Big brain evolution (Evolution)
This is the second post I found while searching for the dualism/materialism one, and it seems to me to sum up a great deal of what we have been discussing under "learning new tasks". It clearly followed on from an article proposing that random mutations caused brain expansion, but my concern was to develop a far more purposeful hypothesis, and I still think its logic is convincing. I posted it under "Different in degree or kind: big brain evolution" 18 December 2016 at 14:03".
These researchers use mutations in Darwin’s sense of random changes, but if we go back to my hypothesis reconciling dualism and materialism, perhaps there could be an ongoing feedback here. Something triggered a new awareness. Perhaps a forced descent from the trees. One can imagine an isolated group of tree-dwelling apes whose habitat is destroyed by disease. Tree-climbing is a vertical exercise. Maybe verticality proved to be an advantage down on the ground, and the change itself sparked new awareness. (I realize this is pure speculation, but I am not satisfied with serendipity, or with divine preprogramming, or with divine, step-by-step dabbling – if David’s God wanted sapiens, he could have produced sapiens.) The adjustment to permanent life on the ground would have required experimentation. We know that chimps, for instance, use tools, but perhaps with this particular group of our chimp-like ancestors, the intelligence needed to use tools was supplemented by other factors, such as the need to find new ways of protecting themselves against predators, since their trees had disappeared. What I am looking for is the spark that would have enhanced awareness.
Once the spark is lit, the next step is the effect of thought on matter: the brain responds to exercise; new activities demand new connections between brain and muscles, and new forms of communication between members of the group. One thing leads to another in a perfectly logical chain of developments. The brain engenders thought, and thought in turn develops the brain. This ties in with the researchers’ observation that our intelligence is bigger than our brain, and also with the theory of emergence, that the sum is greater than its parts. Add the theory of convergence, and you have similar patterns emerging elsewhere, to explain how different “species” of hominin may have arisen and with migration may even have interbred (as it is now believed that Neanderthals and Sapiens did). Once we have that extra degree of awareness, the whole process is self-advancing, as one observation leads to another, and each observation engenders new needs and actions and physiological adjustments. In brief, the brain engenders thought, and the extraordinary levels of consciousness that distinguish us from our fellow animals are the result of new needs engendering new thoughts which, in turn, engender physiological adaptations, including the expansion of the brain. (PRESENT COMMENT: to this we must add the complexification that took over once the brain had stopped expanding.)
What we do not know is the spark that lit the fuse for this chain reaction. That, however, would be the only instance of “serendipity” – productive good luck, in contrast to the bad luck that has left 99% of species extinct. Variability within species is enough to explain why some groups of primates remained the same while others advanced. And there is no exclusion of the God theory, since this is a very late chapter in life’s history, and deals only with the origin of humans, and not with that of life and consciousness.
Big brain evolution
by David Turell 
, Monday, January 08, 2018, 21:14 (2293 days ago) @ dhw
dhw: What we do not know is the spark that lit the fuse for this chain reaction. That, however, would be the only instance of “serendipity” – productive good luck, in contrast to the bad luck that has left 99% of species extinct. Variability within species is enough to explain why some groups of primates remained the same while others advanced. And there is no exclusion of the God theory, since this is a very late chapter in life’s his
I have read through this reasoning and still disagree. I'm convinced God wanted sapiens and took his time doing it through a delilberate process of evolution in which he proveided the advances. A smaller cortex cannot know what it cannot think of until its brain is larger and more complex.
Big brain evolution
dhw: What we do not know is the spark that lit the fuse for this chain reaction. That, however, would be the only instance of “serendipity” – productive good luck, in contrast to the bad luck that has left 99% of species extinct. Variability within species is enough to explain why some groups of primates remained the same while others advanced. And there is no exclusion of the God theory, since this is a very late chapter in life’s history.
DAVID: I have read through this reasoning and still disagree. I'm convinced God wanted sapiens and took his time doing it through a delilberate process of evolution in which he proveided the advances. A smaller cortex cannot know what it cannot think of until its brain is larger and more complex.
Yet again, according to your dualism the cortex does NOT do the thinking, which is done by the s/s/c. But if it does do the thinking, it is still not the concept that depends on brain changes, but the IMPLEMENTATION of the concept: expansion for pre-sapiens, complexification for sapiens. The illiterate women’s brains changed through the effort to write. They did not change beforehand.
Big brain evolution
by David Turell , Wednesday, January 10, 2018, 15:23 (2292 days ago) @ dhw
dhw: What we do not know is the spark that lit the fuse for this chain reaction. That, however, would be the only instance of “serendipity” – productive good luck, in contrast to the bad luck that has left 99% of species extinct. Variability within species is enough to explain why some groups of primates remained the same while others advanced. And there is no exclusion of the God theory, since this is a very late chapter in life’s history.
DAVID: I have read through this reasoning and still disagree. I'm convinced God wanted sapiens and took his time doing it through a delilberate process of evolution in which he proveided the advances. A smaller cortex cannot know what it cannot think of until its brain is larger and more complex.
dhw: Yet again, according to your dualism the cortex does NOT do the thinking, which is done by the s/s/c. But if it does do the thinking, it is still not the concept that depends on brain changes, but the IMPLEMENTATION of the concept: expansion for pre-sapiens, complexification for sapiens. The illiterate women’s brains changed through the effort to write. They did not change beforehand.
Covered elsewhere. The learning to read further compleixified a very complex cortex, and shrunk the brain. No enlargement seen.
Big brain evolution
As the discussion on what caused brain expansion has been between David – a dualist – and myself, I’ve been forced to approach it from the dualist’s viewpoint in order to point out what I consider to be major contradictions in his argument. In the first article on this thread, however, I took the materialist line that the brain engenders thought, and at first sight my proposal that expansion was caused by the implementation of new concepts may seem to run contrary to the materialist approach. Most hypotheses I know of seem to take it for granted that the larger brain has caused greater levels of consciousness, as opposed to its being the result. Hence speculation that random mutations, or cooked food and improved diet were the cause of expansion. I would like to offer a different approach.
If all thought processes stem from the brain or from the brain equivalent (I prefer to include single-celled organisms), it is difficult to see any way in which this can happen without cellular intelligence. Scientists actually pinpoint specific cell communities within the human brain that are responsible for our different faculties and abilities. David himself makes great play of the cognitive functions of the cortex, though he never refers to it as a cell community. However, in view of the fact that some brain-damaged people are still able to think normally, I’d prefer not to discuss particular areas. The self-repairing brain fits perfectly into my hypothesis that the whole community of communities cooperates, and in some cases can do so in a manner that will even overcome brain damage.
If you can accept the basic premise of cellular intelligence, as promulgated by such prominent scientists as Barbara McClintock, Lynn Margulis, James Shapiro et al, then the rest seems to me to follow on quite logically. We are all individuals – i.e. even if the fundamental structures are the same, no two brains are alike. The materialist equivalent of the dualist’s “soul” is those cell communities that are the source of our thinking. And the source of our thinking is what gives instructions to the rest of the brain and body. The materialist process of expansion will therefore be precisely the same as the dualist process: the individual "genius" cell community comes up with the new idea, and the rest of the brain must implement it, as will the rest of the social community. In our ancestors, the rest of the brain did not have the necessary capacity, and so there was a need for more cells and more connections to perform the required actions. Concept first, then implementation resulting in expansion. Eventually,expansion reached its physical limit in sapiens, and so the cell communities had to find a different mode of implementation: namely, complexification.
NB (1) I am not taking sides. I am simply trying to demonstrate that for both the materialist and the dualist, it makes perfect sense to attribute brain expansion to the implementation of concepts rather than attributing concepts to the expansion of the brain. Fortunately, we have a clue to the feasibility of this hypothesis: we know that in modern humans, it is the implementation of concepts that changes the brain. The brain does not change in anticipation of the concepts it is asked to implement, regardless of whether the source of the concepts is a soul or a community of cells.
NB (2) Neither dualism nor materialism explains consciousness. They are both beliefs relating to the source of consciousness. And although the materialist belief is usually coupled with atheism, there is no reason why one should not believe in a God who has done precisely what humans are now attempting to do with their work on artificial intelligence – namely to create conscious beings out of materials. If humans succeed in doing so, this will not prove that conscious beings can be the product of chance.
Big brain evolution
by David Turell , Tuesday, January 16, 2018, 17:53 (2286 days ago) @ dhw
dhw: Eventually,expansion reached its physical limit in sapiens, and so the cell communities had to find a different mode of implementation: namely, complexification.
You have no way of knowing if previous smaller brains had no ability to complexify. Based on our knowledge that evolution makes advances and builds on them, it is much more logical to assume that earlier brains did a bit of complexification while implementation occurred. I agree that the sapiens brain is smaller than originally sized and that supports the idea that evolution for humans is over, but there may be another step coming with a slightly larger or more complex brain in a subsequent human species. We can't know. Your point about a physical limit agrees with my point that current sapiens are/were God's goal all along.
dhw: NB (1) I am not taking sides. I am simply trying to demonstrate that for both the materialist and the dualist, it makes perfect sense to attribute brain expansion to the implementation of concepts rather than attributing concepts to the expansion of the brain. Fortunately, we have a clue to the feasibility of this hypothesis: we know that in modern humans, it is the implementation of concepts that changes the brain. The brain does not change in anticipation of the concepts it is asked to implement, regardless of whether the source of the concepts is a soul or a community of cells.
The false thought here is that future concepts desired in a smaller less complex brain forces expansion to a larger more complex brain. Do cell committees drive their own evolution? I don't believe it.
dhw: NB (2) Neither dualism nor materialism explains consciousness. They are both beliefs relating to the source of consciousness. And although the materialist belief is usually coupled with atheism, there is no reason why one should not believe in a God who has done precisely what humans are now attempting to do with their work on artificial intelligence – namely to create conscious beings out of materials. If humans succeed in doing so, this will not prove that conscious beings can be the product of chance.
I'll agree God at work drives evolution.
Big brain evolution
The two posts under “sticks and stones” and “big brain evolution” overlap, and David’s responses are so full of misunderstandings that I will summarize my hypothesis and then deal with any points not directly covered by the summary. For this purpose, I’ll adopt David’s dualistic approach – the materialist version was described in my previous post on this thread.
Soul thinks of new concepts; brain provides information and is used by soul to implement concepts. Soul of small-brained hominin has idea. Implementation of idea requires new abilities/greater capacity, and brain expands. Soul of new larger-brained hominin may come up with new concepts which can be implemented by complexification, but eventually once again new concepts require new abilities/greater capacity, and once again brain expands in order to implement them. Repeat until new concepts require "final" expansion, i.e. now that new concepts of sapiens' immediate predecessor have been implemented, we have sapiens’ brain which can no longer expand without nasty anatomical consequences. For 270,000 years (David’s figure) soul of sapiens does not come up with major new concepts, but whatever it does come up with is dealt with by complexification. Then "geniuses" arrive, and so – because expansion is no longer possible – complexification becomes sole means of implementation.
There is no “‘logically' the new brain should have had the ideas right away.” The new brain came about because of ideas produced by the pre-sapiens soul and implemented by expansion to sapiens brain. Once each enlarged brain exists, including sapiens, it can hang around for hundreds of thousands of years without any major innovations.
Each new bigger size may well enable implementation through complexification for limited time, but “allow the soul to use it to come up with more advanced concepts” is not clear: the soul uses the brain to gain information and to IMPLEMENT its concepts, not to do its thinking for it. (But new concepts may well arise from the soul’s thoughts about existing implementations of its concepts. We progress by building on earlier concepts and their implementations.) There is no preconceived agenda. Expansion and complexification take place in response to whatever new ideas are provided by “genius” souls.
DAVID: The false thought here is that future concepts desired in a smaller less complex brain forces expansion to a larger more complex brain.
They are not “future” concepts.”Genius” pre-sapiens’ small brain has concept of spear, and implementation of concept forces expansion – just as concept of reading and writing forces new complexifications in brains of illiterate women. Once more: concept formed by soul with current brain; implementation changes brain – precisely as described so vividly in your post of 2 December under “learning new tasks”.
DAVID: “Your point about a physical limit agrees with my point that current sapiens are/were God's goal all along.”
Physical limit has nothing whatsoever to do with your God’s goal. All species reach a certain size, with limbs, head etc. in proportion to the rest of the body. We may assume that the dimensions are optimum under current conditions. Maybe in a billion years, there will be new conditions, with elephant-sized ants, ant-sized elephants, and humans...well, who knows?
Big brain evolution
by David Turell , Wednesday, January 17, 2018, 17:24 (2285 days ago) @ dhw
dhw: Soul thinks of new concepts; brain provides information and is used by soul to implement concepts. Soul of small-brained hominin has idea. Implementation of idea requires new abilities/greater capacity, and brain expands.
As miraculous as my God doing it. I don't believe the small brain has an idea before expansion. The bigger brain has the new idea and implements it, per artifacts appearing with it. DHW's idea is discontinuous with the earlier brain having the idea which then can't happen until he new brain appears.
dhw: Soul of new larger-brained hominin may come up with new concepts which can be implemented by complexification, but eventually once again new concepts require new abilities/greater capacity, and once again brain expands in order to implement them. Repeat until new concepts require "final" expansion, i.e. now that new concepts of sapiens' immediate predecessor have been implemented, we have sapiens’ brain which can no longer expand without nasty anatomical consequences.
There is no reason why the brain could not expand more. It was 150 cc bigger earlier in sapiens existence. If there is no reason for it to expand it supports my contention that this is God's goal/endpoint for evolution.
For 270,000 years (David’s figure) soul of sapiens does not come up with major new concepts, but whatever it does come up with is dealt with by complexification.
If the erectus brain forced the appearance of the sapiens brain size, why did it take 270,000 years for the implementations to start? Each stage of brain size is disconnected by time.
dhw: There is no “‘logically' the new brain should have had the ideas right away.” The new brain came about because of ideas produced by the pre-sapiens soul and implemented by expansion to sapiens brain. Once each enlarged brain exists, including sapiens, it can hang around for hundreds of thousands of years without any major innovations.
Does not explain the gaps in usage, if the new brain size is driven by a previous idea.
dhw: Each new bigger size may well enable implementation through complexification for limited time, but “allow the soul to use it to come up with more advanced concepts” is not clear: the soul uses the brain to gain information and to IMPLEMENT its concepts, not to do its thinking for it.
The soul uses the brain to think!
dhw: (But new concepts may well arise from the soul’s thoughts about existing implementations of its concepts. We progress by building on earlier concepts and their implementations.) There is no preconceived agenda. Expansion and complexification take place in response to whatever new ideas are provided by “genius” souls.
Fallacy: the thoughts are in a previous brain to create the new size! Only survival mode ideas existed until 30,000 years ago. Then the concepts came fast and furious
DAVID: The false thought here is that future concepts desired in a smaller less complex brain forces expansion to a larger more complex brain.dhw They are not “future” concepts.”Genius” pre-sapiens’ small brain has concept of spear, and implementation of concept forces expansion – just as concept of reading and writing forces new complexifications in brains of illiterate women.
That is not expansion, but shrinkage!
dhw: Once more: concept formed by soul with current brain; implementation changes brain – precisely as described so vividly in your post of 2 December under “learning new tasks”.
Stop. I've told you a previous size increase in brain was implied, but not clear the way I wrote it.
DAVID: “Your point about a physical limit agrees with my point that current sapiens are/were God's goal all along.”dhw: Physical limit has nothing whatsoever to do with your God’s goal. All species reach a certain size, with limbs, head etc. in proportion to the rest of the body. We may assume that the dimensions are optimum under current conditions. Maybe in a billion years, there will be new conditions, with elephant-sized ants, ant-sized elephants, and humans...well, who knows?
Of course it is God's goal. We survived well with it until 30,000 years ago when concepts and implementation exploded. Proof that our current brain is not needed for survival, but despite Darwin's theory about survivability as a major driving force, it is here.
Big brain evolution
dhw: Soul thinks of new concepts; brain provides information and is used by soul to implement concepts. Soul of small-brained hominin has idea. Implementation of idea requires new abilities/greater capacity, and brain expands.
DAVID: As miraculous as my God doing it. I don't believe the small brain has an idea before expansion. The bigger brain has the new idea and implements it, per artifacts appearing with it. DHW's idea is discontinuous with the earlier brain having the idea which then can't happen until he new brain appears.
Now you, the dualist, tell us that the bigger brain has the new idea! Dualists believe the self/soul/consciousness has the ideas, but on Wed, 17 January you dispense with your dualistic soul altogether! As for discontinuous: no. Soul of hominin with small brain has idea, and effort to implement idea causes brain to expand, so appearance of artefact and appearance of enlarged brain coincide in one continuous process. The discontinuity lies in your dualistic version, which you have suddenly forgotten about: sudden expansion of BRAIN for no reason, but only then can SOUL come up with new ideas.
dhw: […] now that new concepts of sapiens' immediate predecessor have been implemented, we have sapiens’ brain which can no longer expand without nasty anatomical consequences.
DAVID: There is no reason why the brain could not expand more. It was 150 cc bigger earlier in sapiens existence. If there is no reason for it to expand it supports my contention that this is God's goal/endpoint for evolution.
So your God decided to stop expansion, whereas you can envisage current humans in current conditions with elephant-sized heads, and you don’t think that would pose problems for the rest of the anatomy. I can’t.
Dhw: For 270,000 years (David’s figure) soul of sapiens does not come up with major new concepts, but whatever it does come up with is dealt with by complexification.
DAVID: If the erectus brain forced the appearance of the sapiens brain size, why did it take 270,000 years for the implementations to start? Each stage of brain size is disconnected by time.
Wrong sequence! Pre-sapiens hominin had new concept; implementation of new concept expanded brain to sapiens size. 270,000 years passed before more new concepts required major changes to sapiens brain. Expansion not possible, complexification sole means of implementation. It took (according to you) 270,000 years for the "geniuses" to produce major new concepts - peanuts by comparison with habilis, erectus & Co. Incidentally, I don’t know where your figures come from. Most websites suggest sapiens goes back 200,000 not 300,000 years, but nobody knows for sure, just as nobody knows for sure when erectus became extinct (one website suggests as recently as 20,000 years). Perfectly feasible that pre-sapiens co-existed with sapiens – one would not expect EVERY pre-sapiens brain to expand. But that's just by the way.
dhw: […] the soul uses the brain to gain information and to IMPLEMENT its concepts, not to do its thinking for it.
DAVID: The soul uses the brain to think!
The soul (if it exists) uses the brain to provide the information it thinks about, and it uses the brain to implement its ideas. You have agreed to this over and over again (see your post under “brain damage”, 13 January at 01.05), as exemplified by your facile computer image, in which the software (soul) provides the idea, and the brain (computer) implements it.
dhw: ”Genius” pre-sapiens’ small brain has concept of spear, and implementation of concept forces expansion – just as concept of reading and writing forces new complexifications in brains of illiterate women.
DAVID: That is not expansion, but shrinkage!
Of course it’s not expansion! Yet again: the sapiens brain can’t expand any more, and so complexification is the sole means of implementation. Complexification is so efficient that some cells and their connections are no longer needed – hence shrinkage.
dhw: Once more: concept formed by soul with current brain; implementation changes brain – precisely as described so vividly in your post of 2 December under “learning new tasks”.
DAVID: Stop. I've told you a previous size increase in brain was implied, but not clear the way I wrote it.
I accept that you didn’t mean it that way, but I cannot think of a better description of the process I am proposing.
DAVID: Your point about a physical limit agrees with my point that current sapiens are/were God's goal all along.
dhw: Physical limit has nothing whatsoever to do with your God’s goal. All species reach a certain size, with limbs, head etc. in proportion to the rest of the body. We may assume that the dimensions are optimum under current conditions. Maybe in a billion years, there will be new conditions, with elephant-sized ants, ant-sized elephants, and humans...well, who knows?
DAVID: Of course it is God's goal. We survived well with it until 30,000 years ago when concepts and implementation exploded. Proof that our current brain is not needed for survival, but despite Darwin's theory about survivability as a major driving force, it is here.
I have added improvement to survivability as a major driving force. You are discussing this with me, not with Darwin.
Big brain evolution
by David Turell , Thursday, January 18, 2018, 18:01 (2284 days ago) @ dhw
DAVID: As miraculous as my God doing it. I don't believe the small brain has an idea before expansion. The bigger brain has the new idea and implements it, per artifacts appearing with it. DHW's idea is discontinuous with the earlier brain having the idea which then can't happen until he new brain appears.
Now you, the dualist, tell us that the bigger brain has the new idea! Dualists believe the self/soul/consciousness has the ideas, but on Wed, 17 January you dispense with your dualistic soul altogether! As for discontinuous: no. Soul of hominin with small brain has idea, and effort to implement idea causes brain to expand, so appearance of artefact and appearance of enlarged brain coincide in one continuous process. The discontinuity lies in your dualistic version, which you have suddenly forgotten about: sudden expansion of BRAIN for no reason, but only then can SOUL come up with new ideas.
You have forgotten I write brain and imply s/s/c in action as understood. We've covered this, but you keep editing my writing. Sudden expansion is God in action.
dhw: […] now that new concepts of sapiens' immediate predecessor have been implemented, we have sapiens’ brain which can no longer expand without nasty anatomical consequences.
DAVID: There is no reason why the brain could not expand more. It was 150 cc bigger earlier in sapiens existence. If there is no reason for it to expand it supports my contention that this is God's goal/endpoint for evolution.
dhw: So your God decided to stop expansion, whereas you can envisage current humans in current conditions with elephant-sized heads, and you don’t think that would pose problems for the rest of the anatomy. I can’t.
We shrunk 150 cc. We can easily add it back anatomically, but I doubt that will happen. Elephant heads on humans will never appear, and you know it. We are at God's endpoint, as you have demonstrated.
DAVID: If the erectus brain forced the appearance of the sapiens brain size, why did it take 270,000 years for the implementations to start? Each stage of brain size is disconnected by time.
dhw: Incidentally, I don’t know where your figures come from. Most websites suggest sapiens goes back 200,000 not 300,000 years, but nobody knows for sure, just as nobody knows for sure when erectus became extinct (one website suggests as recently as 20,000 years).
You have forgotten the recent finding of a Moroccan sapiens fossil dated at 300,000 years ago.
dhw: The soul (if it exists) uses the brain to provide the information it thinks about, and it uses the brain to implement its ideas. You have agreed to this over and over again (see your post under “brain damage”, 13 January at 01.05), as exemplified by your facile computer image, in which the software (soul) provides the idea, and the brain (computer) implements it.
Good explanation.
DAVID: Your point about a physical limit agrees with my point that current sapiens are/were God's goal all along.
dhw: Physical limit has nothing whatsoever to do with your God’s goal. All species reach a certain size, with limbs, head etc. in proportion to the rest of the body. We may assume that the dimensions are optimum under current conditions. Maybe in a billion years, there will be new conditions, with elephant-sized ants, ant-sized elephants, and humans...well, who knows?
DAVID: Of course it is God's goal. We survived well with it until 30,000 years ago when concepts and implementation exploded. Proof that our current brain is not needed for survival, but despite Darwin's theory about survivability as a major driving force, it is here.
dhw: I have added improvement to survivability as a major driving force. You are discussing this with me, not with Darwin.
Darwin always lurks in the background as we discuss evolution. I think survivability is an overrated concept. I have always felt God created the evolutionary process to create complexity. 99% of species are gone. That is non-survival to prove the point and all the complexity didn't work. Not all 'advances' are improvement as I've shown in the whale series which is just an experiment in complexity.
Big brain evolution
I am going to juxtapose some of our exchanges for the sake of continuity and clarity.
DAVID: As miraculous as my God doing it. I don't believe the small brain has an idea before expansion. The bigger brain has the new idea and implements it, per artifacts appearing with it. DHW's idea is discontinuous with the earlier brain having the idea which then can't happen until he new brain appears.
dhw: Now you, the dualist, tell us that the bigger brain has the new idea! Dualists believe the self/soul/consciousness has the ideas, but on Wed, 17 January you dispense with your dualistic soul altogether! As for discontinuous: no. Soul of hominin with small brain has idea, and effort to implement idea causes brain to expand, so appearance of artefact and appearance of enlarged brain coincide in one continuous process. The discontinuity lies in your dualistic version, which you have suddenly forgotten about: sudden expansion of BRAIN for no reason, but only then can SOUL come up with new ideas.
DAVID: You have forgotten I write brain and imply s/s/c in action as understood. We've covered this, but you keep editing my writing. Sudden expansion is God in action.
There is no editing. I have reproduced your comment in full and exactly as you wrote it. You have stated categorically and repeatedly that the brain has the idea, just as you have stated in the past that mental activity is biochemical. You unthinkingly keep reverting to materialism whenever you claim that the new concept cannot be conceived without the larger brain. Perhaps that is why you have argued that my hypothesis is discontinuous. What is discontinuous is the dualistic argument that the soul is the source of new ideas, but can only have new ideas when the brain has already expanded - an argument which underpins materialism.
dhw: The soul (if it exists) uses the brain to provide the information it thinks about, and it uses the brain to implement its ideas. You have agreed to this over and over again (see your post under “brain damage”, 13 January at 01.05), as exemplified by your facile computer image, in which the software (soul) provides the idea, and the brain (computer) implements it.
DAVID: Good explanation.
So please bear it in mind when arguing that “the bigger brain has the new idea”, and mental processes are biochemical, and new concepts can only be conceived once the brain has already expanded.
DAVID: There is no reason why the brain could not expand more. It was 150 cc bigger earlier in sapiens existence. If there is no reason for it to expand it supports my contention that this is God's goal/endpoint for evolution.
dhw: So your God decided to stop expansion, whereas you can envisage current humans in current conditions with elephant-sized heads, and you don’t think that would pose problems for the rest of the anatomy. I can’t.
DAVID: We shrunk 150 cc. We can easily add it back anatomically, but I doubt that will happen. Elephant heads on humans will never appear, and you know it. We are at God's endpoint, as you have demonstrated.
Complexification has resulted in shrinkage, so there is room for another 150 cc., but we don’t need it – at least under current conditions. However, if you agree that elephant heads on humans would be anatomically impractical, then physical limit has nothing to do with your God’s endpoint or goal, and everything to do with anatomical practicality.
DAVID: Of course it is God's goal. We survived well with it until 30,000 years ago when concepts and implementation exploded. Proof that our current brain is not needed for survival, but despite Darwin's theory about survivability as a major driving force, it is here.
dhw: I have added improvement to survivability as a major driving force. You are discussing this with me, not with Darwin.
DAVID: Darwin always lurks in the background as we discuss evolution. I think survivability is an overrated concept. I have always felt God created the evolutionary process to create complexity. 99% of species are gone. That is non-survival to prove the point and all the complexity didn't work. Not all 'advances' are improvement as I've shown in the whale series which is just an experiment in complexity.
We’ve discussed this many times. You claimed that the cessation of expansion proved we were God’s “endpoint”, which it doesn’t. Perhaps that is why you switched the discussion to Darwin and survivability?
dhw: Incidentally, I don’t know where your figures come from. Most websites suggest sapiens goes back 200,000 not 300,000 years, but nobody knows for sure, just as nobody knows for sure when erectus became extinct (one website suggests as recently as 20,000 years).
DAVID: You have forgotten the recent finding of a Moroccan sapiens fossil dated at 300,000 years ago.
I had indeed. Thank you.
Big brain evolution
by David Turell , Friday, January 19, 2018, 19:50 (2282 days ago) @ dhw
DAVID: You have forgotten I write brain and imply s/s/c in action as understood. We've covered this, but you keep editing my writing. Sudden expansion is God in action.dhw: There is no editing.... What is discontinuous is the dualistic argument that the soul is the source of new ideas, but can only have new ideas when the brain has already expanded - an argument which underpins materialism.
In my concept, the s/s/c can only use the capacity the brain presents. I still view he brain as compared to a computer and the s/s/c as the running software. I'm sure you know computers have an operating system. Windows One is much less complex than Windows Ten, because our current computers are complex enough to handle it.
dhw: The soul (if it exists) uses the brain to provide the information it thinks about, and it uses the brain to implement its ideas. You have agreed to this over and over again (see your post under “brain damage”, 13 January at 01.05), as exemplified by your facile computer image, in which the software (soul) provides the idea, and the brain (computer) implements it.
DAVID: Good explanation.
dhw: So please bear it in mind when arguing that “the bigger brain has the new idea”, and mental processes are biochemical, and new concepts can only be conceived once the brain has already expanded.
I will. Note the issue of brain development being required for baby learning:
https://cosmosmagazine.com/social-sciences/babies-learn-at-a-non-linear-rate
"So, the experiment was simple: take a bunch of six-month-olds (28, in this case) and bring them into the lab monthly to perform the Piaget test while having their brain activity mapped using an EEG.
"The task the babies performed involved a researcher hiding a toy in one of two wells in a cardboard box set in front of the infant. If the toy was then successfully retrieved by the infant, showing that they remembered that the toy existed and where it was despite not being able to directly see it, the test was considered successful.
"How babies perform in this task tells us a lot about their development because it's a coordination of multiple skills,” explains co-author Leigha MacNeill. (my bold)
“'They have to remember where the ball was moved, which is working memory. They have to know an object exists even though it's out of sight, and they need to track objects moving in space from one place to another. All of this also required them to pay attention. So there's a lot going on.”
"The EEG took baseline readings while the babies watched spinning balls in a bingo wheel before measuring brain activity as the babies performed the A-not-B test.
"The results mapped neatly as a sigmoid curve: flat at six months, with barely any of the children passing the test, and a gentle curve flattening again at 12 months with most of the children reaching the milestone. The experimenters noted that there was also a lot of variation in development both between the different babies and in individual children over different testing sessions.
"In other words, science backs up your intuition. These results indicate that babies learn in punctuated bursts, not at a steady linear rate over time, and the timing of those bursts are as idiosyncratic as the children themselves. "
Comment: the main issue here is how fast the brain develops its cortical skills. The newborn does not have a fuctional cortex. All it has is the automatic functions necesary for life. The cortex is finally fully functional at 25 years of age! What the researchers are showing us is the punctuated rate at which the brain adds complexdity of the cortex. The same point fits the development of the homo brain in 150/200 cc burst during evolution. A brain can only produce through control by the s/s/c only as much as its complexity allows. Complexity first, artifacts second.
Big brain evolution
DAVID: You have forgotten I write brain and imply s/s/c in action as understood. We've covered this, but you keep editing my writing. Sudden expansion is God in action.
dhw: There is no editing.... What is discontinuous is the dualistic argument that the soul is the source of new ideas, but can only have new ideas when the brain has already expanded - an argument which underpins materialism.
DAVID: In my concept, the s/s/c can only use the capacity the brain presents.
In mine too. You agree that the s/s/c is the source of the concept, and it uses the brain to acquire information and to implement the concept. And so if the pre-sapiens s/s/c could not use the existing brain capacity to implement its concept, then the capacity had to be increased. We don’t need computer analogies. You just need to respond to the contradiction (“discontinuity”) I have pointed out above, although perhaps your “I will” below means you realize the argument is untenable. (NB Reminder: Once the pre-sapiens brain has expanded, it may well have new ideas that it CAN cope with through complexification. Expansion only comes when the new concept exceeds the existing capacity.)
dhw: The soul (if it exists) uses the brain to provide the information it thinks about, and it uses the brain to implement its ideas. You have agreed to this over and over again (see your post under “brain damage”, 13 January at 01.05), as exemplified by your facile computer image, in which the software (soul) provides the idea, and the brain (computer) implements it.
