I have declared both Finnegan's Wake and Gravity's Rainbow forever beyond my grasp.
noI think you got it backwards, the burden of proof is not on me, it's on you with making the statement that non-human animals make mental calculations. Good luck with that...
thats a very narrow definition.The only animal we can be sure is making mental calculations is Homo sapien sapien, and we know this because we see evidence of his/her arithmetic scribbled on scratch paper.
you are the one making claims without proof - that the complex tasks that the brain of an animal is doing is purely instinctive.
You have no proof for this.
our human ancestors did not have written language and were unable to do such thing; but were capable of mental calculations.
you entire proof is based on some humans having the ability of language and that language is proof of mental calculations.
Lets say modern humans evolved about a quarter of a million years ago. You are suggesting that the ability to do mental calculations did not exist before then; but that the ability appeared suddenly (in evolutinary terms) in one species only, rather than emerging.
That animals might learn to "do sums on paper" was the OP's original speculation, and the one DiracPool has been arguing against from his entry into the thread:i'm using it in what it means.
An animal brain, absorbing information from its environment, processing it in an intellgent way, to make predictions about the future so as to be able to make decisions.
Reducing this to "doing sums on paper" is missing the point entirely.
newjersyrunner said:I'm fairly certain it could pick up addition and subtraction, and probably multiplication and division too. I think it could probably grasp that mathematical formulas can represent the physical world and I think she'd understand to some degree Newton's laws.