to evolve, under any circumstances whatsoever.
I was asked by one of them (I think Brain Wreck) to say something about how such a creature could evolve. And that is why I offered a hypothetical situation–because I was asked to provide one.
There is a certain irony in a request from people making positive assertion and failing to provide any facts at all, but then requesting that someone disprove that assertion. That’s argument from ignorance. I don’t need to prove that your position is false, you need to prove that yours is true.
It’s also possible that Elvis is still alive and working in a Denny’s somewhere, and I say this without a hint of sarcasm. There is a nonzero probability in the truth of that statement, yet we need to ask ourselves what is really a meaningful number for a statement of that nature.
Never said that, so not going to bother. I will ask you at this point not to characterize my posts, as you are entirely misinterpreting them, attributing statements to me that I didn’t say, and then addressing them before I can even correct you. That would be a strawman argument.
I have already addressed this to the limits of my patience, and the only response has been logical fallacy, mischaracterization of my words, and a fundamental lack of understanding of the subject matter. I think I will not pursue this any longer.
You did in fact say something of the sort, though I think you might not have meant it.
You said:
(To be clear: The ellipses are in the original text.)
So taking a look at the first couple of lines of the above… You say that the example on hand is not a case of a viewing of an altered perception of the world, and then you go on to say that you maintain the contrary case to be effectively impossible.
The case contrary to what? The only antecedent to “case” available in that passage is the case in which an animal does not view an altered perception of the world, but rather only a restricted perception.
So, taking the contrary of that case, we find that you said, in effect, that you believe it to be effectively impossible that a case arise wherein an animal views, not just a restricted perception of the world, but an altered perception.
I’d say that’s “something of the sort” of RaftPeople’s paraphrase “It is essentially impossible to develop an altered view of reality.”
You have made a positive assertion that something is impossible, or at least “effectively impossible.” You have asked me to disprove it by providing you with a hypothetical case in which it could be false. You have said afterwards that my hypothetical failed to disprove your claim. Are you, then, “arguing from ignorance” as well?