DAVID: Good explanation.
dhw: So please bear it in mind when arguing that “the bigger brain has the new idea”, and mental processes are biochemical, and new concepts can only be conceived once the brain has already expanded.
DAVID: I will.
Thank you. But I will keep reminding you of this agreement whenever necessary!
DAVID: Note the issue of brain development being required for baby learning:
https://cosmosmagazine.com/social-sciences/babies-learn-at-a-non-linear-rate
QUOTE: “These results indicate that babies learn in punctuated bursts, not at a steady linear rate over time, and the timing of those bursts are as idiosyncratic as the children themselves. "
DAVID’s comment: [...] What the researchers are showing us is the punctuated rate at which the brain adds complexdity of the cortex. The same point fits the development of the homo brain in 150/200 cc burst during evolution. A brain can only produce through control by the s/s/c only as much as its complexity allows. Complexity first, artifacts second.
Of course the baby does not have a fully developed brain. The researchers’ point is that it develops in bursts which vary with individuals – as confirmed by my observations of my twin grandsons. And yes, a brain can only produce what its complexity or (pre-sapiens) its capacity allows, and so if the capacity does not allow production of the new concept (the artefact), it must expand, and if existing complexity (sapiens) does not allow implementation of the concept (reading and writing) it must add to its complexity. Expansion/ complexification does not precede artefacts/reading & writing but is caused by the process of implementation. The reading and writing example has been confirmed by modern science.
Big brain evolution
by David Turell , Saturday, January 20, 2018, 18:17 (2282 days ago) @ dhw
DAVID: In my concept, the s/s/c can only use the capacity the brain presents.dhw: In mine too. You agree that the s/s/c is the source of the concept, and it uses the brain to acquire information and to implement the concept. And so if the pre-sapiens s/s/c could not use the existing brain capacity to implement its concept, then the capacity had to be increased.
Of course it had to be increased. That can't occur from chance evolution. It is a purposeful enlargement provided by God.
dhw: We don’t need computer analogies. You just need to respond to the contradiction (“discontinuity”) I have pointed out above, although perhaps your “I will” below means you realize the argument is untenable. (NB Reminder: Once the pre-sapiens brain has expanded, it may well have new ideas that it CAN cope with through complexification. Expansion only comes when the new concept exceeds the existing capacity.)
I see no discontinuity. You want push: concepts exceed capacity, and I want pull. An existing small brain cannot have the new concepts until a larger size brain appears for use by the s/s/c.
DAVID: Note the issue of brain development being required for baby learning:
https://cosmosmagazine.com/social-sciences/babies-learn-at-a-non-linear-rate
QUOTE: “These results indicate that babies learn in punctuated bursts, not at a steady linear rate over time, and the timing of those bursts are as idiosyncratic as the children themselves. "
DAVID’s comment: [...] What the researchers are showing us is the punctuated rate at which the brain adds complexity of the cortex. The same point fits the development of the homo brain in 150/200 cc burst during evolution. A brain can only produce through control by the s/s/c only as much as its complexity allows. Complexity first, artifacts second.dhw: Of course the baby does not have a fully developed brain. The researchers’ point is that it develops in bursts which vary with individuals – as confirmed by my observations of my twin grandsons. And yes, a brain can only produce what its complexity or (pre-sapiens) its capacity allows, and so if the capacity does not allow production of the new concept (the artefact), it must expand, and if existing complexity (sapiens) does not allow implementation of the concept (reading and writing) it must add to its complexity. Expansion/ complexification does not precede artefacts/reading & writing but is caused by the process of implementation. The reading and writing example has been confirmed by modern science.
Of course the brain had to expand to allow sapiens to evolve. We are far apart on how that happened. Otherwise yhour summar is correct.
Big brain evolution
DAVID: In my concept, the s/s/c can only use the capacity the brain presents.
dhw: In mine too. You agree that the s/s/c is the source of the concept, and it uses the brain to acquire information and to implement the concept. And so if the pre-sapiens s/s/c could not use the existing brain capacity to implement its concept, then the capacity had to be increased.
DAVID: Of course it had to be increased. That can't occur from chance evolution. It is a purposeful enlargement provided by God.
You are once more dodging the issue. I have never said that the expansion resulted from chance! If a new concept requires expansion, and the cell communities of the brain respond to that requirement, there is no chance involved. And at all times I have acknowledged the possibility that the cellular intelligence or inventive mechanism required for all such changes may have been supplied by your God from the very beginning.
dhw: We don’t need computer analogies. You just need to respond to the contradiction (“discontinuity”) I have pointed out above.
DAVID: I see no discontinuity. You want push: concepts exceed capacity, and I want pull. An existing small brain cannot have the new concepts until a larger size brain appears for use by the s/s/c.
I’m sorry that you cannot see the contradiction between your belief that the SOUL is responsible for ideas, but pre-sapiens souls could not have had new ideas until the brain had already expanded enough to implement them.
dhw: […] a brain can only produce what its complexity or (pre-sapiens) its capacity allows, and so if the capacity does not allow production of the new concept (the artefact), it must expand, and if existing complexity (sapiens) does not allow implementation of the concept (reading and writing) it must add to its complexity. Expansion/ complexification does not precede artefacts/reading & writing but is caused by the process of implementation. The reading and writing example has been confirmed by modern science.
DAVID: Of course the brain had to expand to allow sapiens to evolve. We are far apart on how that happened. Otherwise yhour summar is correct.
My summary explains the process whereby expansion/complexification is caused by the implementation of the concept, as opposed to preceding the concept. If the "soul" is the source of the concept, I can’t see any “otherwise” - either my summary is correct or it is not.
Big brain evolution
by David Turell , Sunday, January 21, 2018, 15:16 (2281 days ago) @ dhw
DAVID: Of course it had to be increased. That can't occur from chance evolution. It is a purposeful enlargement provided by God.dhw: You are once more dodging the issue. I have never said that the expansion resulted from chance! If a new concept requires expansion, and the cell communities of the brain respond to that requirement, there is no chance involved. And at all times I have acknowledged the possibility that the cellular intelligence or inventive mechanism required for all such changes may have been supplied by your God from the very beginning.
Cell communities are your invention by which you propose evolution shows a purposeful way of creating advances in life's new forms. I see no science behind it, and find it totally unacceptable for that reason.
dhw: We don’t need computer analogies. You just need to respond to the contradiction (“discontinuity”) I have pointed out above.DAVID: I see no discontinuity. You want push: concepts exceed capacity, and I want pull. An existing small brain cannot have the new concepts until a larger size brain appears for use by the s/s/c.
dhw: I’m sorry that you cannot see the contradiction between your belief that the SOUL is responsible for ideas, but pre-sapiens souls could not have had new ideas until the brain had already expanded enough to implement them.
You cannot see my point that more complex ideas require a more complex cortex for the soul to use and develop. Ideas/concepts must appear first, then the implementation. You refuse to recognize brains only needed to be in a survival mode of implementation until 30,00 years ago. And we know recent implementation caused the brain to complexify more and shrink. The only point we scientifically know about implementation is shrinkage, despite how you try to twist that point. Note the backwards thought below:
dhw: […] a brain can only produce what its complexity or (pre-sapiens) its capacity allows, and so if the capacity does not allow production of the new concept (the artefact), it must expand, and if existing complexity (sapiens) does not allow implementation of the concept (reading and writing) it must add to its complexity. Expansion/ complexification does not precede artefacts/reading & writing but is caused by the process of implementation. The reading and writing example has been confirmed by modern science.
DAVID: Of course the brain had to expand to allow sapiens to evolve. We are far apart on how that happened. Otherwise your summary is correct.
dhw: My summary explains the process whereby expansion/complexification is caused by the implementation of the concept, as opposed to preceding the concept. If the "soul" is the source of the concept, I can’t see any “otherwise” - either my summary is correct or it is not.
As I've shown implementation causes shrinkage.
Big brain evolution
DAVID: Of course it had to be increased. That can't occur from chance evolution. It is a purposeful enlargement provided by God.
dhw: You are once more dodging the issue. I have never said that the expansion resulted from chance! If a new concept requires expansion, and the cell communities of the brain respond to that requirement, there is no chance involved. And at all times I have acknowledged the possibility that the cellular intelligence or inventive mechanism required for all such changes may have been supplied by your God from the very beginning.
DAVID: Cell communities are your invention by which you propose evolution shows a purposeful way of creating advances in life's new forms. I see no science behind it, and find it totally unacceptable for that reason.
Every organ and every organism is composed of groups of cells that communicate and cooperate with one another. That is what I mean by “community”. It is hardly my invention, and I doubt if any scientist would disagree. Cellular intelligence is not my invention either – it has been proposed by a number of scientists. If my proposal to put the two together as a possible explanation for evolution – as opposed to Darwin’s random mutations – is unique, then good for me to come up with such an original and logical proposition. I don’t know of any scientific evidence that an unknown being provided the first cells with programmes for every single innovation, lifestyle and natural wonder throughout the history of life, or that the unknown being dabbled.
dhw: I’m sorry that you cannot see the contradiction between your belief that the SOUL is responsible for ideas, but pre-sapiens souls could not have had new ideas until the brain had already expanded enough to implement them.
DAVID: You cannot see my point that more complex ideas require a more complex cortex for the soul to use and develop. Ideas/concepts must appear first, then the implementation.
"Use and develop" is not clear. The soul comes up with the new idea and requires a larger or more complex brain to implement it. That is why the pre-sapiens brain had to expand and the sapiens brain to complexify. Once the idea (artefact/reading & writing) has been implemented, the soul will decide how to use the implement/new ability and may well continue to develop the concept or come up with new concepts until further complexification/expansion is needed. It makes no sense for the brain to complexify/expand before it has a reason for doing so, and the dualist’s reason CANNOT be so that the brain can think of new concepts, because for the dualist, it is the soul that does the thinking. Concept first, implementation by complexification/expansion second.
DAVID: You refuse to recognize brains only needed to be in a survival mode of implementation until 30,00 years ago. And we know recent implementation caused the brain to complexify more and shrink. The only point we scientifically know about implementation is shrinkage, despite how you try to twist that point. (Later): As I've shown implementation causes shrinkage.
Survival mode is a totally different point, quite irrelevant to the question of how your dualist soul can be responsible for ideas and yet not have the ideas until the brain has expanded. I don’t know how true it is that sapiens was only in survival mode until 30,000 years ago, but it makes not the slightest difference to the argument. If it’s true, it simply means that it took a mere 270,000 years for the geniuses to come along with major new concepts. Implementation does not directly cause shrinkage. If it did, by now there should be nothing left. Here is the sequence again: pre-sapiens – probable complexification until capacity inadequate, then expansion; optimum capacity reached with sapiens, and so new concepts implemented by complexification; complexification so efficient that some cells and connections no longer necessary, hence shrinkage. This does not mean that the brain shrinks with implementation of every new concept.
Big brain evolution
by David Turell , Monday, January 22, 2018, 17:32 (2280 days ago) @ dhw
DAVID: Of course it had to be increased. That can't occur from chance evolution. It is a purposeful enlargement provided by God.
dhw: You are once more dodging the issue. I have never said that the expansion resulted from chance! If a new concept requires expansion, and the cell communities of the brain respond to that requirement, there is no chance involved. And at all times I have acknowledged the possibility that the cellular intelligence or inventive mechanism required for all such changes may have been supplied by your God from the very beginning.
DAVID: Cell communities are your invention by which you propose evolution shows a purposeful way of creating advances in life's new forms. I see no science behind it, and find it totally unacceptable for that reason.
dhw: Every organ and every organism is composed of groups of cells that communicate and cooperate with one another. That is what I mean by “community”. It is hardly my invention, and I doubt if any scientist would disagree. Cellular intelligence is not my invention either – it has been proposed by a number of scientists. If my proposal to put the two together as a possible explanation for evolution – as opposed to Darwin’s random mutations – is unique, then good for me to come up with such an original and logical proposition. I don’t know of any scientific evidence that an unknown being provided the first cells with programmes for every single innovation, lifestyle and natural wonder throughout the history of life, or that the unknown being dabbled.
Cells act intelligently as they function. That doesn't mean they can design a major advance as in the Cambrian explosion. That is the flaw in your theory. You cannot extrapolate from cell function to design by committee! No Nobel for you.
dhw: I’m sorry that you cannot see the contradiction between your belief that the SOUL is responsible for ideas, but pre-sapiens souls could not have had new ideas until the brain had already expanded enough to implement them.
DAVID: You cannot see my point that more complex ideas require a more complex cortex for the soul to use and develop. Ideas/concepts must appear first, then the implementation.dhw: "Use and develop" is not clear. The soul comes up with the new idea and requires a larger or more complex brain to implement it. That is why the pre-sapiens brain had to expand and the sapiens brain to complexify.
Of course the brain expanded. You want it driven by the soul in this example. How does the soul cause it? You can't tell me.
dhw: Once the idea (artefact/reading & writing) has been implemented, the soul will decide how to use the implement/new ability and may well continue to develop the concept or come up with new concepts until further complexification/expansion is needed. It makes no sense for the brain to complexify/expand before it has a reason for doing so, and the dualist’s reason CANNOT be so that the brain can think of new concepts, because for the dualist, it is the soul that does the thinking. Concept first, implementation by complexification/expansion second.
Your logic excludes God expanding the brain. I don't.
DAVID: You refuse to recognize brains only needed to be in a survival mode of implementation until 30,00 years ago. And we know recent implementation caused the brain to complexify more and shrink. The only point we scientifically know about implementation is shrinkage, despite how you try to twist that point. (Later): As I've shown implementation causes shrinkage.dhw: Survival mode is a totally different point, quite irrelevant to the question of how your dualist soul can be responsible for ideas and yet not have the ideas until the brain has expanded.
Survival mode is exactly on point. You cannot explain a drive to brain enlargement, your theory, and then accept 270,000 years before the expansion is used, which creates a gap in timing in the drive. Why isn't it used immediately if expansion is not immediately required as you state?: " It makes no sense for the brain to complexify/expand before it has a reason for doing so". It has the reason, then it should be used. The gap is because the newly minted sapiens had to learn how to use it,
dhw: I don’t know how true it is that sapiens was only in survival mode until 30,000 years ago, but it makes not the slightest difference to the argument.
The difference to the argument is described above.
dhw: If it’s true, it simply means that it took a mere 270,000 years for the geniuses to come along with major new concepts. This does not mean that the brain shrinks with implementation of every new concept.
Agreed. But it shrank from 300,000 years ago from certain complxifications.
Big brain evolution
DAVID: Cells act intelligently as they function. That doesn't mean they can design a major advance as in the Cambrian explosion. That is the flaw in your theory. You cannot extrapolate from cell function to design by committee! No Nobel for you.
I agree, and have always acknowledged that, despite the evidence “my” scientists have amassed for cellular intelligence, there is none that cells/cell communities are intelligent enough to design the major advances. If we had the evidence, it would no longer be a hypothesis but a fact. That is why, under “autonomy verses automaticity” I wrote "You know my hypothesis (not dogma and not even belief, but an alternative to hypotheses such as Darwin’s random mutations and your own divine 3.8 billion-year-old computer programme or dabbling)." I shan’t repeat all the flaws in your own hypothesis.
dhw: I’m sorry that you cannot see the contradiction between your belief that the SOUL is responsible for ideas, but pre-sapiens souls could not have had new ideas until the brain had already expanded enough to implement them.
[…]
DAVID: Of course the brain expanded. You want it driven by the soul in this example. How does the soul cause it? You can't tell me.
No, I can’t tell you. Give me a clue. Please tell me how the soul causes sapiens’ brain to complexify. Please explain how the immaterial activates the material. Please explain exactly what your God did to expand the brain and skull.
dhw: It makes no sense for the brain to complexify/expand before it has a reason for doing so, and the dualist’s reason CANNOT be so that the brain can think of new concepts, because for the dualist, it is the soul that does the thinking. Concept first, implementation by complexification/expansion second.
DAVID: Your logic excludes God expanding the brain. I don't.
That is not an answer to my logic. Or are you going to fall back on your argument that God’s logic is different from human logic?
DAVID: You refuse to recognize brains only needed to be in a survival mode of implementation until 30,00 years ago.
dhw: Survival mode is a totally different point, quite irrelevant to the question of how your dualist soul can be responsible for ideas and yet not have the ideas until the brain has expanded.
DAVID: Survival mode is exactly on point. You cannot explain a drive to brain enlargement, your theory, and then accept 270,000 years before the expansion is used, which creates a gap in timing in the drive. Why isn't it used immediately if expansion is not immediately required as you state?: " It makes no sense for the brain to complexify/expand before it has a reason for doing so". It has the reason, then it should be used. The gap is because the newly minted sapiens had to learn how to use it,
I keep answering this, and you keep forgetting the answer! Immediate pre-sapiens has new concept that demands implementation. Pre-sapiens brain implements new concept by expanding to sapiens size. Now we have sapiens-sized brain. Then for 270,000 years nothing special happens – just as nothing special happened during the one or two million years that erectus used his expanded brain. It takes clever individuals to come up with new ideas. Sapiens’ major new ideas arrived 30,000 years ago. Why didn’t the clever individuals arrive earlier? No idea. Nor do I have any idea why, if your God’s sole purpose was to produce the brain of Homo sapiens, it took him one to two million years to expand the brain of erectus (or whichever hominin was our immediate predecessor). And for the third time, this has nothing to do with the question of how your dualist soul can be responsible for ideas and yet not have the ideas until the brain has expanded.
Big brain evolution
by David Turell , Tuesday, January 23, 2018, 15:30 (2279 days ago) @ dhw
dhw: I’m sorry that you cannot see the contradiction between your belief that the SOUL is responsible for ideas, but pre-sapiens souls could not have had new ideas until the brain had already expanded enough to implement them.
I view a completely new idea as a discreet event with no antecedent. The s/s/c doesn't come to the pre-homo or homo with preconceived notions. The interaction of the living human with his s/s/c is mediated through his living brain (material) and his immaterial s/s/c. The complexity of thought is controlled by the existing complexity of the brain. Implementation is a different process in which the original thought is put to use by the brain which responds with plasticity, adjusting its functions in its new size, driven by the s/s/c desires. This occurred at all levels of brain evolution, even ours.
DAVID: Survival mode is exactly on point. You cannot explain a drive to brain enlargement, your theory, and then accept 270,000 years before the expansion is used, which creates a gap in timing in the drive. Why isn't it used immediately if expansion is not immediately required as you state?: " It makes no sense for the brain to complexify/expand before it has a reason for doing so". It has the reason, then it should be used. The gap is because the newly minted sapiens had to learn how to use it,
dhw: I keep answering this, and you keep forgetting the answer! Immediate pre-sapiens has new concept that demands implementation. Pre-sapiens brain implements new concept by expanding to sapiens size.
Here again you present your theory that a new idea forces (pushes) the brain to a new size. And all I see is the logic that if pre-homo had an idea he would implement that idea with the brain he had. The artifacts show this at each stage. I don't understand your logic.
dhw: And for the third time, this has nothing to do with the question of how your dualist soul can be responsible for ideas and yet not have the ideas until the brain has expanded.
Note the comment above. The s/s/c doesn't come onboard carrying new concepts. They develop within the new-sized more complex brain.
Big brain evolution
dhw: I’m sorry that you cannot see the contradiction between your belief that the SOUL is responsible for ideas, but pre-sapiens souls could not have had new ideas until the brain had already expanded enough to implement them.
DAVID: I view a completely new idea as a discreet event with no antecedent. The s/s/c doesn't come to the pre-homo or homo with preconceived notions. The interaction of the living human with his s/s/c is mediated through his living brain (material) and his immaterial s/s/c. The complexity of thought is controlled by the existing complexity of the brain. Implementation is a different process in which the original thought is put to use by the brain which responds with plasticity, adjusting its functions in its new size, driven by the s/s/c desires. This occurred at all levels of brain evolution, even ours.
Sentence by sentence: Yes, a new idea is a new idea. As such it cannot be a preconceived idea, but according to you as a dualist, it comes from the s/s/c, not the brain. Yes, the dualist’s living human self is a mixture of interacting material (brain) and immaterial (soul). Complex thought is thought, but according to you thought is NOT controlled by the brain, it is the product of the soul; the brain provides information and adjusts itself in order to implement the thought, i.e. to fulfil the desires of the s/s/c. The adjustment in pre-sapiens, when the concept is too complex for the existing capacity, is not to "its functions in its new size", but to its size, while in sapiens the adjustment is new complexifications. The new size and the new complexifications do not precede the implementation. None of this explains your contradictory belief that the SOUL is responsible for new ideas, but pre-sapiens’ SOUL could not have had new ideas until his/her BRAIN had ALREADY expanded.
dhw: Immediate pre-sapiens has new concept that demands implementation. Pre-sapiens brain implements new concept by expanding to sapiens size.
DAVID: Here again you present your theory that a new idea forces (pushes) the brain to a new size. And all I see is the logic that if pre-homo had an idea he would implement that idea with the brain he had. The artifacts show this at each stage. I don't understand your logic.
Once more, the logic is as follows (some of this may sound familiar to you): homimim has an immaterial idea for spears. NO BRAIN CHANGE. As he learns to knapp flint, attach the stone to a wooden rod, throw it with accuracy etc., his brain enlarges with all the muscle movement and coordination involved, so that by the time he is able to perform all these new actions, his brain has expanded to its new size. All these activities CAUSE the expansion. It’s exactly the same process as when illiterate women learn to read and write, the new actions CAUSE new complexifications. That is the logical sequence in both scenarios.
dhw: And for the third time, this has nothing to do with the question of how your dualist soul can be responsible for ideas and yet not have the ideas until the brain has expanded.
DAVID: Note the comment above. The s/s/c doesn't come onboard carrying new concepts. They develop within the new-sized more complex brain.
Once more: For you the dualist, an individual “soul” thinks of a new concept. By definition a new concept is not already “onboard”, no matter what size brain the individual already has. The brain expands in order to implement the concept, as described above.
Big brain evolution
by David Turell , Thursday, January 25, 2018, 00:10 (2277 days ago) @ dhw
dhw: Sentence by sentence: Yes, a new idea is a new idea. As such it cannot be a preconceived idea, but according to you as a dualist, it comes from the s/s/c, not the brain. Yes, the dualist’s living human self is a mixture of interacting material (brain) and immaterial (soul). Complex thought is thought, but according to you thought is NOT controlled by the brain, it is the product of the soul; the brain provides information and adjusts itself in order to implement the thought, i.e. to fulfil the desires of the s/s/c. The adjustment in pre-sapiens, when the concept is too complex for the existing capacity, is not to "its functions in its new size", but to its size, while in sapiens the adjustment is new complexifications.
You do not accept my idea that evolution builds on itself. There is no reason to reject the idea that earlier smaller brains never complexified at their level. I'm convinced they did based on what we know about how evolution builds on previous advances.
dhw: The new size and the new complexifications do not precede the implementation. None of this explains your contradictory belief that the SOUL is responsible for new ideas, but pre-sapiens’ SOUL could not have had new ideas until his/her BRAIN had ALREADY expanded.
Complex brains provide more complex implementation as shown by artifacts. More complex concepts require the soul using a more complex brain.
Once more, the logic is as follows (some of this may sound familiar to you): homimim has an immaterial idea for spears. NO BRAIN CHANGE. As he learns to knapp flint, attach the stone to a wooden rod, throw it with accuracy etc., his brain enlarges with all the muscle movement and coordination involved, so that by the time he is able to perform all these new actions, his brain has expanded to its new size.
No way! His brain added complexity just like ours does. Fits the history of evolution.
dhw: All these activities CAUSE the expansion. It’s exactly the same process as when illiterate women learn to read and write, the new actions CAUSE new complexifications. That is the logical sequence in both scenarios.
Yes, this is your exploding brain theory.
Big brain evolution: changes in sapiens skull shape
by David Turell , Thursday, January 25, 2018, 22:10 (2276 days ago) @ David Turell
Our brains reached their volume/size about 300,000 years ago, and changed from a more oblong shape to a more globular form by the last 40,000 years, as use of the brain altered its lobes:
https://www.inverse.com/article/40511-brain-shape-homo-sapiens
"In a study published Wednesday in Science Advances, researchers from the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology announced that the earliest Homo sapiens did not have globular brains like we have today. Instead, their brains had a shape intermediate between that of Homo erectus and that of the Neanderthals, both of which were somewhat more elongated horizontally. The brain, the authors write, gradually became globular over evolutionary time, and those changes in turn, induced neurological shifts that coincide with archaeological evidence of modern behavior. (my bold)
***
"According to the new paper, the size of the early Homo sapiens brain entered the range of modern human brain size as early as 300,000 years ago, but its globular, round features emerged only 40,000 years ago. This unexpected revelation means that the brain reached its current shape much later than anticipated during evolution.
"To come to this conclusion, the team used tomographic scans and 3-D analysis to create virtual endocranial casts of 20 different Homo sapiens fossils. These fossils were divided into three groups: the oldest came from North and East Africa and represented the earliest known representatives of humans after the population split with Neanderthals, others lived in East Africa and the Eastern Mediterranean regions between 130,000 to 100,000 groups, and the final group lived between 35,000 to 10,000 years ago.
***
"Globularity itself likely didn’t give us advantages, says Neubauer, but the features that contributed to the rounding probably did: the bulging of parietal areas and the bulging of the cerebellum. The parietal lobe is an important hub in connecting brain regions and is involved in functions like orientation, attention, and the sensorimotor transformations that underlie planning and visuospatial integration. Meanwhile, the cerebellum relates to motor-related functions, like balance, as well as integral functions like working memory, language, affective processing, and social cognition. It’s likely that the emergence of these skills prompted the “human revolution.”
“'It’s also interesting to point out that, in present-day humans, brain globularity emerges developmentally during a few months around the time of birth,” says Neubauer.
“Our new data therefore suggests evolutionary changes to early brain development in a critical and vulnerable period for neural wiring and cognitive development.'”
Comment: My bold supports the theory that artifacts show behaviors the brain is capable of producing. As the brain molded itself into slightly new shapes due to lobe developments with new applications and implementations, the skull adapted to the new spatial requirements. The obvious implication is that as the new species of H. sapiens received its new-sized larger brain, it had to spend time learning to use it creating the newer shape. Size first, use second could not be clearer.
Big brain evolution: changes in sapiens skull shape
DAVID: You do not accept my idea that evolution builds on itself. There is no reason to reject the idea that earlier smaller brains never complexified at their level…
Of course I accept that idea! That is the whole basis of common descent. New organisms build on what has been produced by earlier organisms. It is you who keep claiming that evolution does NOT build on itself, and your God has to keep jumping in to expand brains, build nests, change legs into flippers...And I have NEVER rejected the idea that earlier smaller brains complexified. They may well have complexified, until – as stated earlier – “the concept is too complex for the existing capacity”. THEN they have to expand.
dhw: None of this explains your contradictory belief that the SOUL is responsible for new ideas, but pre-sapiens’ SOUL could not have had new ideas until his/her BRAIN had ALREADY expanded.
DAVID: Complex brains provide more complex implementation as shown by artifacts. More complex concepts require the soul using a more complex brain.
The artefacts are the product of the implementation. The more complex the concept (which according to you is the product of the SOUL), the greater the complexity required to implement it, and the illiterate women prove that added complexity is the RESULT of implementation. In pre-sapiens, the same process would have taken place until the capacity of the brain could no longer cope with the complexities of the new concept, and then it had to expand.
Dhw: Once more, the logic is as follows (some of this may sound familiar to you): homimim has an immaterial idea for spears. NO BRAIN CHANGE. As he learns to knapp flint, attach the stone to a wooden rod, throw it with accuracy etc., his brain enlarges with all the muscle movement and coordination involved, so that by the time he is able to perform all these new actions, his brain has expanded to its new size.
DAVID: No way! His brain added complexity just like ours does. Fits the history of evolution.
It would have added complexity until it could no longer cope. The above account shows how the process would have worked once extra abilities were needed – clear cause and effect. It makes no sense for the brain to expand (or to complexify) without a cause! Your hypothesis leaves you with the same contradiction you simply cannot resolve: you say your God expands the brain, and only then can the hominin think of something new, although thought according to you does NOT depend on the brain.
xxxxxxxxxxxx
Latest post:
DAVID: Our brains reached their volume/size about 300,000 years ago, and changed from a more oblong shape to a more globular form by the last 40,000 years, as use of the brain altered its lobes:
Precisely: use of the brain means implementation of concepts (which according to you are the product of the soul), and that is what alters the size, the complexity, and now apparently the shape. Thank you.
https://www.inverse.com/article/40511-brain-shape-homo-sapiens
QUOTE: "In a study published Wednesday in Science Advances, researchers from the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology announced that the earliest Homo sapiens did not have globular brains like we have today. Instead, their brains had a shape intermediate between that of Homo erectus and that of the Neanderthals, both of which were somewhat more elongated horizontally. The brain, the authors write, gradually became globular over evolutionary time, and those changes in turn, induced neurological shifts that coincide with archaeological evidence of modern behavior. (David’s bold)
DAVID’s comment: My bold supports the theory that artifacts show behaviors the brain is capable of producing. As the brain molded itself into slightly new shapes due to lobe developments with new applications and implementations, the skull adapted to the new spatial requirements. The obvious implication is that as the new species of H. sapiens received its new-sized larger brain, it had to spend time learning to use it creating the newer shape. Size first, use second could not be clearer.
As for your bold, I agree that changes COINCIDE with the archaeological evidence. That does not mean the changes preceded the archaeological evidence. The illiterate women’s rewiring coincided with their learning to read and write – because the latter was its cause. And so modern behaviour CAUSES neurological shifts. You even say yourself that the brain molded itself “with new applications and implementations” and you also have the skull adapting itself to the new spatial requirements. New applications and implementations change the brain. The brain does not change beforehand. The nub of the problem is that you keep conflating two separate stages of my hypothesis: 1) The new sapiens size resulted from the implementation of a new concept conceived by the pre-sapiens “soul”, as vividly described in the first section of this post. 2) From then on, the brain could not expand any further, so yes indeed, the new sapiens size preceded all the new concepts that followed, as conceived by the dualistic soul, but implementation took place through complexification, which apparently also caused reshaping as well as shrinkage. So each pre-sapiens expansion resulted from new concepts that exceeded current capacity; from sapiens onwards, new concepts resulted in complexification with shrinkage and reshaping.
Big brain evolution: changes in sapiens skull shape
by David Turell , Saturday, January 27, 2018, 00:51 (2275 days ago) @ dhw
Dhw: Once more, the logic is as follows (some of this may sound familiar to you): homimim has an immaterial idea for spears. NO BRAIN CHANGE. As he learns to knapp flint, attach the stone to a wooden rod, throw it with accuracy etc., his brain enlarges with all the muscle movement and coordination involved, so that by the time he is able to perform all these new actions, his brain has expanded to its new size.DAVID: No way! His brain added complexity just like ours does. Fits the history of evolution.
dhw: It would have added complexity until it could no longer cope... Your hypothesis leaves you with the same contradiction you simply cannot resolve: you say your God expands the brain, and only then can the hominin think of something new, although thought according to you does NOT depend on the brain.
