> you use behavior for that, not nature. I'll use whatever I choose to use when I'm making my point. You don't get to define my choice of differentiation. > A

> you use behavior for that, not nature. I'll use whatever I choose to use when I'm making my point. You don't get to define my choice of differentiation. > Also, nature is not the same word as natural... That's just absurdly pedantic and a ridiculous point; I defined what I meant, take it or leave it but don't be obtuse. > How is that any different from "Advanced mathmatics"? No known humans have had a written language but no numbering system, and speculation about the earliest humans without a written language is just that, speculation. I think I was more than clear, naturally emerge in individual human development; i.e. all humans naturally develop it as part of their normal life-cycle. Language for example, this is vastly different than advanced mathematics which may not ever emerge until certain levels of culture are accomplished. Mathematics are not a natural part of the development of the individual human lifecycle. > So that you can quantify, classify, compare, understand, intelligently discuss, etc. Which can all be accomplished without said differentiation, so no, try again. > Eh, it conveyed the exact same meaning - it just more clearly demonstrated the logical flaw. No, it didn't.