>>13352616>I would still fully agree with your appraisal of my statement. Your statement is meaningless, you're just saying the benefits of X require having X. This is mindlessly redundant.
>Well, I have no reason to believe that it would be significantly different. So I'm happy to dismiss this until evidence is providedI can't prove a negative. Burden of proof is on you and I said there is no benefit to having this strong visual pattern recognition feat in nature.
>Visual acuity is utterly useless to the point of being maladaptive without some form of pattern recognition ability, Humans have both exceptional visual acuity and exceptional pattern recognitionPattern recognition is not object recognition, they are significantly different.
You need visual object recognition to spot berries, NOT visual pattern recognition.
>The bit about pigeons is interesting, but at the same time it's irrelevant to the discussion at handYou feel it's irrelevant because you fundamentally can't see why you're wrong. It's a perfectly analogous example. You are making up nonsense reasons that humans should/do/did have a "strong pattern recognition adaptive trait" in nature laid out by this anons quote
>>13349427An identical situation is shown with pigeons, ie making up nonsense reasons why we are better at something, except with them we can actually test and show we're not better. If we had the ability to test pattern recognition in similar mammals to use we'd almost certainly discover we are not better at it, the apparent superiority is simply explained away by our eye's superior visual acuity
>Honestly you're right insofar as I have virtually no expertise here and am mostly just making assumptions. That said, I'd be more than happy to see your evidence that I'm wrong! You, and nobody ITT, have produced evidence you are right regarding the presumption of a "strong pattern recognition adaptive trait" compared to animals
Burden of proof is on you.