Must I repeat! The s/s/c uses a more complex cortex for more complex thought, just as your use of Windows 5 cannot accomplish what you can do with Windows 10. Brain does operate without s/s/c running the show.
DAVID: Our brains reached their volume/size about 300,000 years ago, and changed from a more oblong shape to a more globular form by the last 40,000 years, as use of the brain altered its lobes:
Precisely: use of the brain means implementation of concepts (which according to you are the product of the soul), and that is what alters the size, the complexity, and now apparently the shape. Thank you.
https://www.inverse.com/article/40511-brain-shape-homo-sapiensQUOTE: "In a study published Wednesday in Science Advances, researchers from the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology announced that the earliest Homo sapiens did not have globular brains like we have today. Instead, their brains had a shape intermediate between that of Homo erectus and that of the Neanderthals, both of which were somewhat more elongated horizontally. The brain, the authors write, gradually became globular over evolutionary time, and those changes in turn, induced neurological shifts that coincide with archaeological evidence of modern behavior. (David’s bold)
DAVID’s comment: My bold supports the theory that artifacts show behaviors the brain is capable of producing. As the brain molded itself into slightly new shapes due to lobe developments with new applications and implementations, the skull adapted to the new spatial requirements. The obvious implication is that as the new species of H. sapiens received its new-sized larger brain, it had to spend time learning to use it creating the newer shape. Size first, use second could not be clearer.
dhw: As for your bold, I agree that changes COINCIDE with the archaeological evidence. That does not mean the changes preceded the archaeological evidence. The illiterate women’s rewiring coincided with their learning to read and write – because the latter was its cause. And so modern behaviour CAUSES neurological shifts. You even say yourself that the brain molded itself “with new applications and implementations” and you also have the skull adapting itself to the new spatial requirements. New applications and implementations change the brain. The brain does not change beforehand.
We don't know your declarative sentences I've bolded are at all true. All your hypothesis.
dhw: The nub of the problem is that you keep conflating two separate stages of my hypothesis: 1) The new sapiens size resulted from the implementation of a new concept conceived by the pre-sapiens “soul”, as vividly described in the first section of this post. 2) From then on, the brain could not expand any further, so yes indeed, the new sapiens size preceded all the new concepts that followed, as conceived by the dualistic soul, but implementation took place through complexification, which apparently also caused reshaping as well as shrinkage. So each pre-sapiens expansion resulted from new concepts that exceeded current capacity; from sapiens onwards, new concepts resulted in complexification with shrinkage and reshaping.
You've agreed above that presapiens brain could have compllexified during implementation, now you have withdrawn it. My point is the same stage of brain development gets the concept and does the implementation. The next larger stage develops the concept and implementation, which is the only way the artifacts fit the fossil history. Size first, use second.
Big brain evolution: changes in sapiens skull shape
dhw: Your hypothesis leaves you with the same contradiction you simply cannot resolve: you say your God expands the brain, and only then can the hominin think of something new, although thought according to you does NOT depend on the brain.
DAVID: Must I repeat! The s/s/c uses a more complex cortex for more complex thought [...] Brain does operate without s/s/c running the show.
Since s/s/c uses the brain, I presume you mean brain does NOT operate without s/s/c running the show. You don’t need to repeat the formula that I keep questioning. We are discussing two stages: 1) concept; 2) implementation. According to you the s/s/c/ does the thinking. Yes or no? It uses the brain to implement its thoughts. Yes or no? If the answer to both questions is yes, take the one example we know for sure: concept is reading and writing; implementation leads to more complex brain. The illiterate women’s brains did not rewire themselves BEFORE the implementation of the concept. Continued as follows:
Dhw: New applications and implementations change the brain. The brain does not change beforehand.
DAVID: We don't know your declarative sentences I've bolded are at all true. All your hypothesis.
This is the only sentence of mine that you bolded, and you are right. It is a hypothesis, which can be extrapolated from known processes. Your argument that God expanded pre-sapiens brains and only then were they able to think of new concepts is also a hypothesis. It contradicts the dualistic hypothesis that thinking is not done by the brain but by the soul.
dhw: The nub of the problem is that you keep conflating two separate stages of my hypothesis: 1) The new sapiens size resulted from the implementation of a new concept conceived by the pre-sapiens “soul”, as vividly described in the first section of this post. 2) From then on, the brain could not expand any further, so yes indeed, the new sapiens size preceded all the new concepts that followed, as conceived by the dualistic soul, but implementation took place through complexification, which apparently also caused reshaping as well as shrinkage. So each pre-sapiens expansion resulted from new concepts that exceeded current capacity; from sapiens onwards, new concepts resulted in complexification with shrinkage and reshaping.
DAVID: You've agreed above that presapiens brain could have compllexified during implementation, now you have withdrawn it. My point is the same stage of brain development gets the concept and does the implementation. The next larger stage develops the concept and implementation, which is the only way the artifacts fit the fossil history. Size first, use second.
I have not withdrawn it. The same stage of brain development may well have implemented lots and lots of concepts through complexification, but eventually concepts arose which the existing brain could not implement. Then the capacity had to be expanded, and the same process continued until stage 2) described above. This is also the case in your own hypothesis: implementation could not take place unless the brain expanded. However, in your hypothesis, God steps in and expands the brain BEFORE the relevant new concept (or if you like, before the innovative development of existing concepts) can be thought of. That means the thinking depends on the size of the brain – the exact opposite of the dualistic view that thinking is done by the soul. As for fossil evidence, the artefacts appear alongside the new sized brain. They can only appear when the brain has finished expanding, which in my hypothesis it does BY IMPLEMENTING the concept. In both hypotheses, therefore, the appearance of the artefacts coincides with the appearance of the expanded brain.
Big brain evolution: changes in sapiens skull shape
by David Turell , Saturday, January 27, 2018, 15:26 (2275 days ago) @ dhw
DAVID: Must I repeat! The s/s/c uses a more complex cortex for more complex thought [...] Brain does operate without s/s/c running the show.
dhw: Since s/s/c uses the brain, I presume you mean brain does NOT operate without s/s/c running the show. You don’t need to repeat the formula that I keep questioning. We are discussing two stages: 1) concept; 2) implementation. According to you the s/s/c/ does the thinking. Yes or no?
Yes
dhw: It uses the brain to implement its thoughts. Yes or no?
Yes
Dhw: New applications and implementations change the brain. The brain does not change beforehand.DAVID: We don't know your declarative sentences I've bolded are at all true. All your hypothesis.
dhw: This is the only sentence of mine that you bolded, and you are right. It is a hypothesis, which can be extrapolated from known processes. Your argument that God expanded pre-sapiens brains and only then were they able to think of new concepts is also a hypothesis. It contradicts the dualistic hypothesis that thinking is not done by the brain but by the soul.
S/s/c (immaterial) uses brain (material) to create thought is dualistic to me.
dhw: The nub of the problem is that you keep conflating two separate stages of my hypothesis: 1) The new sapiens size resulted from the implementation of a new concept conceived by the pre-sapiens “soul”, as vividly described in the first section of this post. 2) From then on, the brain could not expand any further, so yes indeed, the new sapiens size preceded all the new concepts that followed, as conceived by the dualistic soul, but implementation took place through complexification, which apparently also caused reshaping as well as shrinkage. So each pre-sapiens expansion resulted from new concepts that exceeded current capacity; from sapiens onwards, new concepts resulted in complexification with shrinkage and reshaping.dhw: The same stage of brain development may well have implemented lots and lots of concepts through complexification, but eventually concepts arose which the existing brain could not implement. Then the capacity had to be expanded, and the same process continued until stage 2) described above. This is also the case in your own hypothesis: implementation could not take place unless the brain expanded. However, in your hypothesis, God steps in and expands the brain BEFORE the relevant new concept (or if you like, before the innovative development of existing concepts) can be thought of. That means the thinking depends on the size of the brain – the exact opposite of the dualistic view that thinking is done by the soul.
NOT SIZE OF BRAIN, but advanced complexity within the larger size of the prefrontal cortex, as stated over and over.
dhw: As for fossil evidence, the artefacts appear alongside the new sized brain. They can only appear when the brain has finished expanding, which in my hypothesis it does BY IMPLEMENTING the concept. In both hypotheses, therefore, the appearance of the artefacts coincides with the appearance of the expanded brain.
Again the push theory as opposed to my pull theory. You won't convince me from the evidence I see. Artifacts appear after the brain has enlarged. Sapiens artifacts took 270,000 years to begin to appear after enlargement. Mind the gap, as in the Underground
Big brain evolution: changes in sapiens skull shape
DAVID: Must I repeat! The s/s/c uses a more complex cortex for more complex thought [...] Brain does operate without s/s/c running the show.
dhw: Since s/s/c uses the brain, I presume you mean brain does NOT operate without s/s/c running the show. You don’t need to repeat the formula that I keep questioning. We are discussing two stages: 1) concept; 2) implementation. According to you the s/s/c/ does the thinking. Yes or no?
DAVID: Yes
dhw: It uses the brain to implement its thoughts. Yes or no?
DAVID: Yes
dhw: Your argument that God expanded pre-sapiens brains and only then were they able to think of new concepts is also a hypothesis. It contradicts the dualistic hypothesis that thinking is not done by the brain but by the soul.
DAVID: S/s/c (immaterial) uses brain (material) to create thought is dualistic to me.
What is the difference between thinking and creating thought? You have agreed above that the soul does the thinking and the brain does the implementing. This means that the s/s/c uses the brain to implement, not to think. Your obfuscation does not resolve the contradiction: If the soul does the thinking, it does not depend on complexification or expansion of the brain to do its thinking!
dhw: […] in your hypothesis, God steps in and expands the brain BEFORE the relevant new concept (or if you like, before the innovative development of existing concepts) can be thought of. That means the thinking depends on the size of the brain – the exact opposite of the dualistic view that thinking is done by the soul.
DAVID: NOT SIZE OF BRAIN, but advanced complexity within the larger size of the prefrontal cortex, as stated over and over.
Our subject is why the pre-sapiens brain expanded, and you say your God increased its SIZE before pre-sapiens could think of new concepts. But perhaps we need to clarify the role of complexification. You keep agreeing that the soul does the thinking, and that new thoughts cause complexification: for a dualist it cannot be complexification of the brain that CAUSES thought. And so thought is implemented by complexification (proven by modern science), but once the pre-sapiens brain’s capacity for implementing concepts by complexification had reached its limit, the brain needed additional cells and connections – to implement the thoughts of the soul, not to create them! (The soul thinks and the brain implements.) After the pre-pre-sapiens brain had expanded, new concepts and their implementation once again caused complexification until once again the CAPACITY was unable to cope, and so once again the brain had to expand. Process repeated until we get to sapiens, whose brain cannot expand any further.
DAVID: You won't convince me from the evidence I see. Artifacts appear after the brain has enlarged.
Yes, the artefacts can only appear once the concept has been implemented. In your hypothesis the enlargement takes place before the concept has been thought of; in mine the enlargement takes place during and because of the implementation of the concept (once complexification can no longer cope). In both cases, the artefact itself can only appear once the brain has finished enlarging.
DAVID: Sapiens artifacts took 270,000 years to begin to appear after enlargement. Mind the gap, as in the Underground
Yes, as already explained many times: once the immediate pre-sapiens ancestor’s brain had enlarged to sapiens size in order to implement a concept, it stopped expanding. Then just as erectus spent one or two million years faffing around doing nothing special with his own enlarged brain, sapiens (according to you) faffed around for a mere 270,000 years before the geniuses appeared, and their dualistic souls came up with brilliant new concepts. But since the brain couldn’t expand any more, it complexified more and more – so efficiently that it even shrank a bit, and apparently also changed its shape. All in a smooth, totally logical sequence of cause and effect.
Big brain evolution: changes in sapiens skull shape
by David Turell , Sunday, January 28, 2018, 19:28 (2273 days ago) @ dhw
edited by David Turell, Sunday, January 28, 2018, 19:42
dhw: Your argument that God expanded pre-sapiens brains and only then were they able to think of new concepts is also a hypothesis. It contradicts the dualistic hypothesis that thinking is not done by the brain but by the soul.
DAVID: S/s/c (immaterial) uses brain (material) to create thought is dualistic to me.dhw: What is the difference between thinking and creating thought? You have agreed above that the soul does the thinking and the brain does the implementing. This means that the s/s/c uses the brain to implement, not to think. Your obfuscation does not resolve the contradiction: If the soul does the thinking, it does not depend on complexification or expansion of the brain to do its thinking!
The s/s/c uses the brain to think in the living human. I view the s/s/c as software using the brain as computer. Sorry you won't accept this theory. The s/s/c using the brain sees to the implementation which obviously requires extensive planning or physical practice: throw the spear, learn to read, etc. I'm not sure what your concept of brain implementation implies, as compared to mine of 'putting into practice'.
dhw: […] in your hypothesis, God steps in and expands the brain BEFORE the relevant new concept (or if you like, before the innovative development of existing concepts) can be thought of. That means the thinking depends on the size of the brain – the exact opposite of the dualistic view that thinking is done by the soul.DAVID: NOT SIZE OF BRAIN, but advanced complexity within the larger size of the prefrontal cortex, as stated over and over.
dhw: You keep agreeing that the soul does the thinking, and that new thoughts cause complexification: for a dualist it cannot be complexification of the brain that CAUSES thought.
Sorry. The s/s/c uses the brain as a computer and it is use of the brain which causes it to ADD complexity and shrink from new uses.
dhw: And so thought is implemented by complexification (proven by modern science)
Wrong. not thought, but use as in the newly literate example.
dhw: once the pre-sapiens brain’s capacity for implementing concepts by complexification had reached its limit, the brain needed additional cells and connections – to implement the thoughts of the soul, not to create them! (The soul thinks and the brain implements.)
See my definition of implementation above. I disagree with your theory. S/s/c software uses brain as a computer. Implementation is the bran learning to handle a new process, throwing, reading, etc., by a few new neurons and lots of connective branching.
dhw: After the pre-pre-sapiens brain had expanded, new concepts and their implementation once again caused complexification until once again the CAPACITY was unable to cope, and so once again the brain had to expand. Process repeated until we get to sapiens, whose brain cannot expand any further.
We don't know it can't expand a little further, but I agree this is most probably an endpoint which proves it is God's goal.
DAVID: Sapiens artifacts took 270,000 years to begin to appear after enlargement. Mind the gap, as in the Undergrounddhw: Yes, as already explained many times: once the immediate pre-sapiens ancestor’s brain had enlarged to sapiens size in order to implement a concept, it stopped expanding. Then just as erectus spent one or two million years faffing around doing nothing special with his own enlarged brain, sapiens (according to you) faffed around for a mere 270,000 years before the geniuses appeared, and their dualistic souls came up with brilliant new concepts. But since the brain couldn’t expand any more, it complexified more and more – so efficiently that it even shrank a bit, and apparently also changed its shape. All in a smooth, totally logical sequence of cause and effect.
Why couldn't the erctus brain have some erectus geniuses around like we have to advance as quickly as we have? Your theory can't answer that, because the rapid advance like sapiens histroy requires a sapiens brain to do it. You have a theory which is entirely backwards.
Big brain evolution: changes in sapiens skull shape
dhw: If the soul does the thinking, it does not depend on complexification or expansion of the brain to do its thinking!
DAVID: The s/s/c uses the brain to think in the living human. I view the s/s/c as software using the brain as computer. Sorry you won't accept this theory. The s/s/c using the brain sees to the implementation which obviously requires extensive planning or physical practice: throw the spear, learn to read, etc. I'm not sure what your concept of brain implementation implies, as compared to mine of 'putting into practice'.
Almost identical to my hypothesis, except that the s/s/c does not USE the brain to think. The s/s/c (software) does the thinking, and it uses the brain (computer) to give material form or expression to its thoughts/concepts (or “put them into practice”). And that is why it is topsy-turvy for you to claim that the pre-sapiens s/s/c could not think of its new concepts until the brain had already expanded. It is the implementation/”physical practice” of the new concept that complexifies or expands the brain, as you yourself explain later in your post.
dhw: You keep agreeing that the soul does the thinking, and that new thoughts cause complexification: for a dualist it cannot be complexification of the brain that CAUSES thought.
DAVID: Sorry. The s/s/c uses the brain as a computer and it is use of the brain which causes it to ADD complexity and shrink from new uses.
Why “sorry”? Complexification means adding complexity! The “soul” has the idea, it uses the brain to implement the idea, and yes, yes, yes at last, this CAUSES the complexification, and when the pre-sapiens brain capacity was no longer adequate, implementation CAUSED the addition of new cells, as you explain below. (Shrinkage in sapiens results from the efficiency of complexification, which has made some cells and connections redundant.)
DAVID: See my definition of implementation above. I disagree with your theory. S/s/c software uses brain as a computer. Implementation is the brain learning to handle a new process, throwing, reading, etc., by a few new neurons and lots of connective branching.
Precisely. When the pre-sapiens brain had exhausted its capacity for complexification, it implemented the soul’s new concepts (knapping flint, binding stone to shaft, throwing etc.) by adding NEW neurons and connections, and the addition of NEW cells led to expansion. You’ve got it!
dhw: After the pre-pre-sapiens brain had expanded, new concepts and their implementation once again caused complexification until once again the CAPACITY was unable to cope, and so once again the brain had to expand. Process repeated until we get to sapiens, whose brain cannot expand any further.
DAVID: We don't know it can't expand a little further, but I agree this is most probably an endpoint which proves it is God's goal.
Since it hasn’t expanded, it’s not unreasonable to assume that further expansion could unbalance the anatomy. One might assume that this applies to most organisms. Ants might have trouble if their heads expanded to elephant size. But who knows? Nothing to do with proving God’s goal.
DAVID: Sapiens artifacts took 270,000 years to begin to appear after enlargement. Mind the gap, as in the Underground
dhw: …just as erectus spent one or two million years faffing around doing nothing special with his own enlarged brain, sapiens (according to you) faffed around for a mere 270,000 years before the geniuses appeared, and their dualistic souls came up with brilliant new concepts…
DAVID: Why couldn't the erctus brain have some erectus geniuses around like we have to advance as quickly as we have? Your theory can't answer that, because the rapid advance like sapiens histroy requires a sapiens brain to do it. You have a theory which is entirely backwards.
And why did your God leave Homo erectus hanging around for one or two million years, when all he wanted was Homo sapiens? Mind the gap, indeed. However, my hypothesis answers all your questions. Organisms are autonomous, and every evolutionary advance originates with individuals/groups of individuals. So long as they survive, there is no need for change, but evolution also advances through a drive for improvement. After one or two million years of comparative zilch, genius erectus conceived some sort of improvement (we don’t know what) which required NEW neurons and connections, as a result of which the brain expanded to sapiens size. Sapiens also survived perfectly well for a mere 270,000 years, but then some genius came up with new ideas for improvement. The rest, as they say, is history – improvement builds on improvement. Sapiens brain couldn’t expand any more, so implementing any more new ideas now led only to further complexification of the brain (so efficiently that the brain has shrunk). A logical chain of cause and effect, and if your God exists, he set it all in motion by endowing cells/cell communities – including hominids, hominins and sapiens – with their autonomous intelligence. Now tell me what part of the history is not explained by this hypothesis.
Big brain evolution: changes in sapiens skull shape
by David Turell , Monday, January 29, 2018, 18:02 (2273 days ago) @ dhw
dhw: If the soul does the thinking, it does not depend on complexification or expansion of the brain to do its thinking!
DAVID: The s/s/c uses the brain to think in the living human. I view the s/s/c as software using the brain as computer. Sorry you won't accept this theory. The s/s/c using the brain sees to the implementation which obviously requires extensive planning or physical practice: throw the spear, learn to read, etc. I'm not sure what your concept of brain implementation implies, as compared to mine of 'putting into practice'.dhw: Almost identical to my hypothesis, except that the s/s/c does not USE the brain to think. The s/s/c (software) does the thinking, and it uses the brain (computer) to give material form or expression to its thoughts/concepts (or “put them into practice”). And that is why it is topsy-turvy for you to claim that the pre-sapiens s/s/c could not think of its new concepts until the brain had already expanded.
What is not topsy-turvy is advanced thought requires a more complex cortex, as I've explained and you will not accept in the computer analogy and shown by level of artifact complexity. Otherwise we agree.
dhw: You keep agreeing that the soul does the thinking, and that new thoughts cause complexification: for a dualist it cannot be complexification of the brain that CAUSES thought.
DAVID: Sorry. The s/s/c uses the brain as a computer and it is use of the brain which causes it to ADD complexity and shrink from new uses.dhw: Why “sorry”? Complexification means adding complexity! The “soul” has the idea, it uses the brain to implement the idea, and yes, yes, yes at last, this CAUSES the complexification, and when the pre-sapiens brain capacity was no longer adequate, implementation CAUSED the addition of new cells, as you explain below. (Shrinkage in sapiens results from the efficiency of complexification, which has made some cells and connections redundant.)
New uses add to existing complexity. And ALSO adds some neurons and many new connections while some become redundant. And the brain size shrinks!
DAVID: See my definition of implementation above. I disagree with your theory. S/s/c software uses brain as a computer. Implementation is the brain learning to handle a new process, throwing, reading, etc., by a few new neurons and lots of connective branching.dhw: Precisely. When the pre-sapiens brain had exhausted its capacity for complexification, it implemented the soul’s new concepts (knapping flint, binding stone to shaft, throwing etc.) by adding NEW neurons and connections, and the addition of NEW cells led to expansion. You’ve got it!
You've misgotten it! Complexification shrinks the brain, is the only evidence we have!
DAVID: Why couldn't the erctus brain have some erectus geniuses around like we have to advance as quickly as we have? Your theory can't answer that, because the rapid advance like sapiens history requires a sapiens brain to do it. You have a theory which is entirely backwards.
dhw: And why did your God leave Homo erectus hanging around for one or two million years, when all he wanted was Homo sapiens? Mind the gap, indeed. However, my hypothesis answers all your questions. Organisms are autonomous, and every evolutionary advance originates with individuals/groups of individuals. So long as they survive, there is no need for change, but evolution also advances through a drive for improvement. After one or two million years of comparative zilch, genius erectus conceived some sort of improvement (we don’t know what) which required NEW neurons and connections, as a result of which the brain expanded to sapiens size.
Don't ignore artifactual evidence. Erectus didn't think of much because they couldn't.
dhw: Sapiens also survived perfectly well for a mere 270,000 years, but then some genius came up with new ideas for improvement. The rest, as they say, is history – improvement builds on improvement. Sapiens brain couldn’t expand any more, so implementing any more new ideas now led only to further complexification of the brain (so efficiently that the brain has shrunk). A logical chain of cause and effect, and if your God exists, he set it all in motion by endowing cells/cell communities – including hominids, hominins and sapiens – with their autonomous intelligence. Now tell me what part of the history is not explained by this hypothesis.
Your fairy tale of cell committees having so much autonomous intellgence, which is only seen at the single cell level, and is most probably automaticity of molecular actions.
Big brain evolution: changes in sapiens skull shape
dhw: [...] the s/s/c does not USE the brain to think. The s/s/c (software) does the thinking, and it uses the brain (computer) to give material form or expression to its thoughts/concepts (or “put them into practice”). And that is why it is topsy-turvy for you to claim that the pre-sapiens s/s/c could not think of its new concepts until the brain had already expanded.
DAVID: What is not topsy-turvy is advanced thought requires a more complex cortex, as I've explained and you will not accept in the computer analogy and shown by level of artifact complexity. Otherwise we agree.
According to you as a dualist, the cortex does not do the thinking. That is done by the soul. Advanced thought requires a more complex brain for its IMPLEMENTATION, just as the software does the thinking and the computer does the implementing. More complex artefacts may be implemented by the process of the brain complexifying, but in the case of pre-sapiens, when the capacity for complexification had reached its limit, more cells and connections were needed to implement the concept, and so the process of implementation resulted in expansion. The implement could not appear until this process was complete. (My bold)
DAVID: New uses add to existing complexity. And ALSO adds some neurons and many new connections while some become redundant. And the brain size shrinks!
You keep dodging from pre-sapiens to sapiens. The adding of neurons and new connections would have been the cause for pre-sapiens expansion when the brain’s capacity for complexification had reached its limit. Sapiens could not expand any more, and so complexification took over completely and was so efficient that some neurons and connections became redundant. (My bold)
DAVID: S/s/c software uses brain as a computer. Implementation is the brain learning to handle a new process, throwing, reading, etc., by a few new neurons and lots of connective branching.
dhw: Precisely. When the pre-sapiens brain had exhausted its capacity for complexification, it implemented the soul’s new concepts (knapping flint, binding stone to shaft, throwing etc.) by adding NEW neurons and connections, and the addition of NEW cells led to expansion. You’ve got it!
DAVID: You've misgotten it! Complexification shrinks the brain, is the only evidence we have!
Again you are dodging from pre-sapiens to sapiens. We know that pre-sapiens brain expanded! That means it added new cells and connections, precisely as explained above!
dhw: After one or two million years of comparative zilch, genius erectus conceived some sort of improvement (we don’t know what) which required NEW neurons and connections, as a result of which the brain expanded to sapiens size.
DAVID: Don't ignore artifactual evidence. Erectus didn't think of much because they couldn't.
No doubt the same applies to sapiens for 270,000 years. It takes clever individuals to think up new concepts.
dhw: Sapiens also survived perfectly well for a mere 270,000 years, but then some genius came up with new ideas for improvement. The rest, as they say, is history – improvement builds on improvement. Sapiens brain couldn’t expand any more, so implementing any more new ideas now led only to further complexification of the brain (so efficiently that the brain has shrunk). A logical chain of cause and effect, and if your God exists, he set it all in motion by endowing cells/cell communities – including hominids, hominins and sapiens – with their autonomous intelligence. Now tell me what part of the history is not explained by this hypothesis.
DAVID: Your fairy tale of cell committees having so much autonomous intellgence, which is only seen at the single cell level, and is most probably automaticity of molecular actions.
You are saying why you don’t believe my hypothesis, but I asked what part of evolutionary history is not explained by it. Your hypothesis that God personally preprogrammed or dabbled every single innovation, lifestyle and natural wonder attempts to explain the history of evolution, though there is not a single shred of evidence for it. My unproven hypothesis is that cellular intelligence (perhaps God-given) explains every innovation, lifestyle and natural wonder and hence the history of evolution, and it answers all the questions your own anthropocentric hypothesis fails to answer.
Big brain evolution: changes in sapiens skull shape
by David Turell , Tuesday, January 30, 2018, 18:30 (2272 days ago) @ dhw
dhw: According to you as a dualist, the cortex does not do the thinking. That is done by the soul. Advanced thought requires a more complex brain for its IMPLEMENTATION, just as the software does the thinking and the computer does the implementing. More complex artefacts may be implemented by the process of the brain complexifying, but in the case of pre-sapiens, when the capacity for complexification had reached its limit, more cells and connections were needed to implement the concept, and so the process of implementation resulted in expansion. The implement could not appear until this process was complete. (My bold)
Except the only scientific fact we have is the brain shrinks with complexification. Very few new neurons are added and complex branching can occur within less space, not more, creating the shrinkage.
DAVID: New uses add to existing complexity. And ALSO adds some neurons and many new connections while some become redundant. And the brain size shrinks!dhw: You keep dodging from pre-sapiens to sapiens. The adding of neurons and new connections would have been the cause for pre-sapiens expansion when the brain’s capacity for complexification had reached its limit. Sapiens could not expand any more, and so complexification took over completely and was so efficient that some neurons and connections became redundant. (My bold)
My point is you cannot know what happened inside pre-sapiens brains. The new complexity more than likely shrunk the brain, since evolution builds on established processes.
DAVID: You've misgotten it! Complexification shrinks the brain, is the only evidence we have!dhw: Again you are dodging from pre-sapiens to sapiens. We know that pre-sapiens brain expanded! That means it added new cells and connections, precisely as explained above!
Wonderful. You know that as fact that new implementations forced an enlargement? Your 'push' theory has no basis in existing scientific fact.
dhw: Sapiens also survived perfectly well for a mere 270,000 years, but then some genius came up with new ideas for improvement. The rest, as they say, is history – improvement builds on improvement. Sapiens brain couldn’t expand any more, so implementing any more new ideas now led only to further complexification of the brain (so efficiently that the brain has shrunk). A logical chain of cause and effect, and if your God exists, he set it all in motion by endowing cells/cell communities – including hominids, hominins and sapiens – with their autonomous intelligence. Now tell me what part of the history is not explained by this hypothesis.DAVID: Your fairy tale of cell committees having so much autonomous intellgence, which is only seen at the single cell level, and is most probably automaticity of molecular actions.
dhw: You are saying why you don’t believe my hypothesis, but I asked what part of evolutionary history is not explained by it. Your hypothesis that God personally preprogrammed or dabbled every single innovation, lifestyle and natural wonder attempts to explain the history of evolution, though there is not a single shred of evidence for it. My unproven hypothesis is that cellular intelligence (perhaps God-given) explains every innovation, lifestyle and natural wonder and hence the history of evolution, and it answers all the questions your own anthropocentric hypothesis fails to answer.
My antropocentric hypothesis explains everything wich is why I propose it.
Big brain evolution: changes in sapiens skull shape
dhw: More complex artefacts may be implemented by the process of the brain complexifying, but in the case of pre-sapiens, when the capacity for complexification had reached its limit, more cells and connections were needed to implement the concept, and so the process of implementation resulted in expansion. The implement could not appear until this process was complete. (My bold)
DAVID: Except the only scientific fact we have is the brain shrinks with complexification. Very few new neurons are added and complex branching can occur within less space, not more, creating the shrinkage.
I thought it was a scientific fact that hominid/hominin brains expanded, and we are discussing why and how. Here are two hypotheses based on the dualistic belief that concepts are produced by the soul and not the brain: 1) the number of then existing pre-sapiens neurons and connections eventually proved inadequate to perform the actions required to implement new concepts - hence more neurons and connections (= expansion through implementation). 2) God added more neurons and connections BEFORE the souls of hominids/hominins thought up the new concepts that needed to be implemented (= expansion for no reason).
DAVID: My point is you cannot know what happened inside pre-sapiens brains. The new complexity more than likely shrunk the brain, since evolution builds on established processes.
Nobody knows, and that is why we have different hypotheses. If pre-sapiens brains were able to cope with ALL concepts by complexifying and shrinking, there would have been no need for expansion, with or without your God’s dabbles! Obviously, then pre-sapiens complexification, and the shrinkage you also insist on, were NOT adequate. Since you believe the brain does not think up concepts, quite clearly the expansion of the brain was not necessary for thinking up new concepts!
DAVID: You've misgotten it! Complexification shrinks the brain, is the only evidence we have!
dhw: Again you are dodging from pre-sapiens to sapiens. We know that pre-sapiens brain expanded! That means it added new cells and connections, precisely as explained above!
DAVID: Wonderful. You know that as fact that new implementations forced an enlargement? Your 'push' theory has no basis in existing scientific fact.
It’s a hypothesis not a fact. Your ‘pull’ theory has no basis in existing scientific fact, and it also contradicts itself, because it states that hominids/hominins could not have had their new concepts until the brain had enlarged, although according to you, thought is the product of the soul and not of the brain.
DAVID: My antropocentric hypothesis explains everything wich is why I propose it.
I shan't repeat the list of things it doesn't explain. I asked you what part of evolutionary history is not explained by my hypothesis. You still haven’t answered.
Big brain evolution: changes in sapiens skull shape
by David Turell , Wednesday, January 31, 2018, 15:39 (2271 days ago) @ dhw
DAVID: Except the only scientific fact we have is the brain shrinks with complexification. Very few new neurons are added and complex branching can occur within less space, not more, creating the shrinkage.dhw: I thought it was a scientific fact that hominid/hominin brains expanded, and we are discussing why and how. Here are two hypotheses based on the dualistic belief that concepts are produced by the soul and not the brain: 1) the number of then existing pre-sapiens neurons and connections eventually proved inadequate to perform the actions required to implement new concepts - hence more neurons and connections (= expansion through implementation).
The jello-like brain expanded and forced the skull to expand is what this means.
dhw: 2) God added more neurons and connections BEFORE the souls of hominids/hominins thought up the new concepts that needed to be implemented (= expansion for no reason).
God has His own reasons. Thank you for pointing out His actions.
dhw:Since you believe the brain does not think up concepts, quite clearly the expansion of the brain was not necessary for thinking up new concepts!
You continuously twist the ideas I present: the expansion of the brain was added cortical complexity for the s/s/c to use in developing the new ideas. Hardware and software.
DAVID: You've misgotten it! Complexification shrinks the brain, is the only evidence we have!
dhw: Again you are dodging from pre-sapiens to sapiens. We know that pre-sapiens brain expanded! That means it added new cells and connections, precisely as explained above!
DAVID: Wonderful. You know that as fact that new implementations forced an enlargement? Your 'push' theory has no basis in existing scientific fact.dhw: It’s a hypothesis not a fact.
I know that. And I said not based on any scientific fact which is true.
dhw: Your ‘pull’ theory has no basis in existing scientific fact, and it also contradicts itself, because it states that hominids/hominins could not have had their new concepts until the brain had enlarged, although according to you, thought is the product of the soul and not of the brain.
No contradiction if you realize the brain is a material computer and the s/s/c is an immaterial operating software.
DAVID: My antropocentric hypothesis explains everything which is why I propose it.dhw: I shan't repeat the list of things it doesn't explain. I asked you what part of evolutionary history is not explained by my hypothesis. You still haven’t answered.
You do have a theory that outlines how evolution appears from outside the process. It totally leaves out the obvious appearance of purpose from the standpoint of recognizing God's role.
Big brain evolution: changes in sapiens skull shape
DAVID: Except the only scientific fact we have is the brain shrinks with complexification. Very few new neurons are added and complex branching can occur within less space, not more, creating the shrinkage.
dhw: I thought it was a scientific fact that hominid/hominin brains expanded, and we are discussing why and how. Here are two hypotheses based on the dualistic belief that concepts are produced by the soul and not the brain: 1) the number of then existing pre-sapiens neurons and connections eventually proved inadequate to perform the actions required to implement new concepts - hence more neurons and connections (= expansion through implementation).
DAVID: The jello-like brain expanded and forced the skull to expand is what this means.
I know what it means. I pointed out that complexification and shrinkage are not the only scientific fact, and the question is why and how the jello-like brain expanded. Your comment is no answer to hypothesis (1).
dhw: 2) God added more neurons and connections BEFORE the souls of hominids/hominins thought up the new concepts that needed to be implemented (= expansion for no reason).
DAVID: God has His own reasons. Thank you for pointing out His actions.
I am explaining the two alternatives. Thank you for confirming that you haven’t got a clue why your God would expand the brain before there was any reason for him to do so. Your own hypothesis doesn’t make sense to you, so back you go to the same old mantra – that God’s reasoning must be different from ours. Why not allow for the possibility that our reasoning might not be different from your God’s, and consider hypothesis (1) which offers a clear reason?
dhw: Since you believe the brain does not think up concepts, quite clearly the expansion of the brain was not necessary for thinking up new concepts!
DAVID: You continuously twist the ideas I present: the expansion of the brain was added cortical complexity for the s/s/c to use in developing the new ideas. Hardware and software.
You continuously try to twist your own analogy. According to you, the cortex does not do the thinking, because you are a dualist and you believe the soul/self/consciousness does the thinking. And so the s/s/c (software) uses the brain (computer) to IMPLEMENT its ideas, not to DEVELOP them.
dhw: Your ‘pull’ theory has no basis in existing scientific fact, and it also contradicts itself, because it states that hominids/hominins could not have had their new concepts until the brain had enlarged, although according to you, thought is the product of the soul and not of the brain.
DAVID: No contradiction if you realize the brain is a material computer and the s/s/c is an immaterial operating software.
As above: the software (s/s/c) does the thinking, and so it makes absolutely no sense to say that the computer (brain) had to expand before the software (s/s/c) could think of its new ideas.
DAVID: My antropocentric hypothesis explains everything which is why I propose it.
dhw: I shan't repeat the list of things it doesn't explain. I asked you what part of evolutionary history is not explained by my hypothesis. You still haven’t answered.
DAVID: You do have a theory that outlines how evolution appears from outside the process. It totally leaves out the obvious appearance of purpose from the standpoint of recognizing God's role.
No it doesn’t. If God exists, and his evolutionary method produced an ever-changing bush of life, it makes perfect sense to suggest that his purpose was to produce an ever-changing bush of life.
Big brain evolution: changes in sapiens skull shape
by David Turell , Thursday, February 01, 2018, 18:31 (2270 days ago) @ dhw
DAVID: The jello-like brain expanded and forced the skull to expand is what this means.
I know what it means. I pointed out that complexification and shrinkage are not the only scientific fact, and the question is why and how the jello-like brain expanded. Your comment is no answer to hypothesis (1).
We both admit the brain had to enlarge to create advances. We disagree with completely opposite theories.
dhw: 2) God added more neurons and connections BEFORE the souls of hominids/hominins thought up the new concepts that needed to be implemented (= expansion for no reason).DAVID: God has His own reasons. Thank you for pointing out His actions.
dhw: I am explaining the two alternatives. Thank you for confirming that you haven’t got a clue why your God would expand the brain before there was any reason for him to do so. Your own hypothesis doesn’t make sense to you, so back you go to the same old mantra – that God’s reasoning must be different from ours. Why not allow for the possibility that our reasoning might not be different from your God’s, and consider hypothesis (1) which offers a clear reason?
I've simple said God uses evolution at his desired pace. My reasoning about God is from what I see in the history of evolution. At some point the brain had to be expanded to accommodate advances.
dhw: Since you believe the brain does not think up concepts, quite clearly the expansion of the brain was not necessary for thinking up new concepts!
DAVID: You continuously twist the ideas I present: the expansion of the brain was added cortical complexity for the s/s/c to use in developing the new ideas. Hardware and software.dhw: You continuously try to twist your own analogy. According to you, the cortex does not do the thinking, because you are a dualist and you believe the soul/self/consciousness does the thinking. And so the s/s/c (software) uses the brain (computer) to IMPLEMENT its ideas, not to DEVELOP them.
You are deliberately misinterpreting my theory. The s/s/c uses the cortex to think. The s/s/c (software) both develops concepts and implementation by using the brain (computer). I've never presently differently. As you sit at your computer and create a play, you come up with the concept for a play and then you create the dialogue (implement) all using your s/s/c. How can you separate concept and implementation as you attempted above.
dhw: Your ‘pull’ theory has no basis in existing scientific fact, and it also contradicts itself, because it states that hominids/hominins could not have had their new concepts until the brain had enlarged, although according to you, thought is the product of the soul and not of the brain.
DAVID: No contradiction if you realize the brain is a material computer and the s/s/c is an immaterial operating software.dhw: As above: the software (s/s/c) does the thinking, and so it makes absolutely no sense to say that the computer (brain) had to expand before the software (s/s/c) could think of its new ideas.
Makes perfect sense to me as I sit at my computer, coming up with answers to your statements (concepts) and typing responses (implementation).
DAVID: My antropocentric hypothesis explains everything which is why I propose it.
dhw: I shan't repeat the list of things it doesn't explain. I asked you what part of evolutionary history is not explained by my hypothesis. You still haven’t answered.
DAVID: You do have a theory that outlines how evolution appears from outside the process. It totally leaves out the obvious appearance of purpose from the standpoint of recognizing God's role.dhw: No it doesn’t. If God exists, and his evolutionary method produced an ever-changing bush of life, it makes perfect sense to suggest that his purpose was to produce an ever-changing bush of life.
With a goalless endpoint and no apparent purpose has always been your approach, except create a spectacle for God's enjoyment. He appears to be much more serious than that from the evidence at hand. Evolution creating humans is why beyond an entertaining TV show!
Big brain evolution: changes in sapiens skull shape
I’m juxtaposing parts of David’s post for the sake of continuity.
DAVID: I've simple said God uses evolution at his desired pace. My reasoning about God is from what I see in the history of evolution. […]
You asked why sapiens took 270,000 years to come up with new concepts, and I gave you a clear explanation. I asked why your God took millions of years to implement a concept you think he had from the very beginning. Your answer then was: he “has his own reasons”, and now this was what he “desired”. Maybe God desired what the history of evolution shows us: a higgledy-piggledy, ever-changing bush of life forms, lifestyles and natural wonders, including humans.
DAVID: With a goalless endpoint and no apparent purpose has always been your approach, except create a spectacle for God's enjoyment. He appears to be much more serious than that from the evidence at hand. Evolution creating humans is why beyond an entertaining TV show!
We don’t have a clue how it will all end, so it is absurd to talk of an endpoint. Meanwhile, I’m quite willing to jettison the word “enjoyment”, and stick to your own proposal of “watch with interest”. That still makes it a spectacle, and a spectacle is a goal. In passing: TV is not just “entertainment”, unless you find the news reports of millions of starving refugees, of terrorist atrocities, of political oppression “entertaining”. The only evidence we have “at hand” is the ever-changing bush of life, which includes humans, and as above you still haven’t explained why this does not suggest that your God’s purpose was to produce an ever-changing bush of life, including humans.
dhw: According to you, the cortex does not do the thinking, because you are a dualist and you believe the soul/self/consciousness does the thinking. And so the s/s/c (software) uses the brain (computer) to IMPLEMENT its ideas, not to DEVELOP them.
DAVID: You are deliberately misinterpreting my theory. The s/s/c uses the cortex to think. The s/s/c (software) both develops concepts and implementation by using the brain (computer). As you sit at your computer and create a play, you come up with the concept for a play and then you create the dialogue (implement) all using your s/s/c. How can you separate concept and implementation as you attempted above.
Separating concept and implementation is the whole essence of dualism! You keep agreeing that the s/s/c does the thinking and the brain does the implementing, and you separate the two processes with your analogy of software (soul) and computer (brain). As for your attempt at a new analogy, the dialogue and stage directions ARE the concept of the play, conceived and developed entirely by my s/s/c. The computer (brain) does not contribute a single thought, and I do not “use it” or even need it to think! I use it to implement my thoughts by giving them the material form of material letters, and I use the printer to put the material letters on material paper.
dhw: As above: the software (s/s/c) does the thinking, and so it makes absolutely no sense to say that the computer (brain) had to expand before the software (s/s/c) could think of its new ideas.
DAVID: Makes perfect sense to me as I sit at my computer, coming up with answers to your statements (concepts) and typing responses (implementation).
According to your hypothesis, you have to have a computer (enlarged brain) BEFORE you can think up your answers! (And I must have a computer before I think up my play.) Are you really telling me you can’t think of your answers without the computer? Of course you aren’t. The very idea is absurd.
Big brain evolution: changes in sapiens skull shape
by David Turell , Saturday, February 03, 2018, 00:58 (2268 days ago) @ dhw
DAVID: With a goalless endpoint and no apparent purpose has always been your approach, except create a spectacle for God's enjoyment. He appears to be much more serious than that from the evidence at hand. Evolution creating humans is why beyond an entertaining TV show!dhw:.... The only evidence we have “at hand” is the ever-changing bush of life, which includes humans, and as above you still haven’t explained why this does not suggest that your God’s purpose was to produce an ever-changing bush of life, including humans.
As I noted in the other ( autonomy) thread, God did produce an ever changing bush of life to supply energy to allow His evolutionary process to produce the final step, the human brain.
dhw: According to you, the cortex does not do the thinking, because you are a dualist and you believe the soul/self/consciousness does the thinking. And so the s/s/c (software) uses the brain (computer) to IMPLEMENT its ideas, not to DEVELOP them.DAVID: You are deliberately misinterpreting my theory. The s/s/c uses the cortex to think. The s/s/c (software) both develops concepts and implementation by using the brain (computer). As you sit at your computer and create a play, you come up with the concept for a play and then you create the dialogue (implement) all using your s/s/c. How can you separate concept and implementation as you attempted above.
dhw: Separating concept and implementation is the whole essence of dualism! You keep agreeing that the s/s/c does the thinking and the brain does the implementing, and you separate the two processes with your analogy of software (soul) and computer (brain). As for your attempt at a new analogy, the dialogue and stage directions ARE the concept of the play, conceived and developed entirely by my s/s/c. The computer (brain) does not contribute a single thought, and I do not “use it” or even need it to think! I use it to implement my thoughts by giving them the material form of material letters, and I use the printer to put the material letters on material paper.
It seems to me you have described a brainless process of producing a written play. Aren't you thinking in that thing that occupies your skull in the brain pan.
dhw: As above: the software (s/s/c) does the thinking, and so it makes absolutely no sense to say that the computer (brain) had to expand before the software (s/s/c) could think of its new ideas.DAVID: Makes perfect sense to me as I sit at my computer, coming up with answers to your statements (concepts) and typing responses (implementation).
dhw: According to your hypothesis, you have to have a computer (enlarged brain) BEFORE you can think up your answers! (And I must have a computer before I think up my play.) Are you really telling me you can’t think of your answers without the computer? Of course you aren’t. The very idea is absurd.
I can write a play entirely by hand, but my s/s/c still had to use my brain to have the thoughtds to create it. Why are you are inferring I see my brain as separte from my body, when all I am pointing out is my brain is, in a sense, my onboard computer.
Big brain evolution: changes in sapiens skull shape
dhw:.... The only evidence we have “at hand” is the ever-changing bush of life, which includes humans, and as above you still haven’t explained why this does not suggest that your God’s purpose was to produce an ever-changing bush of life, including humans.
DAVID: As I noted in the other (autonomy) thread, God did produce an ever changing bush of life to supply energy to allow His evolutionary process to produce the final step, the human brain.
Answered on the autonomy thread. You are simply repeating your belief, but you still haven’t explained why the ever-changing bush of life, which includes humans, could not denote that your God’s purpose was to produce an ever-changing bush of life that includes humans.
DAVID: The s/s/c uses the cortex to think. The s/s/c (software) both develops concepts and implementation by using the brain (computer). As you sit at your computer and create a play, you come up with the concept for a play and then you create the dialogue (implement) all using your s/s/c. How can you separate concept and implementation as you attempted above.
dhw: Separating concept and implementation is the whole essence of dualism! You keep agreeing that the s/s/c does the thinking and the brain does the implementing, and you separate the two processes with your analogy of software (soul) and computer (brain). As for your attempt at a new analogy, the dialogue and stage directions ARE the concept of the play, conceived and developed entirely by my s/s/c. The computer (brain) does not contribute a single thought, and I do not “use it” or even need it to think! I use it to implement my thoughts by giving them the material form of material letters, and I use the printer to put the material letters on material paper.
DAVID: It seems to me you have described a brainless process of producing a written play. Aren't you thinking in that thing that occupies your skull in the brain pan.
Yet again, do you or do you not believe that the soul does the thinking and the brain does the implementing? You've said umpteen times that you do, and yet still you insist that you can't THINK without your brain/computer. Of course the brain is inside the head, and you the dualist will have to tell me where you think the soul is located. See below for the absurd extension of your argument.
dhw: As above: the software (s/s/c) does the thinking, and so it makes absolutely no sense to say that the computer (brain) had to expand before the software (s/s/c) could think of its new ideas.
DAVID: Makes perfect sense to me as I sit at my computer, coming up with answers to your statements (concepts) and typing responses (implementation).
dhw: According to your hypothesis, you have to have a computer (enlarged brain) BEFORE you can think up your answers! (And I must have a computer before I think up my play.) Are you really telling me you can’t think of your answers without the computer? Of course you aren’t. The very idea is absurd.
DAVID: I can write a play entirely by hand, but my s/s/c still had to use my brain to have the thoughtds to create it. Why are you are inferring I see my brain as separte from my body, when all I am pointing out is my brain is, in a sense, my onboard computer.
You are the dualist, but even a dualist does not infer that his brain is separate from his body! Yes, your brain is the onboard computer, and according to you, your soul provides the ideas which the computer implements by giving them material form. If you now think the soul is incapable of thinking without the brain and you are incapable of working out your answers without your computer, then renounce your dualism, and we can tackle the issue of brain enlargement from a materialist standpoint.
Big brain evolution: changes in sapiens skull shape
by David Turell , Saturday, February 03, 2018, 19:30 (2267 days ago) @ dhw
dhw: but you still haven’t explained why the ever-changing bush of life, which includes humans, could not denote that your God’s purpose was to produce an ever-changing bush of life that includes humans.
I've already stated that the bush of life leads to humans. Including humans, whose complexity is not needed for survival, shows that it was God's purpose. I'm simply saying we are involved beyond any reason for it. We are too spectacular for anything other than His purpose.
DAVID: It seems to me you have described a brainless process of producing a written play. Aren't you thinking in that thing that occupies your skull in the brain pan?
dhw: Yet again, do you or do you not believe that the soul does the thinking and the brain does the implementing? You've said umpteen times that you do, and yet still you insist that you can't THINK without your brain/computer. Of course the brain is inside the head, and you the dualist will have to tell me where you think the soul is located.
Yet again, while the brain is alive, the s/s/c uses it for the individual's human thought, not just the implementation.
dhw: You are the dualist, but even a dualist does not infer that his brain is separate from his body! Yes, your brain is the onboard computer, and according to you, your soul provides the ideas which the computer implements by giving them material form. If you now think the soul is incapable of thinking without the brain and you are incapable of working out your answers without your computer, then renounce your dualism, and we can tackle the issue of brain enlargement from a materialist standpoint.
Of course in life I am attached to a functional brain. I cannot, while alive, communicate with my immaterial s/s/c except though my material brain mechanisms (cortex). If my brain function is absent, but I am sustained in resuscitation, I am not aware of my s/s/c's experiences; I am not aware of my s/s/c's experiences until I am reconnectd to a functional brain. NDE's tell us this clearly, or don't you believe that concept? Clear dualism.
Big brain evolution: changes in sapiens skull shape
dhw: …but you still haven’t explained why the ever-changing bush of life, which includes humans, could not denote that your God’s purpose was to produce an ever-changing bush of life that includes humans.
DAVID: I've already stated that the bush of life leads to humans. Including humans, whose complexity is not needed for survival, shows that it was God's purpose. I'm simply saying we are involved beyond any reason for it. We are too spectacular for anything other than His purpose.
We have both already stated a thousand times that no complexity beyond that of bacteria is needed for survival. (Single cells, as you have pointed out again today under “biological complexity”, are extremely complex, even if they are simpler than multicellular organisms.) Nature’s wonders are all spectacular, and that is why you insist that only your God could have tied the weaverbird’s knots. And that is why it makes perfect theistic sense to argue that all these innovations, lifestyles and natural wonders that make up the bush of life are too spectacular for anything other than his purpose, i.e. the ever-changing bush of life, which includes humans, could not denote that your God’s purpose was to produce an ever-changing bush of life that includes humans. (And I do like the word spectacular, which links up nicely with the word “spectacle”.)
DAVID: Yet again, while the brain is alive, the s/s/c uses it for the individual's human thought, not just the implementation.
The self/soul/consciousness also uses it for gathering information. Yet again, do you or do you not believe that you are able to think without a computer?
dhw: You are the dualist, but even a dualist does not infer that his brain is separate from his body! Yes, your brain is the onboard computer, and according to you, your soul provides the ideas which the computer implements by giving them material form. If you now think the soul is incapable of thinking without the brain and you are incapable of working out your answers without your computer, then renounce your dualism, and we can tackle the issue of brain enlargement from a materialist standpoint.
DAVID: Of course in life I am attached to a functional brain. I cannot, while alive, communicate with my immaterial s/s/c except though my material brain mechanisms (cortex). If my brain function is absent, but I am sustained in resuscitation, I am not aware of my s/s/c's experiences; I am not aware of my s/s/c's experiences until I am reconnectd to a functional brain. NDE's tell us this clearly, or don't you believe that concept? Clear dualism.
Once more you go back to separating “I” from your self/soul/consciousness. So now your self/soul cannot communicate with your self/soul unless it has a brain to do what? To receive the message from your soul and pass it on to your soul? Does that really make sense to you? As regards NDEs, of course patients are aware of their experiences. How else could they remember them? But until they are reconnected to a functional brain, they cannot tell anyone about them, i.e. cannot give them material expression. I am not arguing against dualism (I remain neutral) - I am simply pointing out to you that if you believe thought depends on the brain, and more complex thought depends on a larger brain, you are a materialist. That is why your arguments are contradictory.
Big brain evolution: changes in sapiens skull shape
by David Turell , Sunday, February 04, 2018, 18:52 (2267 days ago) @ dhw
DAVID: Yet again, while the brain is alive, the s/s/c uses it for the individual's human thought, not just the implementation.dhw: The self/soul/consciousness also uses it for gathering information. Yet again, do you or do you not believe that you are able to think without a computer?
I can't think without a brain that is functional
dhw: You are the dualist, but even a dualist does not infer that his brain is separate from his body! Yes, your brain is the onboard computer, and according to you, your soul provides the ideas which the computer implements by giving them material form. If you now think the soul is incapable of thinking without the brain and you are incapable of working out your answers without your computer, then renounce your dualism, and we can tackle the issue of brain enlargement from a materialist standpoint.DAVID: Of course in life I am attached to a functional brain. I cannot, while alive, communicate with my immaterial s/s/c except though my material brain mechanisms (cortex). If my brain function is absent, but I am sustained in resuscitation, I am not aware of my s/s/c's experiences; I am not aware of my s/s/c's experiences until I am reconnectd to a functional brain. NDE's tell us this clearly, or don't you believe that concept? Clear dualism.
dhw: Once more you go back to separating “I” from your self/soul/consciousness.
You separated my 'I' from my s/s/c. I don't see it that way. I know what I feel and it is not an illusion (Dennett). My s/s/c cannot function under my awareness if my brain is non-functional. but the s/s/c can experience 'being' without me and return to tell me about it when the NDE ends with resuscitation. Total dualism. Do you believe in NDE's as described? They are the basis of my theory.
dhw:So now your self/soul cannot communicate with your self/soul unless it has a brain to do what? To receive the message from your soul and pass it on to your soul? Does that really make sense to you? As regards NDEs, of course patients are aware of their experiences. How else could they remember them? But until they are reconnected to a functional brain, they cannot tell anyone about them, i.e. cannot give them material expression.
Read Eben Alexander's book. He only learned about his NDE experience only after he woke up from a week of deep coma with no demonstrable brain function. His description of his experience will give you a whole new perspective of this discussion.
dhw:I am not arguing against dualism (I remain neutral) - I am simply pointing out to you that if you believe thought depends on the brain, and more complex thought depends on a larger brain, you are a materialist. That is why your arguments are contradictory.
As long as you refuse to accept the s/s/c as software and the brain as hardware we will never see any agreement. Dualsim is obvious.
Big brain evolution: changes in sapiens skull shape
DAVID: I can't think without a brain that is functional
You may well be right, but that statement is pure materialism, and you claim to be a dualist.
DAVID: I cannot, while alive, communicate with my immaterial s/s/c except though my material brain mechanisms (cortex).
dhw: Once more you go back to separating “I” from your self/soul/consciousness.
DAVID: You separated my 'I' from my s/s/c. I don't see it that way. I know what I feel and it is not an illusion (Dennett).
I have not said it’s an illusion! It was you who separated the two by saying your “I” could not communicate with your “self/soul” without a brain. I have always understood your dualist belief to be that the self/soul/“I” is distinct from the body/brain (though they work together during earthly life), and lives on independently of its material container (body/brain) when it leaves the material world.
DAVID: My s/s/c cannot function under my awareness if my brain is non-functional. but the s/s/c can experience 'being' without me and return to tell me about it when the NDE ends with resuscitation. Total dualism. Do you believe in NDE's as described? They are the basis of my theory.
I keep an open mind about NDEs, and they are one of the reasons why I cannot embrace materialism. The question we are discussing is not the authenticity of NDEs, but how you can reconcile your dualism with your belief that your soul cannot think unless it has a brain.
DAVID: Read Eben Alexander's book. He only learned about his NDE experience only after he woke up from a week of deep coma with no demonstrable brain function. His description of his experience will give you a whole new perspective of this discussion.
What do you mean “he only learned about his experience”? Assuming the whole story is true, during his coma he/his self/his soul left his body. Here’s what happened next, according to his website:
QUOTE: If one had asked me before my coma how much a patient would remember after such severe meningitis, I would have answered “nothing” and been thinking in the back of my mind that no one would recover from such an illness, at least not to the point of being able to discuss their memories. Thus, you can imagine my surprise at remembering an elaborate and rich odyssey from deep within coma that comprised more than 20,000 words by the time I had written it all down during the six weeks following my return from the hospital. (My bold)
What, then, told “him” about his experience, enabling “him” to learn about it? Do you the dualist really believe his brain told his soul what his soul had experienced? The soul does the thinking and remembering, and the brain puts the experience into 20,000+ words.
dhw:I am not arguing against dualism (I remain neutral) - I am simply pointing out to you that if you believe thought depends on the brain, and more complex thought depends on a larger brain, you are a materialist. That is why your arguments are contradictory.
DAVID: As long as you refuse to accept the s/s/c as software and the brain as hardware we will never see any agreement. Dualsim is obvious.
If I were a dualist clinging to the software/hardware analogy, I would say that the soul (software) thinks up the ideas, and the brain (hardware) does no thinking of its own but is used to implement the ideas. The logical conclusion from this analogy is that the expansion of the brain had nothing to do with thinking up new concepts, but had everything to do with the implementation of those new concepts.
Big brain evolution: changes in sapiens skull shape
by David Turell , Monday, February 05, 2018, 15:58 (2266 days ago) @ dhw
DAVID: I can't think without a brain that is functional
dhw: You may well be right, but that statement is pure materialism, and you claim to be a dualist.
The s/s/c is the immaterial part that uses the material brain. Dualism. Your 'you may well be right' indicates you are not sure you think with your brain. Do you?
David: Do you believe in NDE's as described? They are the basis of my theory.[/i]
dhw: I keep an open mind about NDEs, and they are one of the reasons why I cannot embrace materialism. The question we are discussing is not the authenticity of NDEs, but how you can reconcile your dualism with your belief that your soul cannot think unless it has a brain.
DAVID: Read Eben Alexander's book. He only learned about his NDE experience only after he woke up from a week of deep coma with no demonstrable brain function. His description of his experience will give you a whole new perspective of this discussion.
dhw: What do you mean “he only learned about his experience”? Assuming the whole story is true, during his coma he/his self/his soul left his body. Here’s what happened next, according to his website:
QUOTE: If one had asked me before my coma how much a patient would remember after such severe meningitis, I would have answered “nothing” and been thinking in the back of my mind that no one would recover from such an illness, at least not to the point of being able to discuss their memories. Thus, you can imagine my surprise at remembering an elaborate and rich odyssey from deep within coma that comprised more than 20,000 words by the time I had written it all down during the six weeks following my return from the hospital. (My bold)
What, then, told “him” about his experience, enabling “him” to learn about it? Do you the dualist really believe his brain told his soul what his soul had experienced? The soul does the thinking and remembering, and the brain puts the experience into 20,000+ words.
No! His s/s/c now able to use his brain which came out of a week of coma, transmitted the NDE information into his brain, which he then could interpret thought his active material brain using the returned s/s/c software (immaterial) which carried the new memories and now he could write the 20,000 words.
dhw:I am not arguing against dualism (I remain neutral) - I am simply pointing out to you that if you believe thought depends on the brain, and more complex thought depends on a larger brain, you are a materialist. That is why your arguments are contradictory.
DAVID: As long as you refuse to accept the s/s/c as software and the brain as hardware we will never see any agreement. Dualsim is obvious.dhw: If I were a dualist clinging to the software/hardware analogy, I would say that the soul (software) thinks up the ideas, and the brain (hardware) does no thinking of its own but is used to implement the ideas. The logical conclusion from this analogy is that the expansion of the brain had nothing to do with thinking up new concepts, but had everything to do with the implementation of those new concepts.
'Implementation' is only the physical use of the body to carry out ideas, as in typing my responses to you. I develop ideas using my s/s/c which uses my brain in the process of my recognizing my own new ideas. I have no idea what your use of the word 'implementation' implies in this context.
Big brain evolution: changes in sapiens skull shape
DAVID: I can't think without a brain that is functional
dhw: You may well be right, but that statement is pure materialism, and you claim to be a dualist.
DAVID: The s/s/c is the immaterial part that uses the material brain. Dualism. Your 'you may well be right' indicates you are not sure you think with your brain. Do you?
Yes, the immaterial s/s/c using the material brain is dualism. But the s/s/c “can’t think without a brain that is functional” is materialism. You try to use NDEs to prove that the immaterial s/s/c does NOT need the brain to think, remember etc., and then you tell us the immaterial s/s/c needs the brain to think, remember etc. But you cannot see the contradiction. As for my own approach, I am indeed unsure whether I need my brain to think (materialism) or I have a thinking soul that tells my brain what to do (dualism).
DAVID: Read Eben Alexander's book. He only learned about his NDE experience only after he woke up from a week of deep coma with no demonstrable brain function.
dhw What[…] told “him” about his experience, enabling “him” to learn about it? Do you the dualist really believe his brain told his soul what his soul had experienced? The soul does the thinking and remembering, and the brain puts the experience into 20,000+ words.
DAVID: No! His s/s/c now able to use his brain which came out of a week of coma, transmitted the NDE information into his brain, which he then could interpret thought his active material brain using the returned s/s/c software (immaterial) which carried the new memories and now he could write the 20,000 words.
If his s/s/c informed his brain, “he” did not learn about his experience “only after he woke up”. And when you say he could “then interpret” it, do you think it was his brain that interpreted the experience? Do you think it is your brain or your soul that solves problems, thinks up answers to my questions, applies your knowledge of biochemistry to questions such as God’s existence and the mechanics of evolution? If his story his true, Alexander’s soul returned to his body with full knowledge of its experience, “transmitted the NDE information into his brain”, and his brain enabled him to transcribe his immaterial experience into material form: 20,000 words.
dhw: If I were a dualist clinging to the software/hardware analogy, I would say that the soul (software) thinks up the ideas, and the brain (hardware) does no thinking of its own but is used to implement the ideas. The logical conclusion from this analogy is that the expansion of the brain had nothing to do with thinking up new concepts, but had everything to do with the implementation of those new concepts.
DAVID: 'Implementation' is only the physical use of the body to carry out ideas, as in typing my responses to you. I develop ideas using my s/s/c which uses my brain in the process of my recognizing my own new ideas. I have no idea what your use of the word 'implementation' implies in this context.
The s/s/c “…uses the brain in the process of my recognizing my own new ideas” is another of your weasel wordings. For you as a dualist, it is your soul that produces and also thinks about your ideas. Implementation in this context means giving material form to immaterial ideas. Eben Alexander used his brain to type out the 20,000 words dictated by his soul. Erectus’s soul used his brain to knapp flint, tie the sharpened flint to a shaft, throw the spear at the animal. Your soul uses your brain to read my words, then it thinks about them, works out its responses, and again uses your brain to put the words it dictates into the computer. And to return to the subject under discussion, you believe that NDEs prove we do NOT need the brain to think, and so the logical extension of this belief is that the brain is only required to give material form to immaterial thought, i.e. it is a complete contradiction to argue that you cannot think without a functional brain and that the hominin could not have thought up his concepts if his brain had not already expanded.
Big brain evolution: changes in sapiens skull shape
by David Turell , Tuesday, February 06, 2018, 18:20 (2265 days ago) @ dhw
DAVID: The s/s/c is the immaterial part that uses the material brain. Dualism. Your 'you may well be right' indicates you are not sure you think with your brain. Do you?
Yes, the immaterial s/s/c using the material brain is dualism. But the s/s/c “can’t think without a brain that is functional” is materialism. You try to use NDEs to prove that the immaterial s/s/c does NOT need the brain to think, remember etc., and then you tell us the immaterial s/s/c needs the brain to think, remember etc. But you cannot see the contradiction. As for my own approach, I am indeed unsure whether I need my brain to think (materialism) or I have a thinking soul that tells my brain what to do (dualism).
The functional brain uses the s/s/c to think. In NDE's the s/s/c separates from the brain and in an unknown separate form can experience events which it can express only when reattached to a functional brain. They must work together when in life. As for your confusion, don't you control your own newly created thoughts through your s/s/c, by using your brain?
DAVID: No! His s/s/c now able to use his brain which came out of a week of coma, transmitted the NDE information into his brain, which he then could interpret thought his active material brain using the returned s/s/c software (immaterial) which carried the new memories and now he could write the 20,000 words.dhw: Do you think it is your brain or your soul that solves problems, thinks up answers to my questions, applies your knowledge of biochemistry to questions such as God’s existence and the mechanics of evolution?
The only way you can experience your s/s/c is with a living brain. They are inextricably connected. My s/s/c uses the brain to let me communicate with the thoughts I create. I=s s/s/c.
dhw: If his story his true, Alexander’s soul returned to his body with full knowledge of its experience, “transmitted the NDE information into his brain”, and his brain enabled him to transcribe his immaterial experience into material form: 20,000 words.
That fits his description. Note his s/s/c experienced the event, and Alexander interpreted it after his brain returned to functional state.
DAVID: 'Implementation' is only the physical use of the body to carry out ideas, as in typing my responses to you. I develop ideas using my s/s/c which uses my brain in the process of my recognizing my own new ideas. I have no idea what your use of the word 'implementation' implies in this context.
dhw: The s/s/c “…uses the brain in the process of my recognizing my own new ideas” is another of your weasel wordings. For you as a dualist, it is your soul that produces and also thinks about your ideas. Implementation in this context means giving material form to immaterial ideas.
I can agree to this.
dhw: And to return to the subject under discussion, you believe that NDEs prove we do NOT need the brain to think, and so the logical extension of this belief is that the brain is only required to give material form to immaterial thought, i.e. it is a complete contradiction to argue that you cannot think without a functional brain and that the hominin could not have thought up his concepts if his brain had not already expanded.
You are so confused. You keep forgetting the s/s/c is in two different states during an NDE, with an without a functional brain. In the NDE the s/s/c experiences and receives information (brain not functioning), which it only can transmit to a functional brain as function returns. Of course we need a functional brain to think.
Big brain evolution: changes in sapiens skull shape
DAVID: The functional brain uses the s/s/c to think.
For a dualist, it is the s/s/c that thinks, and it uses the brain to implement its thoughts, as you explain in your next statement.
DAVID: In NDE's the s/s/c separates from the brain and in an unknown separate form can experience events which it can express only when reattached to a functional brain.
Precisely. Expression is the material implementation of the s/s/c’s immaterial thoughts/memories/interpretations, and implementation depends on the brain.
DAVID: They must work together when in life. As for your confusion, don't you control your own newly created thoughts through your s/s/c, by using your brain?
Yes, they work together: the s/s/c does the THINKING, and the brain provides information and does the implementing. You’ve got it! So don’t keep saying the s/s/c can’t THINK without a functional brain. Control entails the conscious will. If you think the conscious will is a product of the brain and not of the soul, so be it. That is materialism. I have an open mind on the subject. Open-mindedness is not the same as “confusion”. It simply means that one sees both sides, and cannot make a decision either way.
DAVID: The only way you can experience your s/s/c is with a living brain. They are inextricably connected. My s/s/c uses the brain to let me communicate with the thoughts I create. I=s s/s/c.
And yet you believe that NDE patients experience their s/s/c without a living brain. In life they are indeed inextricably connected: the one does the thinking and the other does the implementing. If I=the s/s/c, YOU don’t need to “communicate” with YOU or your thoughts! You know what your thoughts are! You use the brain to give material expression to your thoughts, as you inadvertently agreed earlier in this post.
dhw: If his story his true, Alexander’s soul returned to his body with full knowledge of its experience, “transmitted the NDE information into his brain”, and his brain enabled him to transcribe his immaterial experience into material form: 20,000 words.
DAVID: That fits his description. Note his s/s/c experienced the event, and Alexander interpreted it after his brain returned to functional state.
Alexander IS his s/s/c! And his s/s/c remembered and interpreted the experience, and used his functioning brain to give material expression to his recollections and his interpretations. Of course it could only do this after the brain returned to its functional state. (NB I continue to adopt the dualist approach in order to point out the contradictory nature of your arguments.)
dhw: ...you believe that NDEs prove we do NOT need the brain to think, and so the logical extension of this belief is that the brain is only required to give material form to immaterial thought, i.e. it is a complete contradiction to argue that you cannot think without a functional brain and that the hominin could not have thought up his concepts if his brain had not already expanded.
DAVID: You are so confused. You keep forgetting the s/s/c is in two different states during an NDE, with an without a functional brain.
You are so confused. During an NDE (and an OBE) the s/s/c – according to all the doctors – is without a functional brain. That is why NDEs (and OBEs) are regarded as evidence for dualism.
DAVID: In the NDE the s/s/c experiences and receives information (brain not functioning), which it only can transmit to a functional brain as function returns.
Correct. As above, the s/s/c informs the resuscitated brain of its experiences so that the brain can give material expression to the s/s/c’s experience and interpretation of that experience.
DAVID: Of course we need a functional brain to think.
Welcome back to materialism. But dualists believe that the s/s/c does the thinking – as appears to be demonstrated by NDEs. We need a functional brain to express or implement our thoughts.
Apologies for all the repetition, but if you keep repeating your contradictions, I have no choice but to keep pointing them out.
Big brain evolution: changes in sapiens skull shape
by David Turell , Wednesday, February 07, 2018, 15:24 (2264 days ago) @ dhw
DAVID: They must work together when in life. As for your confusion, don't you control your own newly created thoughts through your s/s/c, by using your brain?
Yes, they work together: the s/s/c does the THINKING, and the brain provides information and does the implementing. You’ve got it! So don’t keep saying the s/s/c can’t THINK without a functional brain. Control entails the conscious will. If you think the conscious will is a product of the brain and not of the soul, so be it. That is materialism.
I can only repeat in life I reach and control my s/s/c through a functioning brain interfaced with the s/s/c.
DAVID: The only way you can experience your s/s/c is with a living brain. They are inextricably connected. My s/s/c uses the brain to let me communicate with the thoughts I create. I=s s/s/c.dhw: And yet you believe that NDE patients experience their s/s/c without a living brain.
They don't experience what the s/s/c learns until the s/s/c returns to the functional brain and informs it/them. Non-function and function are the two very separate parts of the NDE. You keep trying to fuse them.
dhw: In life they are indeed inextricably connected: the one does the thinking and the other does the implementing. If I=the s/s/c, YOU don’t need to “communicate” with YOU or your thoughts! You know what your thoughts are! You use the brain to give material expression to your thoughts, as you inadvertently agreed earlier in this post.
Whew: I know the only way my thoughts become material is if they are expressed in speech or written. I must use my material brain to reach my immaterial thoughts. No functional brain, no thoughts available.
dhw: If his story his true, Alexander’s soul returned to his body with full knowledge of its experience, “transmitted the NDE information into his brain”, and his brain enabled him to transcribe his immaterial experience into material form: 20,000 words.
DAVID: That fits his description. Note his s/s/c experienced the event, and Alexander interpreted it after his brain returned to functional state.dhw: Alexander IS his s/s/c! And his s/s/c remembered and interpreted the experience, and used his functioning brain to give material expression to his recollections and his interpretations. Of course it could only do this after the brain returned to its functional state. (NB I continue to adopt the dualist approach in order to point out the contradictory nature of your arguments.)
Alexander had no connection to his s/s/c for a week. It recorded the experience without a brain. You agree. What is contradictory?
dhw: ...you believe that NDEs prove we do NOT need the brain to think, and so the logical extension of this belief is that the brain is only required to give material form to immaterial thought, i.e. it is a complete contradiction to argue that you cannot think without a functional brain and that the hominin could not have thought up his concepts if his brain had not already expanded.
DAVID: You are so confused. You keep forgetting the s/s/c is in two different states during an NDE, with an without a functional brain.dhw: You are so confused. During an NDE (and an OBE) the s/s/c – according to all the doctors – is without a functional brain. That is why NDEs (and OBEs) are regarded as evidence for dualism.
No confusion. Evidence for dualism.
DAVID: In the NDE the s/s/c experiences and receives information (brain not functioning), which it only can transmit to a functional brain as function returns.dhw: Correct. As above, the s/s/c informs the resuscitated brain of its experiences so that the brain can give material expression to the s/s/c’s experience and interpretation of that experience.
DAVID: Of course we need a functional brain to think.
dhw: Welcome back to materialism. But dualists believe that the s/s/c does the thinking – as appears to be demonstrated by NDEs. We need a functional brain to express or implement our thoughts.
Of course the brain is material and you can't reach your s/s/c while alive without it.
Big brain evolution: changes in sapiens skull shape
Dhw: Control entails the conscious will. If you think the conscious will is a product of the brain and not of the soul, so be it. That is materialism.
DAVID: I can only repeat in life I reach and control my s/s/c through a functioning brain interfaced with the s/s/c.
You keep agreeing (as below, now bolded) that I = the s/s/c. So now apparently your s/s/c reaches and controls your s/s/c! I suggest that a dualist’s s/s/c reaches and controls the functioning brain. To use your pet analogy, the software controls the hardware.
DAVID: The only way you can experience your s/s/c is with a living brain. They are inextricably connected. My s/s/c uses the brain to let me communicate with the thoughts I create. I=s s/s/c.
dhw: And yet you believe that NDE patients experience their s/s/c without a living brain.
DAVID: They don't experience what the s/s/c learns until the s/s/c returns to the functional brain and informs it/them. Non-function and function are the two very separate parts of the NDE. You keep trying to fuse them.
The patients ARE their s/s/c! The self/soul/patient has the experience and informs the brain when the brain becomes functional again! Your confusion is exemplified again by this exchange:
DAVID: You are so confused. You keep forgetting the s/s/c is in two different states during an NDE, with an without a functional brain.
dhw: You are so confused. During an NDE (and an OBE) the s/s/c – according to all the doctors – is without a functional brain. That is why NDEs (and OBEs) are regarded as evidence for dualism.
DAVID: No confusion. Evidence for dualism.
The evidence comes from the claim that during an NDE the patient’s self does NOT have a functional brain, whereas you have just said that he/she does!
dhw: In life they [soul and brain] are indeed inextricably connected: the one does the thinking and the other does the implementing. If I=the s/s/c, YOU don’t need to “communicate” with YOU or your thoughts! You know what your thoughts are! You use the brain to give material expression to your thoughts.
DAVID: Whew: I know the only way my thoughts become material is if they are expressed in speech or written. I must use my material brain to reach my immaterial thoughts. No functional brain, no thoughts available.
First sentence exactly right. The brain gives material expression to the thoughts. Your “I” (s/s/c) has the thoughts. What you say next, however, means that you/yourself/soul don’t know what you are thinking until you have said it or written it!
dhw: Alexander IS his s/s/c! And his s/s/c remembered and interpreted the experience, and used his functioning brain to give material expression to his recollections and his interpretations. Of course it could only do this after the brain returned to its functional state. (NB I continue to adopt the dualist approach in order to point out the contradictory nature of your arguments.)
DAVID: Alexander had no connection to his s/s/c for a week. It recorded the experience without a brain. You agree. What is contradictory?
Wrong. Alexander IS his s/s/c and had no connection to his brain for a week. My parenthesis, though, is to explain why I am adopting the dualist approach, although I remain neutral in the debate. The contradiction lies between your dualistic belief that the soul/self does the thinking/remembering, and your materialistic belief that you can’t think/remember without a functioning brain.
DAVID: Of course we need a functional brain to think.
dhw: Welcome back to materialism. But dualists believe that the s/s/c does the thinking – as appears to be demonstrated by NDEs. We need a functional brain to express or implement our thoughts.
DAVID: Of course the brain is material and you can't reach your s/s/c while alive without it. [Repeated on the "chimps" thread.]
As above. Apparently you don’t know what you are thinking until you have said it or written it.
Big brain evolution: changes in sapiens skull shape
by David Turell , Thursday, February 08, 2018, 15:32 (2263 days ago) @ dhw
dhw: You keep agreeing (as below, now bolded) that I = the s/s/c. So now apparently your s/s/c reaches and controls your s/s/c! I suggest that a dualist’s s/s/c reaches and controls the functioning brain. To use your pet analogy, the software controls the hardware.
I'll accept your last sentence.
DAVID: You are so confused. You keep forgetting the s/s/c is in two different states during an NDE, with an without a functional brain.
dhw: You are so confused. During an NDE (and an OBE) the s/s/c – according to all the doctors – is without a functional brain. That is why NDEs (and OBEs) are regarded as evidence for dualism.
DAVID: No confusion. Evidence for dualism.
In an NDE the s/s/c is separated from the non-functioning brain. Operates without brain. That is first state. Second state is with functional brain with s/s/c joined to it and revealing the ezxpeiences.
The evidence comes from the claim that during an NDE the patient’s self does NOT have a functional brain, whereas you have just said that he/she does!
You just don't follow the obvious reasoning. See above.
dhw: means that you/yourself/soul don’t know what you are thinking until you have said it or written it!
Thoughts have a temporal aspect. You are not aware of what you are thinking until you think it.
dhw: Alexander IS his s/s/c and had no connection to his brain for a week. The contradiction lies between your dualistic belief that the soul/self does the thinking/remembering, and your materialistic belief that you can’t think/remember without a functioning brain.
Of course I can't think unless my brain is functional and has my s/s/c attached. Alexander lived in coma a week without knowing what was going on. When his s/s/c rejoined his physical brain, he then learned of what had happened in his past week.
DAVID: Of course we need a functional brain to think.
dhw: Welcome back to materialism. But dualists believe that the s/s/c does the thinking – as appears to be demonstrated by NDEs. We need a functional brain to express or implement our thoughts.
DAVID: Of course the brain is material and you can't reach your s/s/c while alive without it. [Repeated on the "chimps" thread.]dhw: As above. Apparently you don’t know what you are thinking until you have said it or written it.
But you do? Amazing.
Big brain evolution: changes in sapiens skull shape
dhw: You keep agreeing [ …] that I = the s/s/c. So now apparently your s/s/c reaches and controls your s/s/c! I suggest that a dualist’s s/s/c reaches and controls the functioning brain. To use your pet analogy, the software controls the hardware.
DAVID: I'll accept your last sentence.
The software is the “soul” and the hardware is the brain, so you accept that in dualism the soul controls the brain, without all this rigmarole of the soul (s/s/c = I) reaching and controlling the soul (s/s/c = I) through the brain.
DAVID: In an NDE the s/s/c is separated from the non-functioning brain. Operates without brain. That is first state. Second state is with functional brain with s/s/c joined to it and revealing the experiences.
Exactly right. You wrote: “The s/s/c is in two different states during an NDE, with and without a functional brain.” No, the s/s/c is without a functioning brain DURING the NDE, and then tells the now functioning brain about its experience AFTER the NDE. That is why NDEs are regarded as evidence for dualism. You’ve got it!
DAVID: Thoughts have a temporal aspect. You are not aware of what you are thinking until you think it.
Obviously. But you wrote “I must use my material brain to reach my immaterial thoughts”, which means: “Apparently you don’t know what you are thinking until you have said it or written it.” (My bold)
DAVID: But you do? Amazing.
Yes, I do. I am thinking all day long, and I know what I am thinking even if I say nothing and write nothing. I’ll be so bold as to say to you in all honesty that if your mind is a blank until you talk to someone or write something down, it is you who are the source of amazement.
xxxx
DAVID (under “multicellularity”): […] I am material and I can only approach my s/s/c when I start to think. I can only use my brain to make contact with my s/s/c. I=s s/s/c. You and I cannot get around the material brain is the gateway to the s/s/c.
More confusion. Your s/s/c is your immaterial self or “I”, and yet you say “I am material”! You can only make contact with yourself through the functioning brain, and yet you only “approach” your self when you start to think, and thinking is done by your self/soul (software), NOT your brain (hardware) - the very essence of dualism. This is epitomized by NDEs:
DAVID: NDE's show us the s/s/c can be separate from the brain and be entirely functional, and when reattached to the brain transmit all of its newly received information. This tells me there are two separate entities, brain and s/s/c which work together when attached.
Exactly right again. If the s/s/c, the “I”, does its thinking entirely separately from the non-functional brain, it is patently absurd to argue that the functional brain is the gateway to the s/s/c.
DAVID: Our discussion always deals with a material brain and an immaterial s/s/c, dual entities. Materialism always has to part of the discussion. Can you show me complete separation which you seem to imply?
You have just shown complete separation with the example of NDEs. There is no complete separation when the patient recovers: then the s/s/c continues to do the thinking, and uses the brain to express its thoughts.
DAVID: And I am convinced a more complex cortex must be present to allow the s/s/c to perform more complex thinking.
Then you are convinced that the s/s/c cannot think independently of the brain, in spite of NDEs, and that is materialism.
DAVID: Every development in the evolution of Homo shows us that. Complex cortex always results in more complex artifacts. Your hypothesis that a small brain can have a concept, but must enlarge to implement it has no basis in what we know about Homo evolution.
Every development in the evolution of Homo shows that the larger brain coincides with more complex artefacts. History can’t show us that the brain expanded BEFORE the artefacts were produced, which is your hypothesis. We know the brain complexifies through and not before the implementation of new concepts, so it’s feasible that the same applied to expansion.
DAVID: This also tells me the brain can receive information, can transmit information which is more than functional implementation, which you imply is all the brain does. It modifies to help with handling new concepts. Can you describe what you think implementation entails?
I have said repeatedly that the brain gathers information and passes it to the s/s/c. And yes, it modifies to help with handling new concepts - not BEFORE the concepts exist. (See also your post on the mouse cortex.) I can’t improve on the description of implementation that you wrote yourself under “Learning new tasks”, 2 December, but later wanted to rewrite: “If habilis has an idea for spears, the idea is immaterial. No brain change. Once he learns to knapp flint, attach the stone point to a wooden rod, and then practices throwing it with accuracy, there is no question his brain has enlarged with all the muscle movement and visual coordination involved”.
Big brain evolution: changes in sapiens skull shape
by David Turell , Friday, February 09, 2018, 15:05 (2262 days ago) @ dhw
DAVID: In an NDE the s/s/c is separated from the non-functioning brain. Operates without brain. That is first state. Second state is with functional brain with s/s/c joined to it and revealing the experiences.
Exactly right. You wrote: “The s/s/c is in two different states during an NDE, with and without a functional brain.” No, the s/s/c is without a functioning brain DURING the NDE, and then tells the now functioning brain about its experience AFTER the NDE. That is why NDEs are regarded as evidence for dualism. You’ve got it!
We agree.
DAVID: But you do? Amazing.dhw: Yes, I do. I am thinking all day long, and I know what I am thinking even if I say nothing and write nothing. I’ll be so bold as to say to you in all honesty that if your mind is a blank until you talk to someone or write something down, it is you who are the source of amazement.
I really feel I have blank periods.
xxxxDAVID (under “multicellularity”): […] I am material and I can only approach my s/s/c when I start to think. I can only use my brain to make contact with my s/s/c. I=s s/s/c. You and I cannot get around the material brain is the gateway to the s/s/c.
dhw; More confusion. Your s/s/c is your immaterial self or “I”, and yet you say “I am material”! You can only make contact with yourself through the functioning brain, and yet you only “approach” your self when you start to think, and thinking is done by your self/soul (software), NOT your brain (hardware) - the very essence of dualism. This is epitomized by NDEs:
You are confused. I'm never aware of my s/s/c unless my brain is functional, as per NDE's. My thinking is done by my s/s/c using my brain as hardware. In NDE's the s/s/c observes and receives information. There is no information that the s/s/c thinks during an NDE.
DAVID: And I am convinced a more complex cortex must be present to allow the s/s/c to perform more complex thinking.dhw: Then you are convinced that the s/s/c cannot think independently of the brain, in spite of NDEs, and that is materialism.
See my comment above. In NDE's the s/s/c may only receive information, not form concepts.
DAVID: Every development in the evolution of Homo shows us that. Complex cortex always results in more complex artifacts. Your hypothesis that a small brain can have a concept, but must enlarge to implement it has no basis in what we know about Homo evolution.dhw: Every development in the evolution of Homo shows that the larger brain coincides with more complex artefacts. History can’t show us that the brain expanded BEFORE the artefacts were produced, which is your hypothesis. We know the brain complexifies through and not before the implementation of new concepts, so it’s feasible that the same applied to expansion.
Except complexity shrinks brains!
DAVID: This also tells me the brain can receive information, can transmit information which is more than functional implementation, which you imply is all the brain does. It modifies to help with handling new concepts. Can you describe what you think implementation entails?dhw: I have said repeatedly that the brain gathers information and passes it to the s/s/c. And yes, it modifies to help with handling new concepts - not BEFORE the concepts exist. (See also your post on the mouse cortex.) I can’t improve on the description of implementation that you wrote yourself under “Learning new tasks”, 2 December, but later wanted to rewrite: “If habilis has an idea for spears, the idea is immaterial. No brain change. Once he learns to knapp flint, attach the stone point to a wooden rod, and then practices throwing it with accuracy, there is no question his brain has enlarged with all the muscle movement and visual coordination involved”.
My statement always meant 'prior enlargement'. I've never changed my concept.
Big brain evolution: changes in sapiens skull shape
DAVID: In an NDE the s/s/c is separated from the non-functioning brain. Operates without brain. That is first state. Second state is with functional brain with s/s/c joined to it and revealing the experiences.
dhw: Exactly right. You wrote: “The s/s/c is in two different states during an NDE, with and without a functional brain.” No, the s/s/c is without a functioning brain DURING the NDE, and then tells the now functioning brain about its experience AFTER the NDE. That is why NDEs are regarded as evidence for dualism. You’ve got it!
DAVID: We agree.
dhw: I am thinking all day long, and I know what I am thinking even if I say nothing and write nothing. I’ll be so bold as to say to you in all honesty that if your mind is a blank until you talk to someone or write something down, it is you who are the source of amazement.
DAVID: I really feel I have blank periods.
You can have as many blanks as you like, but if you are only aware of your thoughts when you speak to someone or write them down, as you claimed, you have a problem!
DAVID (under “multicellularity”): […] I am material and I can only approach my s/s/c when I start to think. I can only use my brain to make contact with my s/s/c. I=s s/s/c. You and I cannot get around the material brain is the gateway to the s/s/c.
dhw: More confusion. Your s/s/c is your immaterial self or “I”, and yet you say “I am material”! You can only make contact with yourself through the functioning brain, and yet you only “approach” your self when you start to think, and thinking is done by your self/soul (software), NOT your brain (hardware) - the very essence of dualism. This is epitomized by NDEs:
DAVID: You are confused. I'm never aware of my s/s/c unless my brain is functional, as per NDE's.
Now you say your self is never aware of your self unless your brain is functional, but in NDEs the brain is NOT functional and yet the self is aware of itself, and afterwards reveals its experiences to the brain. That is why NDEs provide evidence for dualism. You agreed at the top of this post, and now you disagree.
DAVID: My thinking is done by my s/s/c using my brain as hardware.
The s/s/c (software) does the thinking, and uses the brain (hardware) to give material expression to the thoughts.
DAVID: In NDE's the s/s/c observes and receives information. There is no information that the s/s/c thinks during an NDE.
What are you saying? That during the NDE patients are not aware of what they are experiencing? And yet when they return to the body they remember everything that happened and inform the brain about it! The thinking, remembering, interpreting is done by the s/s/c (software), and the brain (hardware) is used by the s/s/c (software) to communicate the experience to others. You keep agreeing and then disagreeing.
DAVID: And I am convinced a more complex cortex must be present to allow the s/s/c to perform more complex thinking.
dhw: Then you are convinced that the s/s/c cannot think independently of the brain, in spite of NDEs, and that is materialism.
DAVID: In NDE's the s/s/c may only receive information, not form concepts.
I don’t know if this is true, but in any case, forming concepts is not the only way of being aware of your self. The dualist’s brain would not remember or interpret an experience it never had! It can only give material expression to the thoughts (in speech or writing) after the s/s/c passes on its experiences and interpretations. If you believe the s/s/c cannot be aware of its experiences, remember, interpret without a functioning brain, as suggested by NDEs, then you may as well forget about dualism and embrace materialism.
dhw: Every development in the evolution of Homo shows that the larger brain coincides with more complex artefacts. History can’t show us that the brain expanded BEFORE the artefacts were produced, which is your hypothesis. We know the brain complexifies through and not before the implementation of new concepts, so it’s feasible that the same applied to expansion.
DAVID: Except complexity shrinks brains!
Explained over and over again: in pre-humans, brain reaches point where greater capacity necessary (same in your own hypothesis, so no disagreement there); in modern humans, expansion not possible; complexification so efficient that it shrinks brain.
dhw: I can’t improve on the description of implementation that you wrote yourself under “Learning new tasks”, 2 December, but later wanted to rewrite: “If habilis has an idea for spears, the idea is immaterial. No brain change. Once he learns to knapp flint, attach the stone point to a wooden rod, and then practices throwing it with accuracy, there is no question his brain has enlarged with all the muscle movement and visual coordination involved”.
DAVID: My statement always meant 'prior enlargement'. I've never changed my concept.
You asked me to describe what implementation entailed, and your account is as clear a description as possible. Immaterial idea first. NO BRAIN CHANGE. New activities, brain “has enlarged” with all the movement etc. involved. I know you wish you hadn’t written it, but that’s not the point. It’s the perfect description of what implementation entails according to my hypothesis.
Big brain evolution: changes in sapiens skull shape
by David Turell , Saturday, February 10, 2018, 20:57 (2260 days ago) @ dhw
edited by David Turell, Saturday, February 10, 2018, 21:02
DAVID: I really feel I have blank periods.
dhw: You can have as many blanks as you like, but if you are only aware of your thoughts when you speak to someone or write them down, as you claimed, you have a problem!
At times I speak to me, but I can be totally unproductive of thought and just observing.
DAVID (under “multicellularity”): […] I am material and I can only approach my s/s/c when I start to think. I can only use my brain to make contact with my s/s/c. I=s s/s/c. You and I cannot get around the material brain is the gateway to the s/s/c.DAVID: You are confused. I'm never aware of my s/s/c unless my brain is functional, as per NDE's.
dhw: Now you say your self is never aware of your self unless your brain is functional, but in NDEs the brain is NOT functional and yet the self is aware of itself, and afterwards reveals its experiences to the brain. That is why NDEs provide evidence for dualism. You agreed at the top of this post, and now you disagree.
According to Eben Alexander in his book he was totally an observer and had lost sense of self or memory of himself. "Self is aware of self" does not fit his experience. You are making assumptions. All of the material I have read presents a picture of the s/s/c while separate simply observing and receiving information. We've agreed I can only work with my s/s/c when my brain functions
DAVID: My thinking is done by my s/s/c using my brain as hardware.dhw: The s/s/c (software) does the thinking, and uses the brain (hardware) to give material expression to the thoughts.
DAVID: In NDE's the s/s/c observes and receives information. There is no information that the s/s/c thinks during an NDE.
dhw: What are you saying? That during the NDE patients are not aware of what they are experiencing? And yet when they return to the body they remember everything that happened and inform the brain about it!
I keep repeating. The s/s/c is a receiver of information in an NDE and when reattached to a functional brain the patient then learns about the experience.
>
DAVID: In NDE's the s/s/c may only receive information, not form concepts.
dhw: I don’t know if this is true, but in any case, forming concepts is not the only way of being aware of your self.
Alexander wites he was not aware of self during the experience.
dhw: Every development in the evolution of Homo shows that the larger brain coincides with more complex artefacts. History can’t show us that the brain expanded BEFORE the artefacts were produced, which is your hypothesis.
You cannot get around the fact that more advanced artifacts only appear when we find a hominin with a larger brain present.
dhw: We know the brain complexifies through and not before the implementation of new concepts, so it’s feasible that the same applied to expansion[/i].
You are struggling. The only sceintific fact we have is brain shrinkage with new uses. The rest of your theory is all conjecture with no basis.
DAVID: Except complexity shrinks brains!dhw:Explained over and over again: in pre-humans, brain reaches point where greater capacity necessary (same in your own hypothesis, so no disagreement there); in modern humans, expansion not possible; complexification so efficient that it shrinks brain.
Again an unproven leap of faith. How do we know only modern humans had shrinking brains with new implementations? Evolution builds on past methods and advances. Complexity from new uses very likely occurred in past hominins with some brain shrinkage.
dhw: I can’t improve on the description of implementation that you wrote yourself under “Learning new tasks”, 2 December, but later wanted to rewrite: “If habilis has an idea for spears, the idea is immaterial. No brain change. Once he learns to knapp flint, attach the stone point to a wooden rod, and then practices throwing it with accuracy, there is no question his brain has enlarged with all the muscle movement and visual coordination involved”.DAVID: My statement always meant 'prior enlargement'. I've never changed my concept.
dhw: You asked me to describe what implementation entailed, and your account is as clear a description as possible. Immaterial idea first. NO BRAIN CHANGE. New activities, brain “has enlarged” with all the movement etc. involved. I know you wish you hadn’t written it, but that’s not the point. It’s the perfect description of what implementation entails according to my hypothesis.
Way do you think I constantly deny your theory as anything reasonable? I don't wish anything of the sort about not writing it. I obviously mistyped my thought which was that only an enlarged brain could create the new artifacts and implementations. I've never changed my underlying concept and now you have implied I'm not feeling truthful about my true theories. Frankly I was confused when you offered the quote I had written. I saw how it appeared in the wrong way for my meaning, and in haste I must have written it that way and did not re-read to copy edit myself to be sure it was correct as written. I admit I do this in haste at times when other duties at the ranch are calling me.
Big brain evolution: changes in sapiens skull shape
DAVID: At times I speak to me, but I can be totally unproductive of thought and just observing.
Not the point. You claim you are only aware of your thoughts if you talk to someone or write them down. I don’t believe it.
DAVID: … I'm never aware of my s/s/c unless my brain is functional, as per NDE's.
dhw: …in NDEs the brain is NOT functional and yet the self is aware of itself, and afterwards reveals its experiences to the brain. That is why NDEs provide evidence for dualism…
DAVID: ...according to Eben Alexander in his book he was totally an observer and had lost sense of self or memory of himself. "Self is aware of self" does not fit his experience. You are making assumptions. All of the material I have read presents a picture of the s/s/c while separate simply observing and receiving information.
This is akin to the Buddhist philosophy of losing the sense of self, which makes sense, but was not quite what I meant. You are right to challenge what I wrote. I’ll try to be more precise. In earthly life too, as you say above, there are countless times when we merely observe. We do not say to ourselves: “This is me observing the monster approaching with a knife in his hand.” Observation or absorption of information precedes our thoughts about what we have observed. It would have to be the same with NDEs. When the immediate experience is over, we (and Alexander) remember, interpret, analyse. The dualist’s “we” = the s/s/c, not the brain. (More below.)
DAVID: We've agreed I can only work with my s/s/c when my brain functions.
No, we haven’t. We've agreed that we can only express or implement thoughts etc. with a functional brain. The dualist’s I = s/s/c. Now you seem to be saying I/the s/s/c can only think when the brain functions. But the whole point of using NDEs as evidence of dualism is that the s/s/c, which does our thinking, remembering, interpreting, exists independently of the brain! If these immaterial processes depend on the brain (and they may well do so), we are back to materialism.
DAVID: I keep repeating. The s/s/c is a receiver of information in an NDE and when reattached to a functional brain the patient then learns about the experience.
I remember examples of NDEs in which the patient was told to return but didn’t want to, which suggests more than observation, but let’s stick to Alexander. Why do you say he only “learns” about the experience when his brain is functioning? The experience is lodged in his s/s/c, not his brain. The only possible direction of “learning” is the brain learning from s/s/c, not the other way round! And so we return to the basis of dualism: NDEs provide evidence that the s/s/c exists independently of the brain. The s/s/c does the thinking/remembering/ interpreting etc. and passes its thoughts to the brain so that the thoughts may be given material expression or implementation. What objection do you now have to this hypothesis, to which you have already agreed so many times?
xxxxx
DAVID: You cannot get around the fact that more advanced artifacts only appear when we find a hominin with a larger brain present.
Correct. In BOTH hypotheses, the artefact can only appear when the concept has been implemented. You say the enlargement preceded the implementation, and I propose that the implementation caused the enlargement.
DAVID: The only scientific fact we have is brain shrinkage with new uses. The rest of your theory is all conjecture with no basis.
And:
DAVID: How do we know only modern humans had shrinking brains with new implementations? Evolution builds on past methods and advances. Complexity from new uses very likely occurred in past hominins with some brain shrinkage.
It may well have done. But according to your unscientific conjecture, the point was reached when the brain had to be enlarged in order to cope with new demands, and so you say your God did the enlarging BEFORE new demands made it necessary. My unscientific conjecture is that the brain had to enlarge itself WHEN new demands made enlargement necessary. My conjecture is based on the one scientific fact we do have, which is that the brain RESPONDS to new tasks, and does not change before the new tasks are at hand, as you so rightly point out under “Brain complexity: gene response…”.
dhw: I can’t improve on the description of implementation that you wrote yourself under “Learning new tasks”, 2 December, but later wanted to rewrite: “If habilis has an idea for spears, the idea is immaterial. No brain change. Once he learns to knapp flint, attach the stone point to a wooden rod, and then practices throwing it with accuracy, there is no question his brain has enlarged with all the muscle movement and visual coordination involved”.
DAVID: …I don't wish anything of the sort about not writing it. I obviously mistyped my thought which was that only an enlarged brain could create the new artifacts and implementations. I've never changed my underlying concept and now you have implied I'm not feeling truthful about my true theories etc.
Absolutely not, and I apologize if I gave you that impression! You asked me how I thought implementation worked, and I quoted your description because I cannot improve on perfection! Of course I accept that you didn’t mean to write what you wrote.
Big brain evolution: changes in sapiens skull shape
by David Turell , Sunday, February 11, 2018, 18:13 (2260 days ago) @ dhw
DAVID: We've agreed I can only work with my s/s/c when my brain functions.dhw: No, we haven’t. We've agreed that we can only express or implement thoughts etc. with a functional brain. The dualist’s I = s/s/c. Now you seem to be saying I/the s/s/c can only think when the brain functions. But the whole point of using NDEs as evidence of dualism is that the s/s/c, which does our thinking, remembering, interpreting, exists independently of the brain! If these immaterial processes depend on the brain (and they may well do so), we are back to materialism.
The point I was making, using the NDE's as background, is when the brain is not functioning, the s/s/c separated and is off having an experience, which it can disclose to the brain only when the brain is once again functional. The 'I' in the equation i=s/s/c as a living person becomes aware of the experience only when the s/s/c and brain are reunited. I cannot have a feeling of selfhood unless my brain is functional. The living brain and the s/s/c only work together when joined.
dhw: I remember examples of NDEs in which the patient was told to return but didn’t want to, which suggests more than observation,
I agree that the s/s/c in an NDE receives information and makes observations as its primary function. There are interactions where they express a wish to stay and are told they must go back.
dhw: let’s stick to Alexander. Why do you say he only “learns” about the experience when his brain is functioning? The experience is lodged in his s/s/c, not his brain. The only possible direction of “learning” is the brain learning from s/s/c, not the other way round!
Of course his now functioning brain receives the information, and that occurs only when Alexander is able to turn on his brain and understand what it now contains. This is a temporal sequence. Alexander, the live 'himself', during the week-long coma, had no knowledge of the NDE until he revived and then explored the knowledge his brain now can transmit to him. For me I view a living person as having a sense of self through his living brain. He uses his s/s/c (immaterial) only through his functional brain (material). Dualsim
dhw:And so we return to the basis of dualism: NDEs provide evidence that the s/s/c exists independently of the brain. The s/s/c does the thinking/remembering/ interpreting etc. and passes its thoughts to the brain so that the thoughts may be given material expression or implementation. What objection do you now have to this hypothesis, to which you have already agreed so many times?
I think you make the whole arrangement as more complex that it is. The brain and s/s/c must intimately interface for us to think.
xxxxxDAVID: You cannot get around the fact that more advanced artifacts only appear when we find a hominin with a larger brain present.
dhw: Correct. In BOTH hypotheses, the artefact can only appear when the concept has been implemented. You say the enlargement preceded the implementation, and I propose that the implementation caused the enlargement.
I know that.
DAVID: The only scientific fact we have is brain shrinkage with new uses. The rest of your theory is all conjecture with no basis.
And:
DAVID: How do we know only modern humans had shrinking brains with new implementations? Evolution builds on past methods and advances. Complexity from new uses very likely occurred in past hominins with some brain shrinkage.dhw: It may well have done. But according to your unscientific conjecture, the point was reached when the brain had to be enlarged in order to cope with new demands, and so you say your God did the enlarging BEFORE new demands made it necessary.
To my memory, you have never commented on my point that an early hominin could not know what he did not know and couldn't imagine with his smaller brain. The more complex larger brain allowed such thought. That would be consistent with the artifact level related to each brain size.
dhw: My unscientific conjecture is that the brain had to enlarge itself WHEN new demands made enlargement necessary. My conjecture is based on the one scientific fact we do have, which is that the brain RESPONDS to new tasks, and does not change before the new tasks are at hand, as you so rightly point out under “Brain complexity: gene response…”.
And your conjecture consistently ignores the issue of brain shrinkage with implementation complexity as a scientifc fact we know about the brain under use.
Big brain evolution: changes in sapiens skull shape
DAVID: The point I was making, using the NDE's as background, is when the brain is not functioning, the s/s/c separated and is off having an experience, which it can disclose to the brain only when the brain is once again functional.
Total agreement, from a dualistic standpoint.
DAVID: The 'I' in the equation i=s/s/c as a living person becomes aware of the experience only when the s/s/c and brain are reunited.
Dualism entails separating brain from s/s/c, as in your computer analogy. The brain (hardware) only becomes aware of the experience when it is informed by the s/s/c (software). The brain wasn’t there. So of course they have to be reunited before the brain can give material expression to the s/s/c’s immaterial memories. (See below.)
DAVID: I cannot have a feeling of selfhood unless my brain is functional. The living brain and the s/s/c only work together when joined.
I tried to explain a “feeling of selfhood” in my previous post. When in life we observe, we do not think of ourselves as observing. “Selfhood” comes into play when we think about what we observed. Ditto with NDEs. The patient (Alexander) is still himself/herself without a brain during an NDE, but may not analyse the experience until afterwards. However, see below for more reflections on this. Second sentence: Of course two things only work together when joined. The question is how they work, and as you keep agreeing and then disagreeing, the s/s/c does the thinking (software) and the brain gives material expression to the thought (hardware). That is how they work together.
dhw: I remember examples of NDEs in which the patient was told to return but didn’t want to, which suggests more than observation.
DAVID: I agree that the s/s/c in an NDE receives information and makes observations as its primary function. There are interactions where they express a wish to stay and are told they must go back.
And this shows that the patient not only observes but also has a feeling of selfhood.
DAVID: Of course his now functioning brain receives the information, and that occurs only when Alexander is able to turn on his brain and understand what it now contains.
Your usual dodge from I=s/s/c to Alexander being different from “I”. Of course the brain cannot receive the information from Alexander’s s/s/c until it becomes functional again. But it is the s/s/c that had, remembers and analyses the experience. I don’t see the logic in the s/s/c informing the brain of what it knows, and then thinking: “Ah, now that I've given the information to the brain I am able to understand it."
DAVID: This is a temporal sequence. Alexander, the live 'himself', during the week-long coma, had no knowledge of the NDE until he revived and then explored the knowledge his brain now can transmit to him.
As above, and a total reversal of dualism. The non-functional brain had no knowledge, but Alexander’s self/soul/consciousness had the experience, remembered it, and explored its implications. The brain can’t transmit to the soul the knowledge it never had!
DAVID: For me I view a living person as having a sense of self through his living brain. He uses his s/s/c (immaterial) only through his functional brain (material). Dualism
Let’s look more closely at this “sense of self”. Starting point: the self is the soul that does the thinking, remembering, interpreting etc., and exists independently during NDEs. It also imposes itself during some NDEs, rather than merely observing (see above). However, our sense of self in the material world is intimately linked to our relations with that world, including other people. That is why the brain gives material expression to the thoughts etc. of the s/s/c. Dualism.
DAVID: The brain and s/s/c must intimately interface for us to think.
They must interface if the s/s/c’s thoughts (software) are to be given material form, which is the function of the brain (hardware) – your favourite analogy. As I pointed out earlier, if you can’t think without speaking or writing, I believe you have a problem.
xxxxx
DAVID: To my memory, you have never commented on my point that an early hominin could not know what he did not know and couldn't imagine with his smaller brain. The more complex larger brain allowed such thought. That would be consistent with the artifact level related to each brain size.
Nobody can know what they don’t know, whether their brain is large or small! Every innovation is an extension of knowledge, and even your self-contradictory belief that the s/s/c CAN’T think without a functioning brain, although it CAN think without a functioning brain, still requires an individual to conceive something that nobody knew before. In both hypotheses, artefacts cannot appear until the concept is implemented. i.e. the brain has enlarged.
DAVID: … your conjecture consistently ignores the issue of brain shrinkage with implementation complexity as a scientifc fact we know about the brain under use.
Dealt with over and over again. I suggest that brain shrinkage occurs because of the efficiency of complexification. This may also have been true of hominin brains. However, both hypotheses agree that brain expansion became necessary. That does not mean that brain expansion occurred BEFORE implementation made it necessary!
Big brain evolution: changes in sapiens skull shape
by David Turell , Monday, February 12, 2018, 15:30 (2259 days ago) @ dhw
DAVID: The point I was making, using the NDE's as background, is when the brain is not functioning, the s/s/c separated and is off having an experience, which it can disclose to the brain only when the brain is once again functional.
DAVID: I cannot have a feeling of selfhood unless my brain is functional. The living brain and the s/s/c only work together when joined.
dhw: Of course two things only work together when joined. The question is how they work, and as you keep agreeing and then disagreeing, the s/s/c does the thinking (software) and the brain gives material expression to the thought (hardware). That is how they work together.
Agreed.
DAVID: Of course his now functioning brain receives the information, and that occurs only when Alexander is able to turn on his brain and understand what it now contains.
dhw: Your usual dodge from I=s/s/c to Alexander being different from “I”. Of course the brain cannot receive the information from Alexander’s s/s/c until it becomes functional again. But it is the s/s/c that had, remembers and analyses the experience. I don’t see the logic in the s/s/c informing the brain of what it knows, and then thinking: “Ah, now that I've given the information to the brain I am able to understand it."
Again your confusion about a functional brain. Unless the brain is turned on after the event Alexander cannot experience his s/s/c and learn its information. Would you know your s/s/c existed if your brain stopped working? They are interfaced!
DAVID: This is a temporal sequence. Alexander, the live 'himself', during the week-long coma, had no knowledge of the NDE until he revived and then explored the knowledge his brain now can transmit to him.dhw: As above, and a total reversal of dualism. The non-functional brain had no knowledge, but Alexander’s self/soul/consciousness had the experience, remembered it, and explored its implications. The brain can’t transmit to the soul the knowledge it never had!
Of course not! The s/s/c return to a functional brain, and now a newly awake Alexander learns of the experience. One can relate to one's soul only through a functional brain.
DAVID: For me I view a living person as having a sense of self through his living brain. He uses his s/s/c (immaterial) only through his functional brain (material). Dualismdhw: However, our sense of self in the material world is intimately linked to our relations with that world, including other people. That is why the brain gives material expression to the thoughts etc. of the s/s/c. Dualism.
Separation from other folks is not entirely what a sense of self is. My thoughts are immaterial, not a material expression of my s/s/c, but they come from a material brain. Dualism
DAVID: The brain and s/s/c must intimately interface for us to think.They must interface if the s/s/c’s thoughts (software) are to be given material form, which is the function of the brain (hardware) – your favourite analogy. .
xxxxx
DAVID: … your conjecture consistently ignores the issue of brain shrinkage with implementation complexity as a scientifc fact we know about the brain under use.
dhw: Dealt with over and over again. I suggest that brain shrinkage occurs because of the efficiency of complexification. This may also have been true of hominin brains. However, both hypotheses agree that brain expansion became necessary. That does not mean that brain expansion occurred BEFORE implementation made it necessary!
So necessity drives evolution. Whew!
Big brain evolution: changes in sapiens skull shape
DAVID: The living brain and the s/s/c only work together when joined.
dhw: Of course two things only work together when joined. The question is how they work, and as you keep agreeing and then disagreeing, the s/s/c does the thinking (software) and the brain gives material expression to the thought (hardware). That is how they work together.
DAVID: Agreed.
Then let us keep this in mind throughout our discussion.
DAVID: Of course his now functioning brain receives the information, and that occurs only when Alexander is able to turn on his brain and understand what it now contains.
dhw: Your usual dodge from I=s/s/c to Alexander being different from “I”. Of course the brain cannot receive the information from Alexander’s s/s/c until it becomes functional again. But it is the s/s/c that had, remembers and analyses the experience. I don’t see the logic in the s/s/c informing the brain of what it knows, and then thinking: “Ah, now that I've given the information to the brain I am able to understand it."
DAVID: Again your confusion about a functional brain. Unless the brain is turned on after the event Alexander cannot experience his s/s/c and learn its information. Would you know your s/s/c existed if your brain stopped working? They are interfaced!
Once again you try to separate Alexander from his s/s/c. Alexander’s s/s/c was what experienced the NDE, carried all the information, and passed the information on to the revived brain. Are you now saying that Alexander’s s/s/c didn’t know it was observing God and the angels etc. until it returned to his revived brain, and then it informed the brain about something it (the s/s/c) didn’t know??? The whole point about NDEs as evidence for dualism is that self/soul/CONSCIOUSNESS (which is not confined to self-analysis) exists when the brain stops working. Interface occurs when the s/s/c thinks and the brain gives material expression to the thought, as you agree at the top of this post.
DAVID: This is a temporal sequence. Alexander, the live 'himself', during the week-long coma, had no knowledge of the NDE until he revived and then explored the knowledge his brain now can transmit to him.
dhw: The brain can’t transmit to the soul the knowledge it never had!
DAVID: Of course not! The s/s/c return to a functional brain, and now a newly awake Alexander learns of the experience. One can relate to one's soul only through a functional brain.
As above, Alexander IS his self/soul. His self/soul knew of the experience. His brain didn’t. Did the patients who initially refused to go back not know who they were?
dhw: However, our sense of self in the material world is intimately linked to our relations with that world, including other people. That is why the brain gives material expression to the thoughts etc. of the s/s/c. Dualism.
DAVID: Separation from other folks is not entirely what a sense of self is. My thoughts are immaterial, not a material expression of my s/s/c, but they come from a material brain. Dualism
Communicating with other people is part of what gives us our sense of self. The rest of your statement is as confused as it could possibly be. Of course your thoughts are not a material expression of your s/s/c. They are immaterial, and dualism argues that immaterial thoughts do NOT come from a material brain but from the s/s/c! The material brain gives immaterial thoughts their material expression, as you agreed at the beginning of this post. THAT is dualism.
xxxxx
DAVID: … your conjecture consistently ignores the issue of brain shrinkage with implementation complexity as a scientifc fact we know about the brain under use.
dhw: Dealt with over and over again. I suggest that brain shrinkage occurs because of the efficiency of complexification. This may also have been true of hominin brains. However, both hypotheses agree that brain expansion became necessary. That does not mean that brain expansion occurred BEFORE implementation made it necessary!
DAVID: So necessity drives evolution. Whew!
You have taken a giant leap, and ignored the whole context. Let me spell it out for you again bit by bit. Evolution, according to my hypothesis, advances through a drive for survival and/or improvement. Pre-sapiens had a concept whereby his chances of survival would be improved: a spear. In order to make a spear, he had to perform certain new material actions, but those actions necessitated changes to his brain. So survival and/or improvement drive evolution, but it is not possible to perform new tasks without changing the brain. THAT is what “necessity” means here. We know that pre-sapiens brains expanded, and we know that new actions cause changes (or “modifications”) to the brain. To return to the subject that you have ignored in your “Whew!”, shrinkage is probably the outcome of efficient complexification, and has no bearing whatsoever on your claim that both concept and enlargement preceded implementation. However, you appear to have abandoned that hypothesis in your post under “Brain complexity”: “At each stage in the size of brain as human evolution proceeded, that size had plasticity and could modify with new implementations.” (My bold) And earlier: "Implementation results in automatic plasticity changes." (My bold) Yes, it changes WITH or as a result of new implementations, and not BEFORE them.
Big brain evolution: changes in sapiens skull shape
by David Turell , Wednesday, February 14, 2018, 02:07 (2257 days ago) @ dhw
DAVID: Again your confusion about a functional brain. Unless the brain is turned on after the event Alexander cannot experience his s/s/c and learn its information. Would you know your s/s/c existed if your brain stopped working? They are interfaced!
dhw: Once again you try to separate Alexander from his s/s/c. Alexander’s s/s/c was what experienced the NDE, carried all the information, and passed the information on to the revived brain.
A comatose Alexander lying in his hospital bed did not know for a week what happened. Yes, his s/s/c knew but his physical body and physical brain did not know until the reunion. Out of coma he (material) could learn about all of it (immaterial).
. dhw: The whole point about NDEs as evidence for dualism is that self/soul/CONSCIOUSNESS (which is not confined to self-analysis) exists when the brain stops working. Interface occurs when the s/s/c thinks and the brain gives material expression to the thought, as you agree at the top of this post.
Yes, but Alexander has two existences during the NDE: the physical body/brain lying there and the immaterial s/s/c traipsing around!
As above, Alexander IS his self/soul. His self/soul knew of the experience. His brain didn’t. Did the patients who initially refused to go back not know who they were?
Their s/s/c did, but their comatose body/brain did not
dhw: However, our sense of self in the material world is intimately linked to our relations with that world, including other people. That is why the brain gives material expression to the thoughts etc. of the s/s/c. Dualism.
DAVID: Separation from other folks is not entirely what a sense of self is. My thoughts are immaterial, not a material expression of my s/s/c, but they come from a material brain. Dualismdhw: Communicating with other people is part of what gives us our sense of self.
You are again in the area of solipsism. I know my 'self' is me with or without other selves being around
dhw: The rest of your statement is as confused as it could possibly be. Of course your thoughts are not a material expression of your s/s/c. They are immaterial, and dualism argues that immaterial thoughts do NOT come from a material brain but from the s/s/c! The material brain gives immaterial thoughts their material expression, as you agreed at the beginning of this post. THAT is dualism.
And I agree to that. His dualism is that for a week he was in two parts.
xxxxxdhw: Evolution, according to my hypothesis, advances through a drive for survival and/or improvement. Pre-sapiens had a concept whereby his chances of survival would be improved: a spear. In order to make a spear, he had to perform certain new material actions, but those actions necessitated changes to his brain. So survival and/or improvement drive evolution,
As you know I'm not convinced of the survival argument, since we see very long pauses (270,000 years in our case) in bare survival mode before evidence of new concepts and implementations appear. The Neanderthals are a case in point: fewer concepts and advances despite a bigger brain. This implies their cortex arrived in their new-formed species much less complex than ours. Initial complexity is extremely important. We had it, they didn't.
As for improvement, I see a radiation of forms many of which (whales) are unreasonable examples of improvement
dhw: but it is not possible to perform new tasks without changing the brain. THAT is what “necessity” means here. We know that pre-sapiens brains expanded, and we know that new actions cause changes (or “modifications”) to the brain.
Yes, complexity, plasticity and shrinkage, nothing more.
Big brain evolution: changes in sapiens skull shape
DAVID: Again your confusion about a functional brain. Unless the brain is turned on after the event Alexander cannot experience his s/s/c and learn its information. Would you know your s/s/c existed if your brain stopped working? They are interfaced!
dhw: Once again you try to separate Alexander from his s/s/c. Alexander’s s/s/c was what experienced the NDE, carried all the information, and passed the information on to the revived brain.
DAVID: A comatose Alexander lying in his hospital bed did not know for a week what happened. Yes, his s/s/c knew but his physical body and physical brain did not know until the
reunion. Out of coma he (material) could learn about all of it (immaterial).
Yes, his immaterial s/s/c passed the information on to his revived material brain, so his revived material brain learned about it from his immaterial s/s/c. Why do you repeat my point as if you are disagreeing with it?
dhw: The whole point about NDEs as evidence for dualism is that self/soul/ CONSCIOUSNESS (which is not confined to self-analysis) exists when the brain stops working. Interface occurs when the s/s/c thinks and the brain gives material expression to the thought….
DAVID: Yes, but Alexander has two existences during the NDE: the physical body/brain lying there and the immaterial s/s/c traipsing around!
Why “Yes, but…”? His physical body played no part in the experience, which is why the s/s/c passed on all the information, and why the experience is offered as evidence for dualism. So why do you keep insisting that the s/s/c cannot THINK without a functioning brain? This is the claim that leads you into all your contradictions. The whole discussion revolves round your insistence that hominins could not conceive of new ideas until they had larger brains. NDEs suggest to us that the brain is NOT the source of immaterial thought. Conceptualizing is immaterial thought. You keep agreeing: s/s/c thinks, brain implements, and then you ignore it again.
DAVID: My thoughts are immaterial, not a material expression of my s/s/c, but they come from a material brain. Dualism
dhw: […] your statement is as confused as it could possibly be. Of course your thoughts are not a material expression of your s/s/c. They are immaterial, and dualism argues that immaterial thoughts do NOT come from a material brain but from the s/s/c! The material brain gives immaterial thoughts their material expression, as you agreed at the beginning of this post. THAT is dualism.
DAVID: And I agree to that. His dualism is that for a week he was in two parts.
Exactly. One part was functioning and the other was not. And that is why it is clearly contradictory to argue that the s/s/c cannot THINK without a functioning brain and that thought depends on the size of the brain.
dhw: Communicating with other people is part of what gives us our sense of self.
DAVID: You are again in the area of solipsism. I know my 'self' is me with or without other selves being around.
No disagreement, but the self develops through experience. I can find out more about myself through my experiences with other people. That is why in this material life we need our brains to gather information and to give material expression to our thoughts.
xxxxx
dhw: Evolution, according to my hypothesis, advances through a drive for survival and/or improvement. Pre-sapiens had a concept whereby his chances of survival would be improved: a spear. In order to make a spear, he had to perform certain new material actions, but those actions necessitated changes to his brain. So survival and/or improvement drive evolution,
DAVID: As you know I'm not convinced of the survival argument, since we see very long pauses (270,000 years in our case) in bare survival mode before evidence of new concepts and implementations appear.
We are talking about advances in evolution. The pauses (stasis) take place when organisms have what they need to survive. The advances take place when (a) their survival is threatened, and (b) when individuals come up with new ideas that will IMPROVE chances of survival or IMPROVE modes of living.
DAVID: As for improvement, I see a radiation of forms many of which (whales) are unreasonable examples of improvement
Yes to a radiation of forms. There is nothing at all unreasonable if pre-whales entered the water in order to improve their chances of survival and if, in the course of time, they improved their modes of adaptation to aquatic life. It only seems unreasonable to you because it doesn’t fit in with your anthropocentrism, and because you insist that God engineers every adaptation in advance of changing conditions instead of the adaptations taking place in response to changing conditions.
dhw: ...but it is not possible to perform new tasks without changing the brain. THAT is what “necessity” means here. We know that pre-sapiens brains expanded, and we know that new actions cause changes (or “modifications”) to the brain.
DAVID: Yes, complexity, plasticity and shrinkage, nothing more.
Plasticity is what allows the different modifications. Why do you refuse to accept that the addition of lots of cells and connections leading to enlargement is also a “modification”?
Big brain evolution: changes in sapiens skull shape
by David Turell , Wednesday, February 14, 2018, 19:39 (2256 days ago) @ dhw
DAVID: Again your confusion about a functional brain. Unless the brain is turned on after the event Alexander cannot experience his s/s/c and learn its information. Would you know your s/s/c existed if your brain stopped working? They are interfaced!
dhw: Once again you try to separate Alexander from his s/s/c. Alexander’s s/s/c was what experienced the NDE, carried all the information, and passed the information on to the revived brain.
DAVID: A comatose Alexander lying in his hospital bed did not know for a week what happened. Yes, his s/s/c knew but his physical body and physical brain did not know until the reunion. Out of coma he (material) could learn about all of it (immaterial).
dhw: Yes, his immaterial s/s/c passed the information on to his revived material brain, so his revived material brain learned about it from his immaterial s/s/c. Why do you repeat my point as if you are disagreeing with it?
Because his physical being was separated for a period from his s/s/c. Look at what you wrote above. The separation strongly supports dualism
dhw: The whole point about NDEs as evidence for dualism is that self/soul/ CONSCIOUSNESS (which is not confined to self-analysis) exists when the brain stops working. Interface occurs when the s/s/c thinks and the brain gives material expression to the thought….
DAVID: Yes, but Alexander has two existences during the NDE: the physical body/brain lying there and the immaterial s/s/c traipsing around!dhw: His physical body played no part in the experience, which is why the s/s/c passed on all the information, and why the experience is offered as evidence for dualism. So why do you keep insisting that the s/s/c cannot THINK without a functioning brain? This is the claim that leads you into all your contradictions. The whole discussion revolves round your insistence that hominins could not conceive of new ideas until they had larger brains. NDEs suggest to us that the brain is NOT the source of immaterial thought. Conceptualizing is immaterial thought. You keep agreeing: s/s/c thinks, brain implements, and then you ignore it again.
Because you will not accept my view of NDE. The s/s/c can separate from the brain in two circumstances, resuscitation back to life and death. Only an intact s/s/c interfaced with a functional brain can allow a living person to think. That has nothing to do with the concept that only a more complex cortex can have more complex ideation by the s/s/c.
DAVID: And I agree to that. His dualism is that for a week he was in two parts.
Exactly. One part was functioning and the other was not. And that is why it is clearly contradictory to argue that the s/s/c cannot THINK without a functioning brain and that thought depends on the size of the brain.
You are attempting to combine two separate concepts. The s/s/c can think with or without a brain, but its level of complex thought generated within a living person depends on the complexity/size of that cortex. Think of this: was the s/s/c of erectus as complex as ours in the level of thought achieved? I believe the complexity of s/s/c evolved as Homo did.
xxxxx
DAVID: As you know I'm not convinced of the survival argument, since we see very long pauses (270,000 years in our case) in bare survival mode before evidence of new concepts and implementations appear.
dhw: We are talking about advances in evolution. The pauses (stasis) take place when organisms have what they need to survive. The advances take place when (a) their survival is threatened, and (b) when individuals come up with new ideas that will IMPROVE chances of survival or IMPROVE modes of living.
You are simply rephrasing 'survival of the fittest', which I do not accept.
dhw: ...but it is not possible to perform new tasks without changing the brain. THAT is what “necessity” means here. We know that pre-sapiens brains expanded, and we know that new actions cause changes (or “modifications”) to the brain.
DAVID: Yes, complexity, plasticity and shrinkage, nothing more.
dhw: Plasticity is what allows the different modifications. Why do you refuse to accept that the addition of lots of cells and connections leading to enlargement is also a “modification”?
Because the only facts we have in sapiens is shrinkage.
Big brain evolution: changes in sapiens skull shape
I have edited this heavily, as there is a great deal of repetition, and a lot of the ground is covered on the “Brain complexity” thread.
dhw: Yes, his [Alexander’s] immaterial s/s/c passed the information on to his revived material brain, so his revived material brain learned about it from his immaterial s/s/c. Why do you repeat my point as if you are disagreeing with it?
DAVID: Because his physical being was separated for a period from his s/s/c. Look at what you wrote above. The separation strongly supports dualism
Of course it does. The point in dispute here is not dualism but your continued insistence, directly contradicting your dualistic beliefs based on NDEs, that the s/s/c cannot THINK without a functioning brain!
DAVID: His dualism is that for a week he was in two parts.
Dhw: Exactly. One part was functioning and the other was not. And that is why it is clearly contradictory to argue that the s/s/c cannot THINK without a functioning brain and that thought depends on the size of the brain.
DAVID: You are attempting to combine two separate concepts. The s/s/c can think with or without a brain, but its level of complex thought generated within a living person depends on the complexity/size of that cortex. Think of this: was the s/s/c of erectus as complex as ours in the level of thought achieved? I believe the complexity of s/s/c evolved as Homo did.
So do I. The s/s/c evolves and complexifies with every new experience, but that doesn’t alter the basis of your dualism, which you keep forgetting: namely, that thought does not depend on the brain but comes from the s/s/c (see reminder below), in which case complex thought does not depend on complex brain! Every stage of evolution is carried over to the next stage. If the pre-erectus s/s/c thought of spears and his brain expanded with implementation of the idea of spears, erectus now has a larger more complex brain, and his s/s/c is now more complex and knowledgeable because of the new experience of making spears. And when eventually the erectus s/s/c comes up with some brand new concept demanding the same process of enlargement to implement the concept, we come to sapiens. And the sapiens s/s/c is now more complex, with all the new knowledge and experience of his predecessors, and he has a larger more complex brain.
Reminder (from Feb. 13): …as you keep agreeing and then disagreeing, the s/s/c does the thinking (software) and the brain gives material expression to the thought (hardware). That is how they work together.
DAVID: Agreed.
dhw: Then let us keep this in mind throughout our discussion.
You still don’t.
xxxxx
DAVID: As you know I'm not convinced of the survival argument, since we see very long pauses (270,000 years in our case) in bare survival mode before evidence of new concepts and implementations appear.
dhw: We are talking about advances in evolution. The pauses (stasis) take place when organisms have what they need to survive. The advances take place when (a) their survival is threatened, and (b) when individuals come up with new ideas that will IMPROVE chances of survival or IMPROVE modes of living.
DAVID: You are simply rephrasing 'survival of the fittest', which I do not accept.
As always, you try to ignore “improvement”, so please forget the expression which you dislike so much and which I have not used, and explain to me what you disagree with in the argument you have quoted, paying special attention to (b).
dhw: ...but it is not possible to perform new tasks without changing the brain. THAT is what “necessity” means here. We know that pre-sapiens brains expanded, and we know that new actions cause changes (or “modifications”) to the brain.
DAVID: Yes, complexity, plasticity and shrinkage, nothing more.
dhw: Plasticity is what allows the different modifications. Why do you refuse to accept that the addition of lots of cells and connections leading to enlargement is also a “modification”?
DAVID: Because the only facts we have in sapiens is shrinkage.
We are trying to explain enlargement, which is also a fact. You accept that new actions cause “modifications” to the brain. Enlargement is a modification. By all means reject the hypothesis on the grounds that we have no evidence (just as we have no evidence that your God enlarged the brain before the new actions were performed), but there is no reason to reject it on the grounds that enlargement is not a modification.
Big brain evolution: changes in sapiens skull shape
by David Turell , Thursday, February 15, 2018, 15:25 (2256 days ago) @ dhw
DAVID: Because his physical being was separated for a period from his s/s/c. Look at what you wrote above. The separation strongly supports dualism
dhw:Of course it does. The point in dispute here is not dualism but your continued insistence, directly contradicting your dualistic beliefs based on NDEs, that the s/s/c cannot THINK without a functioning brain!
Of course it thinks when separated from the body, but when it returns and is attached to the brain and the revived person receives its knowledge through the brain. A living person can reach his s/s/c only through his brain. The s/s/c has a role with the brain and separate from the brain. Dualism.
DAVID: You are attempting to combine two separate concepts. The s/s/c can think with or without a brain, but its level of complex thought generated within a living person depends on the complexity/size of that cortex. Think of this: was the s/s/c of erectus as complex as ours in the level of thought achieved? I believe the complexity of s/s/c evolved as Homo did.
dhw: So do I. The s/s/c evolves and complexifies with every new experience, but that doesn’t alter the basis of your dualism, which you keep forgetting: namely, that thought does not depend on the brain but comes from the s/s/c (see reminder below), in which case complex thought does not depend on complex brain!
But in my view it does. Only a complex computer can do complex simulations. The erectus s/s/c was not the sapiens current s/s/c, which is based on the hardware of our sapiens brain. Software and hardware have to match.
dhw: Every stage of evolution is carried over to the next stage. If the pre-erectus s/s/c thought of spears and his brain expanded with implementation of the idea of spears, erectus now has a larger more complex brain, and his s/s/c is now more complex and knowledgeable because of the new experience of making spears. And when eventually the erectus s/s/c comes up with some brand new concept demanding the same process of enlargement to implement the concept, we come to sapiens. And the sapiens s/s/c is now more complex, with all the new knowledge and experience of his predecessors, and he has a larger more complex brain.
Again you imagine a pushing mechanism to enlarge the brain. I am happy with God speciating each stage of enlarged brain.
xxxxx
dhw: We are talking about advances in evolution. The pauses (stasis) take place when organisms have what they need to survive. The advances take place when (a) their survival is threatened, and (b) when individuals come up with new ideas that will IMPROVE chances of survival or IMPROVE modes of living.
DAVID: You are simply rephrasing 'survival of the fittest', which I do not accept.dhw: As always, you try to ignore “improvement”, so please forget the expression which you dislike so much and which I have not used, and explain to me what you disagree with in the argument you have quoted, paying special attention to (b).
Improvement is answered in the other thread. I think the emphasis is complexity as explained there. Each stage of an enlarged brain allowed pre-sapiens to develop a better way of living, but it required the enlarged brain for each advance.
dhw: ...but it is not possible to perform new tasks without changing the brain. THAT is what “necessity” means here. We know that pre-sapiens brains expanded, and we know that new actions cause changes (or “modifications”) to the brain.
DAVID: Yes, complexity, plasticity and shrinkage, nothing more.
dhw: Plasticity is what allows the different modifications. Why do you refuse to accept that the addition of lots of cells and connections leading to enlargement is also a “modification”?
DAVID: Because the only facts we have in sapiens is shrinkage.dhw: We are trying to explain enlargement, which is also a fact. You accept that new actions cause “modifications” to the brain. Enlargement is a modification. By all means reject the hypothesis on the grounds that we have no evidence (just as we have no evidence that your God enlarged the brain before the new actions were performed), but there is no reason to reject it on the grounds that enlargement is not a modification.
You are playing games with the word 'modification'. Enlargement and cortical complexity are specific modifications, which I think God supplied.
Big brain evolution: is this reptile an improvement?
by David Turell , Thursday, February 15, 2018, 20:26 (2255 days ago) @ David Turell
Improvement is a word that doesn't carry much of a meaning. Improve what? Form, function, physiology? Does the improvement show a purposeful change? This reptile makes little sense:
https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/laelaps/why-the-long-neck1/?utm_source=newsletter&...
" A standout among reptiles of its time, the amphibious creature has long, low body is capped with an extraordinary neck and tiny head full of pointed teeth.
"But how did Tanystropheus make its living? The context of its prehistoric environment hints that Tanystropheus lived along ancient shores. That much experts could agree upon. But the reptile didn’t look like a streamlined swimmer. Maybe, as various artists famously envisioned, Tanystropheus gripped slippery rocks along the shore and dipped its head in the water to snag unsuspecting fish in the shallows. What else could such a ridiculous neck be for?
"The wait-and-dip scenario never had direct evidence in support of it, though. It was just difficult to imagine Tanystropheus doing anything else. But now a new analysis by paleontologists Silvio Renesto and Franco Saller has attempted to paint a finer-detailed picture of Tanystropheus lived.
"As far as that ludicrous neck goes, Renesto and Saller point out, Tanystropheus didn’t have much flexibility. Previous studies had found that the reptile’s 13 neck vertebrae were relatively rigid, stiff in both horizontal and vertical planes. Whipping its neck after fish wasn’t on this saurian’s agenda. And while found shoreline habitats, Tanystropheus also seemed to lack traits associated with strong swimming skills.
"To better understand the enigmatic reptile, then, Renesto and Saller looked to the biomechanics of its trunk, hips, and limbs. Tanystropheus ends up as a mish-mash of traits that would have made it a somewhat awkward reptile. While the arms and legs of the Triassic creature were relatively slender and seem best suited to life on land, the researchers point out, its limbs would have allowed it to row through the water.
"The new study places the predatory activities of Tanystropheus more in the waves than at the water’s edge. “Tanystropheus may have had lived in a shore line environment, where the elongate neck, may have been used to catch preys in shallow water by dashing at the prey propelled by hindlimbs,” Renesto and Saller write. And a tiny head on a long neck might have been advantageous in such a scenario, allowing Tanystropheus to surreptitiously get closer to prey with its tiny head than if its potential victims detected the motion of its larger body.
"Whatever Tanystropheus was doing, however, it was good at it. Renesto and Saller point out that this reptile was widespread in both time and geography – several Tanystropheus species lived on Earth from ancient Italy to China and North America over the course of tens of millions of years. Strange as they look to us, these were not evolutionary novelties that were destined to fail. They were a hit, which only deepens the mystery of how they lived."
Comment: It apparently did well with this shape, but was not followed up by future forms. It was a dead end. Improvement should advance evolution, but only part of the time. Complexity is more to the point. It reaches an endpoint of humans.
Big brain evolution: changes in sapiens skull shape
I am combining this thread with “Brain complexity” as the arguments overlap, and I have tried to edit out most of the repetitions.
dhw: …you are forgetting yet again the very essence of your dualism and your analogy, to which you have agreed over and over again: that the software (s/s/c) thinks up the concepts, and the hardware (brain) implements them. The hardware does not “allow” the software to think!
DAVID: And you are not following my concept. only an advanced hardware brain allows advanced thought. Erectus s/s/c is not sapiens s/s/c.
No, I don’t follow your concept, and I keep pointing out that you use NDEs as evidence for your dualistic belief that the s/s/c is responsible for thought. That is why dualists believe that in earthly life there are TWO separate entities that work together: 1) mind, 2) body. Forget about “advanced”. Thought is thought, whether it’s advanced or not. The brain does not “allow” thought because, as you keep agreeing, the s/s/c does the thinking and the brain gives material expression to the s/s/c’s thoughts, just as the hardware gives material expression to the software. The s/s/c evolves, both in species and in individuals (your s/s/c is not mine), and of course sapiens as a species has evolved far beyond erectus, both in thinking and in implementing. That does not mean the dualist’s s/s/c depends on your God to provide new neurons and connections BEFORE it can come up with new ideas!
dhw: 1) Why can you accept a few new neurons but not a lot of new neurons as “modification”?
DAVID: Because that is how plasticity is described in the literature.
dhw: Plasticity is simply the ability to change, to be shaped or moulded, to adapt…I don’t know of any definition of plasticity that places a limit on the number of cells that can be changed.
DAVID: My answer is above. Plasticity allows a few new neurons in the research done. It is mostly connectivity.
That is because you cannot do research on living brains a million years old, and the modern brain has stopped expanding. It complexifies through new connections (and has shrunk because of the efficiency of complexification). It is a fact that brains expanded in stages. This is just as true of your hypothesis as of mine, and so a million years ago brains must have been plastic enough to allow for lots of new neurons.
xxxxx
dhw: The point in dispute here is not dualism but your continued insistence, directly contradicting your dualistic beliefs based on NDEs, that the s/s/c cannot THINK without a functioning brain!
DAVID: Of course it thinks when separated from the body, but when it returns and is attached to the brain and the revived person receives its knowledge through the brain. A living person can reach his s/s/c only through his brain. The s/s/c has a role with the brain and separate from the brain. Dualism.
The s/s/c IS the person. A dead body has lost the attributes that made it a person. It is the s/s/c that had the experience and informs the revived brain. The soul/self doesn’t “reach” the soul/self through the brain. In dualism, as above, the soul/self IS itself, and instructs the brain! THAT is its dualistic role with the brain when the brain functions.
xxxxx
dhw: We are talking about advances in evolution. The pauses (stasis) take place when organisms have what they need to survive. The advances take place when (a) their survival is threatened, and (b) when individuals come up with new ideas that will IMPROVE chances of survival or IMPROVE modes of living.
DAVID: Improvement is answered in the other thread. I think the emphasis is complexity as explained there. Each stage of an enlarged brain allowed pre-sapiens to develop a better way of living, but it required the enlarged brain for each advance.
Improvement is dealt with under “automaticity” and "reptile". I’m glad you acknowledge its importance(“better way of living”). And yes,these advances could not have been implemented without the enlargement of the brain. The question is whether it was enlarged before concept and implementation or as a result of implementation. You say you are “happy with God speciating each stage of enlarged brain”. I don’t want to spoil your happiness. But let me point out that all our observations suggest that brain modifications occur as a result of implementing new ideas, and not in advance of implementation.
dhw: You accept that new actions cause “modifications” to the brain. Enlargement is a modification. By all means reject the hypothesis on the grounds that we have no evidence (just as we have no evidence that your God enlarged the brain before the new actions were performed), but there is no reason to reject it on the grounds that enlargement is not a modification.
DAVID: You are playing games with the word 'modification'. Enlargement and cortical complexity are specific modifications, which I think God supplied.
I’m afraid it was you who played games by claiming that only complexification, plasticity and shrinkage could be called “modifications”. Thank you for now accepting that enlargement is also a modification, and since you agree that new actions cause modifications, it is not unreasonable to propose that in the distant past new actions caused enlargement, even if the very idea makes you unhappy.
Big brain evolution: changes in sapiens skull shape
by David Turell , Friday, February 16, 2018, 15:44 (2255 days ago) @ dhw
DAVID: And you are not following my concept. only an advanced hardware brain allows advanced thought. Erectus s/s/c is not sapiens s/s/c.
dhw: No, I don’t follow your concept, and I keep pointing out that you use NDEs as evidence for your dualistic belief that the s/s/c is responsible for thought. That is why dualists believe that in earthly life there are TWO separate entities that work together: 1) mind, 2) body. Forget about “advanced”. Thought is thought, whether it’s advanced or not. The brain does not “allow” thought because, as you keep agreeing, the s/s/c does the thinking and the brain gives material expression to the s/s/c’s thoughts, just as the hardware gives material expression to the software.
I'll accept your comment, but not the point about 'allow'. You've not answered the juxtaposition in history of complex brain and complex artifacts, as current humans show, and is obvious in past history. A complex s/s/c requires a complex cortex to function at an advanced level of thought.
dhw: The s/s/c evolves, both in species and in individuals (your s/s/c is not mine), and of course sapiens as a species has evolved far beyond erectus, both in thinking and in implementing. That does not mean the dualist’s s/s/c depends on your God to provide new neurons and connections BEFORE it can come up with new ideas!
But enlargement always proceeds improved artifacts, and I beliee God provided the advance since He arranges for speciation.
DAVID: My answer is above. Plasticity allows a few new neurons in the research done. It is mostly connectivity.
dhw: That is because you cannot do research on living brains a million years old, and the modern brain has stopped expanding. It complexifies through new connections (and has shrunk because of the efficiency of complexification). It is a fact that brains expanded in stages. This is just as true of your hypothesis as of mine, and so a million years ago brains must have been plastic enough to allow for lots of new neurons.
We don't know the brain and skull won't expand again, and ancient brains jumped in size by 200 cc with each enlargement. Adding the need for increased skull size means brain plasticity alone is only part of a complex process in advancement. Not by chance. God in action.
xxxxx
DAVID: Of course it thinks when separated from the body, but when it returns and is attached to the brain and the revived person receives its knowledge through the brain. A living person can reach his s/s/c only through his brain. The s/s/c has a role with the brain and separate from the brain. Dualism.
dhw: The s/s/c IS the person. A dead body has lost the attributes that made it a person. It is the s/s/c that had the experience and informs the revived brain. The soul/self doesn’t “reach” the soul/self through the brain. In dualism, as above, the soul/self IS itself, and instructs the brain! THAT is its dualistic role with the brain when the brain functions.
As a living physical person I can only sense my s/s/c through my functioning brain. Currently my s/s/c is in my skull doing my immaterial thinking. I believe my s/s/c is a quantum mechanism totally intimately interfaced with the physical brain (Penrose). As I think I am in control of my s/s/c which I formed from childhood. My concept of dualism differs from yours. The s/s/c mechanism is an organized quantum arrangement, yet to be discovered. It can separate and go into an afterlife. Only its thought capacity is immaterial.
xxxxx
DAVID: Improvement is answered in the other thread. I think the emphasis is complexity as explained there. Each stage of an enlarged brain allowed pre-sapiens to develop a better way of living, but it required the enlarged brain for each advance.
dhw: The question is whether it was enlarged before concept and implementation or as a result of implementation. You say you are “happy with God speciating each stage of enlarged brain”. But let me point out that all our observations suggest that brain modifications occur as a result of implementing new ideas, and not in advance of implementation.
The only size modification we know is shrinkage, no matter how you twist it!
dhw: I’m afraid it was you who played games by claiming that only complexification, plasticity and shrinkage could be called “modifications”. Thank you for now accepting that enlargement is also a modification, and since you agree that new actions cause modifications, it is not unreasonable to propose that in the distant past new actions caused enlargement, even if the very idea makes you unhappy.
Propose it if it makes you happy. All we know is shrinkage.
Big brain evolution: consciousness and brain activity
by David Turell , Friday, February 16, 2018, 20:22 (2254 days ago) @ David Turell
A professor of psychiatry describes the intimate relationship of conscious activity and brain connections:
https://medicalxpress.com/news/2018-02-approaches-neuroscience.html
"Our own unique experiences shape how we view the world and respond to the events in our lives. But experience is highly subjective. What's distressing or joyful to one person may be very different to another.
"These differences can matter, especially as a growing body of research shows that what happens in our inner landscapes - our thoughts about and interpretations of our experiences - can have physical consequences in our brains and bodies.
***
"'How we experience the world affects us in more ways than we previously thought," says Davidson, William James and Vilas Professor of Psychology and Psychiatry at UW-Madison. "We're finding that emotions and thoughts can alter neural pathways in the brain in relatively short amounts of time and even affect processes like gene expression and aging."
***
"This framework stands in contrast to the tendency of neuroscientists to place more value on behavior in lieu of studying experience. In his talk, Davidson made the case for more fully integrating emerging scientific knowledge of the mind-body connection with neuroscience study design.
"Not only should individual experience be more fully accounted for and measured in neuroscience studies, Davidson argues, efforts to do so are revealing previously unknown neural networks that are implicated in well-being and mental health disorders.
"The problem, he says, is that experience has long been thought of as synonymous with behavior, when in fact the two are separate and can influence each other.
"Davidson and other scientists in the field have used imaging tools like functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) and electroencephalography (EEG) to measure activity and structures in the brain while observing relationships between specific neural networks and behaviors.
"'What's exciting about these findings is that when we take experience into account, certain neural mechanisms are implicated that would not otherwise be identified," he says. "The findings underscore the importance of taking both experience and behavior into account when building neural accounts of emotion, well-being and psychopathology."
Comment: The point I am making is the evidence of the intimate interlocking of our consciousness and brain plasticity working hand in hand. Does consciousness control the brain changes or does the brain change itself in response to the consciousness activity? I see what is shown as brain responsiveness in and of its own actions. The immaterial, by using the brain changes its complexity which is material.
Big brain evolution: consciousness and brain activity
DAVID: A professor of psychiatry describes the intimate relationship of conscious activity and brain connections:
https://medicalxpress.com/news/2018-02-approaches-neuroscience.html
QUOTE: "The problem, he says, is that experience has long been thought of as synonymous with behavior, when in fact the two are separate and can influence each other.”
I am astonished to read this. I don’t know of anyone who would regard the two concepts as being synonymous, and the fact that experience can influence behaviour (ask a rape victim) and behaviour can influence experience (if I bop my neighbour on the head, I might well experience and be changed by the pleasures of a prison cell) seems to me so self-evident that I wonder where the professor has been living during these long years. Apologies for my bluntness.
DAVID’s comment: The point I am making is the evidence of the intimate interlocking of our consciousness and brain plasticity working hand in hand. Does consciousness control the brain changes or does the brain change itself in response to the consciousness activity? I see what is shown as brain responsiveness in and of its own actions. The immaterial, by using the brain changes its complexity which is material.
I have no doubt that consciousness (the s/s/c) and the brain work, so to speak, hand in hand, whether you are a dualist or a materialist. And I have no doubt that immaterial thought can change the material brain (as well as other parts of the body). And it seems to me absolutely logical that the same process would have taken place among pre-sapiens species: namely, that the immaterial s/s/c used the material brain and thereby modified it. Size, as you have now agreed, is one form of modification.
Big brain evolution: consciousness and brain activity
by David Turell , Saturday, February 17, 2018, 15:22 (2254 days ago) @ dhw
DAVID’s comment: The point I am making is the evidence of the intimate interlocking of our consciousness and brain plasticity working hand in hand. Does consciousness control the brain changes or does the brain change itself in response to the consciousness activity? I see what is shown as brain responsiveness in and of its own actions. The immaterial, by using the brain changes its complexity which is material.
dhw: I have no doubt that consciousness (the s/s/c) and the brain work, so to speak, hand in hand, whether you are a dualist or a materialist. And I have no doubt that immaterial thought can change the material brain (as well as other parts of the body). And it seems to me absolutely logical that the same process would have taken place among pre-sapiens species: namely, that the immaterial s/s/c used the material brain and thereby modified it. Size, as you have now agreed, is one form of modification.
Note in the other thread the anatomic problems related to a jump in brain size: skull size and female pelvic modifications.
Big brain evolution: changes in sapiens skull shape
DAVID: And you are not following my concept. only an advanced hardware brain allows advanced thought. Erectus s/s/c is not sapiens s/s/c.
dhw: No, I don’t follow your concept, and I keep pointing out that you use NDEs as evidence for your dualistic belief that the s/s/c is responsible for thought. That is why dualists believe that in earthly life there are TWO separate entities that work together: 1) mind, 2) body. Forget about “advanced”. Thought is thought, whether it’s advanced or not. The brain does not “allow” thought because, as you keep agreeing, the s/s/c does the thinking and the brain gives material expression to the s/s/c’s thoughts, just as the hardware gives material expression to the software.
DAVID: I'll accept your comment, but not the point about 'allow'. You've not answered the juxtaposition in history of complex brain and complex artifacts, as current humans show, and is obvious in past history. A complex s/s/c requires a complex cortex to function at an advanced level of thought.
And: .. enlargement always proceeds improved artifacts, and I believe God provided the advance since He arranges for speciation.
I have answered the question every time you have raised it. The artefacts can only appear when the brain has finished making the changes needed for implementation. You say your God changed the brain BEFORE implementation. I suggest implementation caused the changes. The outcome is the same for both hypotheses: the artefacts appear alongside the enlarged brain (pre-sapiens). Of course you won’t find the artefacts preceding the enlargement, and of course you will find artefacts made after the enlargement once the new concept has been implemented. Later generations may continue to produce the same artefacts for thousands of years. But the question is what CAUSED the enlargement in the first place. The implementation of modern artefacts CAUSES brain change, so it is logical to assume that there was a similar process in the past.
DAVID (later in the post): The only size modification we know is shrinkage, no matter how you twist it!
This is not “twisting”. Nobody knows why the brain enlarged, and so we propose hypotheses. We DO know that implementation causes modifications now, and so once again it is not unreasonable to propose that implementation caused modifications in the past. You yourself used that argument in relation to complexity and shrinkage, and you now acknowledge that enlargement is a modification.
dhw: …a million years ago brains must have been plastic enough to allow for lots of new neurons.
DAVID: We don't know the brain and skull won't expand again, and ancient brains jumped in size by 200 cc with each enlargement. Adding the need for increased skull size means brain plasticity alone is only part of a complex process in advancement. Not by chance. God in action.
How does all this mean that the pre-sapiens brain was not plastic enough to add more than a few neurons? If it was plastic enough for your God to add lots of neurons before the implementation of new concepts, it was plastic enough to add lots of neurons during the process of implementation.
xxxxx
DAVID: As a living physical person I can only sense my s/s/c through my functioning brain.
Same as before. “You” ARE your self/soul/consciousness. In the living physical dualist, the self/soul/consciousness is aware of itself. The functioning brain is not the source of its awareness or indeed of any thought, as you have agreed at the top of this thread and elsewhere - over and over again.
DAVID: Currently my s/s/c is in my skull doing my immaterial thinking.
Exactly.
DAVID: I believe my s/s/c is a quantum mechanism totally intimately interfaced with the physical brain (Penrose). As I think I am in control of my s/s/c which I formed from childhood. My concept of dualism differs from yours. The s/s/c mechanism is an organized quantum arrangement, yet to be discovered. It can separate and go into an afterlife. Only its thought capacity is immaterial.
None of this means that the self depends on the functioning brain to do its THINKING! Interface yes, but your immaterial s/s/c, your “I” – which has developed since childhood and does the thinking – is in control of your material brain, which provides information and does the material expressing and implementing.
Big brain evolution: changes in sapiens skull shape
by David Turell , Saturday, February 17, 2018, 15:14 (2254 days ago) @ dhw
DAVID (later in the post): The only size modification we know is shrinkage, no matter how you twist it!dhw: This is not “twisting”. Nobody knows why the brain enlarged, and so we propose hypotheses. We DO know that implementation causes modifications now, and so once again it is not unreasonable to propose that implementation caused modifications in the past. You yourself used that argument in relation to complexity and shrinkage, and you now acknowledge that enlargement is a modification.
You are equating implementation with enlargement, when the only fact we have is shrinkage. I'll stop with that in my theorizing.
dhw: …a million years ago brains must have been plastic enough to allow for lots of new neurons.
DAVID: We don't know the brain and skull won't expand again, and ancient brains jumped in size by 200 cc with each enlargement. Adding the need for increased skull size means brain plasticity alone is only part of a complex process in advancement. Not by chance. God in action.dhw: How does all this mean that the pre-sapiens brain was not plastic enough to add more than a few neurons? If it was plastic enough for your God to add lots of neurons before the implementation of new concepts, it was plastic enough to add lots of neurons during the process of implementation.
I'm only adding to my theory about God and brain size are facts we know. If an ancient brain wanted to add many neurons and grow in volume it had to tell the skull to enlarge and the Mothers to change their pelvis size. All had to coordinated. Do you now see the reason for design?
xxxxxDAVID: As a living physical person I can only sense my s/s/c through my functioning brain.
Same as before. “You” ARE your self/soul/consciousness. In the living physical dualist, the self/soul/consciousness is aware of itself. The functioning brain is not the source of its awareness or indeed of any thought, as you have agreed at the top of this thread and elsewhere - over and over again.
DAVID: Currently my s/s/c is in my skull doing my immaterial thinking.
Exactly.
DAVID: I believe my s/s/c is a quantum mechanism totally intimately interfaced with the physical brain (Penrose). As I think I am in control of my s/s/c which I formed from childhood. My concept of dualism differs from yours. The s/s/c mechanism is an organized quantum arrangement, yet to be discovered. It can separate and go into an afterlife. Only its thought capacity is immaterial.
dhw: None of this means that the self depends on the functioning brain to do its THINKING! Interface yes, but your immaterial s/s/c, your “I” – which has developed since childhood and does the thinking – is in control of your material brain, which provides information and does the material expressing and implementing.
But I can reach my immaterial s/s/c only through my material brain. My living 'me' is material with active thoughts that are immaterial. My living 'me' has shaped my immaterial personality. I see 'me' as both material and immaterial all the time fully interfaced. The s/s/c becomes independent and function on its own is in death or non -functionality of the brain.
Big brain evolution: changes in sapiens skull shape;addendum
by David Turell , Saturday, February 17, 2018, 18:48 (2254 days ago) @ David Turell
An aspect of our discussion should include the development of the brain in current human adolescents and how it allows for full development of personality and of course the full development of the s/s/c:
This website offers a brief discussion with a full paper if you join. I didn't:
http://www.researchomatic.com/Personality-Development-Of-Adolescents-121099.html#buytop...
From my training I know, and we have discussed in the past, that the human adult does not have a completed pre-frontal cortex until age 25. A person cannot fully evaluate his/her decision making particularly as to risk taking until that point. But the brain is fully enlarged as is the skull by age 16-20. What is not complete until age 25 is the complexity of the neuron network and the ability to use that network to its full capacity. Thus a fully developed and functional s/s/c must wait for the underlying biological development. It is current theory that the adolescent must wait until his brain is ready for him/her to think and made judgments at the adult level.
This fits my theory that complexity (size with complexity) must precede full thought/concept capacity. Size/complexity first, concepts/artifacts second, as we see in our adolescents' development
Big brain evolution: changes in sapiens skull shape;addendum
DAVID: An aspect of our discussion should include the development of the brain in current human adolescents and how it allows for full development of personality and of course the full development of the s/s/c:
http://www.researchomatic.com/Personality-Development-Of-Adolescents-121099.html#buytop...
DAVID: From my training I know, and we have discussed in the past, that the human adult does not have a completed pre-frontal cortex until age 25. A person cannot fully evaluate his/her decision making particularly as to risk taking until that point. But the brain is fully enlarged as is the skull by age 16-20. What is not complete until age 25 is the complexity of the neuron network and the ability to use that network to its full capacity. Thus a fully developed and functional s/s/c must wait for the underlying biological development. It is current theory that the adolescent must wait until his brain is ready for him/her to think and made judgments at the adult level.
This fits my theory that complexity (size with complexity) must precede full thought/concept capacity. Size/complexity first, concepts/artifacts second, as we see in our adolescents' development.
You repeatedly use the words “complete” and “full”. If the cortex remains capable of new connections at any age, what do you mean by “complete” (other than size)? And what is a fully developed s/s/c? Of course the brain, like every other organ and like the s/s/c, does not arrive fully formed, but every brain and every self is different. I know teenagers whose judgements I would trust infinitely more than those of certain adults. They do not have to wait until their brains are “ready for him/her to think and make judgements at the adult level”. What is an adult level of judgement? I believe that both brain and self continue to change throughout life, and I don’t know what criteria you have for “full thought capacity”. In any case, as a dualist, you argue that it is the s/s/c and not the brain that does the thinking, but HOW it thinks depends partly on genetics (40% according to you) and partly on experience. Here is an important quote from the article:
“The importance of the need to understand the changes in the brain and its implications on the adolescents and the families may be understood from the fact that shaping the development of the brain is in the hands of the teenagers themselves. Positive experiences lead to an adaptive brain. The teenagers who go through adverse experiences in this age are bound to remain disturbed for the rest of their life, given that they are not supported by adults. “ (My bold)
In dualistic terms, then, experience determines the teenager’s s/s/c (though a percentage of the s/s/c is already formed at birth), which in turn determines the development of the brain. I would therefore argue that complexification is ongoing, both in the s/s/c and in the brain (even a 60-year-old illiterate will make new connections when learning to read and write). And except in cases of material outside interference such as disease, accident, drugs, alcohol (all evidence for materialism), it is the s/s/c that controls the brain and not the other way round.
As for your conclusion, once again you make nonsense of your own dualistic beliefs. According to you, the s/s/c does the THINKING. Our hominin’s brain would have been “completed” in respect of its size, enabled him to observe the deer, and sent messages to his s/s/c to say: “Me want food!” But it was the s/s/c that said: “Dammit, this is dangerous. I need a better way to catch the deer than using my bare hands.” Hence the new concept, followed by the implementation and expansion. Don’t you find that more plausible than your God paying him a visit, enlarging his brain, and only then can the above conversation, concept and implementation take place?
Big brain evolution: changes in sapiens skull shape;addendum
by David Turell , Sunday, February 18, 2018, 15:38 (2253 days ago) @ dhw
DAVID: An aspect of our discussion should include the development of the brain in current human adolescents and how it allows for full development of personality and of course the full development of the s/s/c:
http://www.researchomatic.com/Personality-Development-Of-Adolescents-121099.html#buytop...DAVID: From my training I know, and we have discussed in the past, that the human adult does not have a completed pre-frontal cortex until age 25. A person cannot fully evaluate his/her decision making particularly as to risk taking until that point. But the brain is fully enlarged as is the skull by age 16-20. What is not complete until age 25 is the complexity of the neuron network and the ability to use that network to its full capacity. Thus a fully developed and functional s/s/c must wait for the underlying biological development. It is current theory that the adolescent must wait until his brain is ready for him/her to think and made judgments at the adult level.
This fits my theory that complexity (size with complexity) must precede full thought/concept capacity. Size/complexity first, concepts/artifacts second, as we see in our adolescents' development.dhw: You repeatedly use the words “complete” and “full”. If the cortex remains capable of new connections at any age, what do you mean by “complete” (other than size)?
I stated complexity. Please re-read my sentence above.
dhw:And what is a fully developed s/s/c?
One that has the brain complexity to judge risk taking. Standard psychological theory requires full pre-frontal cortical development.
dhw: I know teenagers whose judgements I would trust infinitely more than those of certain adults. They do not have to wait until their brains are “ready for him/her to think and make judgements at the adult level”. What is an adult level of judgement?
See my statement above.
dhw: Here is an important quote from the article:
dhw: “The importance of the need to understand the changes in the brain and its implications on the adolescents and the families may be understood from the fact that shaping the development of the brain is in the hands of the teenagers themselves. Positive experiences lead to an adaptive brain. The teenagers who go through adverse experiences in this age are bound to remain disturbed for the rest of their life, given that they are not supported by adults. “ (My bold)
Of course the teenager contributes, but ignores the necessary pre-frontal development occurring until average age 25.
dhw: In dualistic terms, then, experience determines the teenager’s s/s/c (though a percentage of the s/s/c is already formed at birth), which in turn determines the development of the brain. I would therefore argue that complexification is ongoing, both in the s/s/c and in the brain (even a 60-year-old illiterate will make new connections when learning to read and write). And except in cases of material outside interference such as disease, accident, drugs, alcohol (all evidence for materialism), it is the s/s/c that controls the brain and not the other way round.
Yes the s/s/c controls the brain.
dhw: As for your conclusion, once again you make nonsense of your own dualistic beliefs. According to you, the s/s/c does the THINKING. Our hominin’s brain would have been “completed” in respect of its size, enabled him to observe the deer, and sent messages to his s/s/c to say: “Me want food!” But it was the s/s/c that said: “Dammit, this is dangerous. I need a better way to catch the deer than using my bare hands.” Hence the new concept, followed by the implementation and expansion. Don’t you find that more plausible than your God paying him a visit, enlarging his brain, and only then can the above conversation, concept and implementation take place?
Covered in the previous thread. God speciates.
Big brain evolution:changes in sapiens ;addendum II
by David Turell , Sunday, February 18, 2018, 21:36 (2252 days ago) @ David Turell
I'll add a review of the high school shooting in Florida to help make my point which you have obviously missed about needing brain development to age 25 to be able to fully assess the consequences of adolescent planned actions:
The shooter used a high speed rifle to kill and wound in a three minutes period. He indiscriminately shot through classroom doors small windows, a totally impersonal action. Before the act he was found in a boy's bathroom loading the clips and said to the 14 year old, "you'd better get out. Bad things are going to happen". The 14 year-old didn't tell anyone but ran out. The 19 year-old simply wanted to act impersonally, didn't hurt ote 14 year-old, crying out for help because he was so disturbed and not fully understanding the enormity of his acting out. The kid is not crazy. He fully planned the event.
What does this mean to our discussion? This kid could not reach a rational conclusion. By psychiatric theory his pre-frontal cortex was not physically developed enough to allow him to reach a proper analysis of the outcome of his plan, both as it applies to him and to his victims. His attorney has already brought this up in his defense. From the viewpoint of this discussion his s/s/c did not have the brain hardware to work with, since it was still underdeveloped. As I've said all along, the s/s/c must have sophisticated brain hardware to achieve advanced conceptualization. Complexity first, artifacts second, as shown by this episode.
Big brain evolution: changes in sapiens skull shape;addendum
dhw: You repeatedly use the words “complete” and “full”. If the cortex remains capable of new connections at any age, what do you mean by “complete” (other than size)?
DAVID: I stated complexity. Please re-read my sentence above.
You wrote: "the human adult does not have a completed pre-frontal cortex until age 25." […] "What is not complete until age 25 is the complexity of the neuron network and the ability to use that network to its full capacity."
How can the complexity be “complete” if it continues to add new connections after the age of 25?
dhw: And what is a fully developed s/s/c?
DAVID: One that has the brain complexity to judge risk taking. Standard psychological theory requires full pre-frontal cortical development.
Why are you confining the activities of the self/soul to risk taking? And is judgement of risk the activity of the self/soul or of the brain, bearing in mind that according to your dualistic beliefs it is the self/soul and not the brain that does the THINKING.
dhw: I know teenagers whose judgements I would trust infinitely more than those of certain adults. They do not have to wait until their brains are “ready for him/her to think and make judgements at the adult level”. What is an adult level of judgement?
DAVID: See my statement above.
Since different adults may reach different judgements, all you seem to be saying is that you can’t be an adult until you are an adult.
dhw: Here is an important quote from the article:
QUOTE: “The importance of the need to understand the changes in the brain and its implications on the adolescents and the families may be understood from the fact that shaping the development of the brain is in the hands of the teenagers themselves. Positive experiences lead to an adaptive brain. The teenagers who go through adverse experiences in this age are bound to remain disturbed for the rest of their life, given that they are not supported by adults.“ (My bold)
DAVID: Of course the teenager contributes, but ignores the necessary pre-frontal development occurring until average age 25.
What does this mean? The article makes it clear that experience shapes the brain’s development. I don’t suppose any of us are aware that our experiences are changing our brains, regardless of age.
DAVID (in addendum re the appalling Florida shooting): What does this mean to our discussion? This kid could not reach a rational conclusion. By psychiatric theory his pre-frontal cortex was not physically developed enough to allow him to reach a proper analysis of the outcome of his plan, both as it applies to him and to his victims. His attorney has already brought this up in his defense. From the viewpoint of this discussion his s/s/c did not have the brain hardware to work with, since it was still underdeveloped. As I've said all along, the s/s/c must have sophisticated brain hardware to achieve advanced conceptualization. Complexity first, artifacts second, as shown by this episode.
So if anyone aged 25-100 commits an act of indiscriminate slaughter, it must be because their fully developed pre-frontal cortex enables them to make a proper adult judgement. And everyone under 25 is devoid of the ability to reach rational conclusions because their pre-frontal lobe is not physically developed enough etc. I don’t believe it. Please see your response to my final sentence below and apply it, say, to a 24-year-old.
dhw: In dualistic terms, then, experience determines the teenager’s s/s/c (though a percentage of the s/s/c is already formed at birth), which in turn determines the development of the brain. I would therefore argue that complexification is ongoing, both in the s/s/c and in the brain (even a 60-year-old illiterate will make new connections when learning to read and write). And except in cases of material outside interference such as disease, accident, drugs, alcohol (all evidence for materialism), it is the s/s/c that controls the brain and not the other way round.
DAVID: Yes the s/s/c controls the brain. (dhw's bold)
So why do you keep insisting that the pre-frontal cortex makes the judgements or “proper analyses”?
Big brain evolution: changes in sapiens skull shape;addendum
by David Turell , Monday, February 19, 2018, 18:26 (2252 days ago) @ dhw
dhw: > You wrote: "the human adult does not have a completed pre-frontal cortex until age 25." […] "What is not complete until age 25 is the complexity of the neuron network and the ability to use that network to its full capacity."
How can the complexity be “complete” if it continues to add new connections after the age of 25?
Simple: a newborn has a brain which is simple and must develop full complexity, which occurs on average finishing in the prefrontal cortex by age 25. This is medically accepted. Of course new complexity appears with new uses after that.
dhw: And what is a fully developed s/s/c?
DAVID: One that has the brain complexity to judge risk taking. Standard psychological theory requires full pre-frontal cortical development.dhw: Why are you confining the activities of the self/soul to risk taking? And is judgement of risk the activity of the self/soul or of the brain, bearing in mind that according to your dualistic beliefs it is the self/soul and not the brain that does the THINKING.
I used risk taking as an example. The judgment about the consequences of any new action by an individual is impaired or limited until the development of the prefrontal cortex is complete.
dhw: What does this mean? The article makes it clear that experience shapes the brain’s development. I don’t suppose any of us are aware that our experiences are changing our brains, regardless of age.
Please accept that full brain development from birth takes to an average age 25.
DAVID (in addendum re the appalling Florida shooting): What does this mean to our discussion? This kid could not reach a rational conclusion. By psychiatric theory his pre-frontal cortex was not physically developed enough to allow him to reach a proper analysis of the outcome of his plan, both as it applies to him and to his victims. His attorney has already brought this up in his defense. From the viewpoint of this discussion his s/s/c did not have the brain hardware to work with, since it was still underdeveloped. As I've said all along, the s/s/c must have sophisticated brain hardware to achieve advanced conceptualization. Complexity first, artifacts second, as shown by this episode.dhw: So if anyone aged 25-100 commits an act of indiscriminate slaughter, it must be because their fully developed pre-frontal cortex enables them to make a proper adult judgement. And everyone under 25 is devoid of the ability to reach rational conclusions because their pre-frontal lobe is not physically developed enough etc. I don’t believe it. Please see your response to my final sentence below and apply it, say, to a 24-year-old.
Sorry about your disbelief but this is current medical theory about the length of adolescent judgment ability in regard to understanding the consequences of their actions. I've mentioned this many times in the past. Note his attorney is using it.
dhw: In dualistic terms, then, experience determines the teenager’s s/s/c (though a percentage of the s/s/c is already formed at birth), which in turn determines the development of the brain. I would therefore argue that complexification is ongoing, both in the s/s/c and in the brain (even a 60-year-old illiterate will make new connections when learning to read and write). And except in cases of material outside interference such as disease, accident, drugs, alcohol (all evidence for materialism), it is the s/s/c that controls the brain and not the other way round.
DAVID: Yes the s/s/c controls the brain. (dhw's bold)dhw: So why do you keep insisting that the pre-frontal cortex makes the judgments or “proper analyses”?
The s/s/c controls the brain's thinking, but the depth of thought is determined by the stage of physical development of the brain's complexity which is not under s/s/c control but starts at birth. A six-year old cannot think like you do. The area for analyzing risk and other consequences of one's actions has been identified as residing in the pre-frontal cortex, believe it or not, it is accepted fact. And it proves my point that the s/s/c must work through the areas of the organized brain available to it. It can't work if the area is not fully functional. It may try but judgments will be skewed.
Big brain evolution: changes in sapiens skull shape;addendum
DAVID: "the human adult does not have a completed pre-frontal cortex until age 25." […] "What is not complete until age 25 is the complexity of the neuron network and the ability to use that network to its full capacity."
dhw: How can the complexity be “complete” if it continues to add new connections after the age of 25?
DAVID: Simple: a newborn has a brain which is simple and must develop full complexity, which occurs on average finishing in the prefrontal cortex by age 25. This is medically accepted. Of course new complexity appears with new uses after that.
You do not seem to see the contradiction between your two statements above. The complexity is not complete until the age of 25 (i.e. it IS complete at 25). New complexity appears with new uses after that. If you can add something new to what exists, what exists cannot have been complete.
dhw: And what is a fully developed s/s/c?
DAVID: One that has the brain complexity to judge risk taking. Standard psychological theory requires full pre-frontal cortical development.
dhw: Why are you confining the activities of the self/soul to risk taking? And is judgement of risk the activity of the self/soul or of the brain, bearing in mind that according to your dualistic beliefs it is the self/soul and not the brain that does the THINKING.
DAVID: I used risk taking as an example. The judgment about the consequences of any new action by an individual is impaired or limited until the development of the prefrontal cortex is complete.
The development is never complete if it can add new complexities and uses. Most forms of human judgement are impaired or limited by a wide variety of circumstances. Only a God would be able to see the full picture of whatever we make judgements about. And if I were a dualist, I would vehemently deny that judgement depends on the pre-frontal cortex. Every statement you make about this confirms your materialism. See below.
dhw: What does this mean? The article makes it clear that experience shapes the brain’s development. I don’t suppose any of us are aware that our experiences are changing our brains, regardless of age.
DAVID: Please accept that full brain development from birth takes to an average age 25.
I am happy to accept that certain aspects of brain development are completed at around the age of 25. I am not happy to accept the claim that the brain as a whole stops developing at 25 if it continues to develop new complexities as a result of new uses. I am even less happy if a dualist informs me that judgement depends on the development of the pre-frontal cortex.
DAVID (in addendum re the appalling Florida shooting): What does this mean to our discussion? This kid could not reach a rational conclusion. By psychiatric theory his pre-frontal cortex was not physically developed enough to allow him to reach a proper analysis of the outcome of his plan, both as it applies to him and to his victims. […]
dhw: So if anyone aged 25-100 commits an act of indiscriminate slaughter, it must be because their fully developed pre-frontal cortex enables them to make a proper adult judgement. And everyone under 25 is devoid of the ability to reach rational conclusions because their pre-frontal lobe is not physically developed enough etc. I don’t believe it. Please see your response to my final sentence below and apply it, say, to a 24-year-old.
DAVID: Sorry about your disbelief but this is current medical theory about the length of adolescent judgment ability in regard to understanding the consequences of their actions. I've mentioned this many times in the past. Note his attorney is using it.
Defence attorneys use “diminished responsibility” of one sort or another in vast numbers of cases involving all ages, and ultimately it all ties up with the materialist argument that we do not have free will. I remain neutral, but you don’t. You have always argued that the soul/self has free will. Meanwhile, you have not responded to the logical extension of your argument: according to you, no one under the age of 25 is capable of reaching a rational conclusion because their pre-frontal cortex is not fully developed. A mass murderer over 25 has made a proper adult judgement because his pre-frontal cortex is fully developed. Is that what you believe?
But I am not denying what current medical theory tells us. A quick google reveals that the pre-frontal cortex is responsible for regulating our behaviour, emotions, social control, problem solving, abstract thinking, thought analysis, personal expression, decision-making…Not much left for the poor old soul to do, is there? I am not going to argue with it. The problem I have is when a dualist tells me that he accepts all this, but at the same time he believes it is his soul and not his brain that is responsible for regulating his behaviour, emotions, social control etc. etc. Something doesn’t quite add up, does it? What does current medical theory tell us about the soul?
The rest of your post illustrates the same dichotomy.
Big brain evolution: changes in sapiens skull shape;addendum
by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Tuesday, February 20, 2018, 15:08 (2251 days ago) @ dhw
I should point out that the two of you are arguing psychology, one of the least respected fields of science because it is considered a soft science, meaning that it is virtually impossible to get objective data sets to study...that said...
The first qualm with the discussion seems to be over the use of the word 'complete'. Try using 'mature' instead. Like fruit, the fruit is complete at all times, though it may be unripe, ripe, or overly ripe. These are degrees of maturity, not scales of completeness.
Secondly, human behavior is too complex to just say "It's because of their age". Normally when say that, we are tavitly acknowledging either a lack of experience, a lack of development, or a lack in judgement making capability, which ties directly back into the first two while also depending on brain development.
It is also important to realize that modern psychology also says that people who challenge their own biological makeup are not stark raving mad. Not sure how much I can trust a field that can accept a stance like that.
--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.
Big brain evolution: changes in sapiens skull shape;addendum
by David Turell , Tuesday, February 20, 2018, 18:13 (2251 days ago) @ Balance_Maintained
edited by David Turell, Tuesday, February 20, 2018, 18:30
Tony: I should point out that the two of you are arguing psychology, one of the least respected fields of science because it is considered a soft science, meaning that it is virtually impossible to get objective data sets to study...that said...
The first qualm with the discussion seems to be over the use of the word 'complete'. Try using 'mature' instead. Like fruit, the fruit is complete at all times, though it may be unripe, ripe, or overly ripe. These are degrees of maturity, not scales of completeness.
Secondly, human behavior is too complex to just say "It's because of their age". Normally when say that, we are tavitly acknowledging either a lack of experience, a lack of development, or a lack in judgement making capability, which ties directly back into the first two while also depending on brain development.
It is also important to realize that modern psychology also says that people who challenge their own biological makeup are not stark raving mad. Not sure how much I can trust a field that can accept a stance like that.
Great you are back. We are not at the level of psychology. Note dhw's Google entry about pre-frontal functions. I know psychological study is fuzzy.
Look at this study:
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/06/160607220111.htm
"Research in the June 8, 2016 issue of The Journal of Neuroscience describes how the ability to control emotions moves from one brain area to another as teens mature into adults, offering an opportunity to understand how disorders related to emotional control emerge.
"Previous research links the spike in sensation-seeking and impulsive behavior during adolescence to the delayed maturation of the prefrontal cortex, a region of the brain involved in reasoning, planning, and decision-making. Study authors Inge Volman, Ivan Toni, and Karin Roelofs previously demonstrated the importance of the anterior prefrontal cortex in emotional control in adults. However, it has not been clear whether and how the delayed development of the prefrontal cortex affects emotional control during adolescence.
'To address this question, the researchers used functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) to measure brain activity in 47 healthy 14-year-old adolescents while they evaluated the emotional expressions of happy and angry faces. Sometimes, the teens were instructed to push a joystick toward happy faces and away from angry faces, a natural, instinctive response. Other times, they had to push the joystick toward angry faces and away from happy faces, an unnatural response requiring more emotional self-control.
"The researchers also measured the adolescents' testosterone levels to gauge their pubertal maturation. Adolescents with high testosterone levels, or a greater level of maturity, showed stronger activity in the anterior prefrontal cortex during actions requiring more emotional self-control. Individuals with low testosterone levels had more activity in the amygdala and the pulvinar nucleus of the thalamus, subcortical brain regions known to play a key role in emotional processing.
"Participants completed the task equally well regardless of testosterone level, suggesting both brain circuits support emotional control. However, the researchers indicate real-world scenarios may prove more challenging to subjects with an underdeveloped prefrontal cortex.
"'This is one of the few studies that looks at how puberty stage is associated with brain development in young people who are all the same chronological age," said neuroscientist Sarah-Jayne Blakemore, who studies adolescent development at University College London and was not involved in the study. She said the results add to our understanding of typical behavior and how the brain changes in adolescence.
"The results may also help us understand how emotional control can go awry during development. It's possible that the failure of the prefrontal cortex to integrate properly into the emotional control circuit could contribute to the emergence of affective disorders in adolescence."
Comment: Had evidence and straight forward explanation of brain development. dhw take notice.
Big brain evolution: changes in sapiens skull shape;addendum
by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Wednesday, February 21, 2018, 03:37 (2250 days ago) @ David Turell
Tony: I should point out that the two of you are arguing psychology, one of the least respected fields of science because it is considered a soft science, meaning that it is virtually impossible to get objective data sets to study...that said...
The first qualm with the discussion seems to be over the use of the word 'complete'. Try using 'mature' instead. Like fruit, the fruit is complete at all times, though it may be unripe, ripe, or overly ripe. These are degrees of maturity, not scales of completeness.
Secondly, human behavior is too complex to just say "It's because of their age". Normally when say that, we are tavitly acknowledging either a lack of experience, a lack of development, or a lack in judgement making capability, which ties directly back into the first two while also depending on brain development.
It is also important to realize that modern psychology also says that people who challenge their own biological makeup are not stark raving mad. Not sure how much I can trust a field that can accept a stance like that.
David: Great you are back. We are not at the level of psychology. Note dhw's Google entry about pre-frontal functions. I know psychological study is fuzzy.Look at this study:
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/06/160607220111.htm
"Research in the June 8, 2016 issue of The Journal of Neuroscience describes how the ability to control emotions moves from one brain area to another as teens mature into adults, offering an opportunity to understand how disorders related to emotional control emerge.
"Ability to control emotion"...sounds very much like psychology, unless you subscribe to a 100% mechanistic view of intelligence and emotion.
What they measured was brain activity. The interpretation of that activity, versus what it actually means, is actually pure speculation. We know this to be true because we have know way of definitively knowing what another person is thinking or feeling, or why.
--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.
Big brain evolution: changes in sapiens skull shape;addendum
by David Turell , Wednesday, February 21, 2018, 04:54 (2250 days ago) @ Balance_Maintained
It is also important to realize that modern psychology also says that people who challenge their own biological makeup are not stark raving mad. Not sure how much I can trust a field that can accept a stance like that.
David: Great you are back. We are not at the level of psychology. Note dhw's Google entry about pre-frontal functions. I know psychological study is fuzzy.Look at this study:
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/06/160607220111.htm
"Research in the June 8, 2016 issue of The Journal of Neuroscience describes how the ability to control emotions moves from one brain area to another as teens mature into adults, offering an opportunity to understand how disorders related to emotional control emerge.
Tony: "Ability to control emotion"...sounds very much like psychology, unless you subscribe to a 100% mechanistic view of intelligence and emotion.What they measured was brain activity. The interpretation of that activity, versus what it actually means, is actually pure speculation. We know this to be true because we have know way of definitively knowing what another person is thinking or feeling, or why.
I think we can accept MRI studies establishing general areas of use and control not very precise meanings. I commented on this inexactitude many times . The amgdala does deal with emotional states and must have firm connections with the pre-frontal judgmental area for good emotional controls.. The psychological actions as stated are fairly straightforward. I don't trust clinical psychololgy studies. They often cannot be replicated, but I see this at a more controlled level.
Big brain evolution: changes in sapiens skull shape;addendum
by David Turell , Wednesday, February 21, 2018, 23:59 (2249 days ago) @ Balance_Maintained
David: Great you are back. We are not at the level of psychology. Note dhw's Google entry about pre-frontal functions. I know psychological study is fuzzy.Look at this study:
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/06/160607220111.htm
"Research in the June 8, 2016 issue of The Journal of Neuroscience describes how the ability to control emotions moves from one brain area to another as teens mature into adults, offering an opportunity to understand how disorders related to emotional control emerge.
Tony: "Ability to control emotion"...sounds very much like psychology, unless you subscribe to a 100% mechanistic view of intelligence and emotion.What they measured was brain activity. The interpretation of that activity, versus what it actually means, is actually pure speculation. We know this to be true because we have know way of definitively knowing what another person is thinking or feeling, or why.
They are studying areas of the brain that respond to recognized activity, seeing how differing areas of the brain come into action. Not psychology.
Big brain evolution:learning uses specific actions of brain
by David Turell , Thursday, February 22, 2018, 00:18 (2249 days ago) @ David Turell
Here is a study looking at areas of the brain that are used in learning. The s/s/c doesn't interface with the brain in an amorphous way. It interlocks with different areas for different functions. These can act as systems:
"A new study by Brown University researchers shows that two different brain systems work cooperatively as people learn.
"The study, published in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, focused on the interplay of two very different modes of learning a new task: reinforcement learning and working memory. Reinforcement learning is an "under-the-hood" process in which people gradually learn which actions to take by processing rewards and punishments at the neural level, and then choosing the one that works best on average—even if the person is not aware of it. In contrast, working memory involves keeping previous actions and their outcomes in mind to more rapidly and flexibly improve performance.
***
"In order to distinguish the contributions from reinforcement learning and working memory, the researchers set up problems with different numbers of symbols, ranging from two to six, and participants had to learn which button to press for each of them. Generally, people can only hold three or four items in working memory at a time, and only for short periods of time. So when the number of symbols or the delay increases, the contribution of working memory to the learning process should diminish.
***
"As the participants performed the tasks, an EEG cap recorded signals from the brain, and the authors applied statistical methods to extract those signals related to one learning system or the other.
"The study showed that when memory demands were high, the signals in the brain correlated to reinforcement learning actually got stronger. In other words, when the working memory system was overtaxed, the reinforcement learning system became more important in the learning process. In contrast, when participants could hold information in mind, signals associated with reinforcement learning were weaker, suggesting an increased role for working memory.
The researchers also found that they could decode from the brain signals in a particular trial whether information was likely to be in memory or not. That too traded off with the neural marker of reinforcement learning."
Comment: I present this to show the illustrations which present different areas of the brain in the study the the s/s/c must interact with. The s/s/c uses the brain as a tool.
Big brain evolution: changes in sapiens skull shape;addendum
by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Thursday, February 22, 2018, 07:04 (2249 days ago) @ David Turell
"The Journal of Neuroscience describes how the ability to control emotions moves from one brain area to another as teens mature into adults.."
The 'ability' to control emotion is not psychology?
"the researchers used functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) to measure brain activity in 47 healthy 14-year-old adolescents while they evaluated the emotional expressions of happy and angry faces. Sometimes, the teens were instructed to push a joystick toward happy faces and away from angry faces, a natural, instinctive response. Other times, they had to push the joystick toward angry faces and away from happy faces, an unnatural response requiring more emotional self-control."
So, telling kids trained to video games, literally trained to push toward the angry guy is going to tell them that kid is somehow processing an emotion? How do they know what, if anything, that kid was feeling thinking about. He or she could have been bored and thinking about homework or sex.
Adolescents with high testosterone levels, or a greater level of maturity, showed stronger activity in the anterior prefrontal cortex during actions requiring more emotional self-control.
Horny angry people need more self control? Did they need a study to figure that out?
And unless I am mistaken...
The researchers also measured the adolescents' testosterone levels to gauge their pubertal maturation. Adolescents with high testosterone levels, or a greater level of maturity, showed stronger activity in the anterior prefrontal cortex during actions requiring more emotional self-control. Individuals with low testosterone levels had more activity in the amygdala and the pulvinar nucleus of the thalamus, subcortical brain regions known to play a key role in emotional processing.
Participants completed the task equally well regardless of testosterone level, suggesting both brain circuits support emotional control. However, the researchers indicate real-world scenarios may prove more challenging to subjects with an underdeveloped prefrontal cortex.
That says their study didn't work. They performed the task equally well despite different t levels, and all they really saw was more prefrontal cortex activity in the testoterone rich patients, and have no clue what it really means, so it must support their claim.
If they are right, great, but this sure sounds like bad science to me.
--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.
Big brain evolution: changes in sapiens skull shape;addendum
by David Turell , Thursday, February 22, 2018, 15:28 (2249 days ago) @ Balance_Maintained
"The Journal of Neuroscience describes how the ability to control emotions moves from one brain area to another as teens mature into adults.."
Tony: The 'ability' to control emotion is not psychology?
"the researchers used functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) to measure brain activity in 47 healthy 14-year-old adolescents while they evaluated the emotional expressions of happy and angry faces. Sometimes, the teens were instructed to push a joystick toward happy faces and away from angry faces, a natural, instinctive response. Other times, they had to push the joystick toward angry faces and away from happy faces, an unnatural response requiring more emotional self-control."
So, telling kids trained to video games, literally trained to push toward the angry guy is going to tell them that kid is somehow processing an emotion? How do they know what, if anything, that kid was feeling thinking about. He or she could have been bored and thinking about homework or sex.
Adolescents with high testosterone levels, or a greater level of maturity, showed stronger activity in the anterior prefrontal cortex during actions requiring more emotional self-control.
Horny angry people need more self control? Did they need a study to figure that out?And unless I am mistaken...
The researchers also measured the adolescents' testosterone levels to gauge their pubertal maturation. Adolescents with high testosterone levels, or a greater level of maturity, showed stronger activity in the anterior prefrontal cortex during actions requiring more emotional self-control. Individuals with low testosterone levels had more activity in the amygdala and the pulvinar nucleus of the thalamus, subcortical brain regions known to play a key role in emotional processing.
Participants completed the task equally well regardless of testosterone level, suggesting both brain circuits support emotional control. However, the researchers indicate real-world scenarios may prove more challenging to subjects with an underdeveloped prefrontal cortex.
That says their study didn't work. They performed the task equally well despite different t levels, and all they really saw was more prefrontal cortex activity in the testoterone rich patients, and have no clue what it really means, so it must support their claim.If they are right, great, but this sure sounds like bad science to me.
The journal Nature shares your discomfort:
http://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-018-02185-w?WT.ec_id=NATURE-20180223&spMailin...
You'll note the discussion goes to age 25.
Big brain evolution: adolescence ends when?
by David Turell , Thursday, February 22, 2018, 17:54 (2249 days ago) @ David Turell
Note this Nature article:
http://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-018-02169-w?WT.ec_id=NATURE-20180223&spMailin...
"Generations of researchers have painted adolescence as a span of unremitting hazards on the road to adulthood. In 1904, US psychologist G. Stanley Hall wrote an influential two-volume opus on adolescence, which he concluded was between the ages of 14 and 24. Hall, who focused his analysis largely on white boys, promoted the idea that adolescence is a time of upheaval. He blamed the mass media — in the form of cheap fictional pamphlets called ‘penny dreadfuls’ — as well as ‘immoral’ activities such as drinking and dancing for leading youths astray.
***
"But in many societies today, the conventional markers of adulthood are slipping to later in life. Young people spend more years at school, live with their parents for longer, and delay marriage and parenthood. Marriage, in particular, has historically been a key marker for adulthood in many cultures, says anthropologist Alice Schlegel at the University of Arizona in Tucson. The average age of women at first marriage has risen by two years globally over the past two decades, according to the United Nations. In some countries, that increase is more dramatic: in Brazil the average age has increased by 6 years to 27, and in several European countries the age is creeping over 30 (see ‘Age at marriage’).
***
"The hotchpotch of definitions in research articles, social policies and laws around the globe reveals a wide range of opinion about the end of adolescence (see ‘Sliding scales’). The World Health Organization set its boundaries at ages 10 and 19, but Susan Sawyer, chair of adolescent health at the University of Melbourne in Australia, and her colleagues have argued that this upper boundary should be raised to 24. In 2017, New Zealand revised its regulations regarding children in protective care: rather than sending them out on their own at the age of 18, the government continues to provide support into their twenties. The change came in response to reports that the adolescents were not coping well with independence at younger ages."
Comment: Age 25 still fits. Look at the graphic titled 'sliding scales'. These are generalities. Everyone matures differently and background parenting helps. I was not a risk taker in any sense. I was married and out of med school just after my 25th birthday, full of purpose and rigid ethics. I smoked a cigarette at 16, never again. Got drunk once at age 17 in college with my introduction to beer, and a second time at my first wine tasting in my 30's. Learned quickly, never again. I'm in general agreement with Tony's comments, but adolescent deserves lots more study.
Big brain evolution: changes in sapiens skull shape;addendum
PART ONE
Tony may not be aware of the background to this discussion, which centres on the concept of dualism and sprang from David’s insistence that his God had enlarged hominin brains and the sapiens brain before they were able to conceive and implement new concepts. Dualism argues that mind and body are two separate entities that work together. “Mind” = immaterial self/soul/consciousness (s/s/c) and we have confined our discussion of body to the brain. Materialism is the belief that all mental activity has its source in the brain, and there is no such thing as an immaterial soul. I am neutral on the subject, and am focusing solely on what I consider to be the contradictions in David’s arguments (he claims to be a dualist). I say that if the s/s/c is responsible for immaterial thought, then it makes no sense to argue that thought depends on the (size of the) material brain: concepts must therefore come BEFORE enlargement, which takes place as a result of implementing the concept. This fits in with the known process whereby in sapiens new activities CAUSE changes in the brain and are not caused by them. The ramifications of this subject are huge, as you can see. In the context of a possible God and evolution, they concern the amount of control David’s God has exercised over the process. We have barely scratched the surface of how the process would work in materialist terms. Meanwhile, however, we have got totally bogged down in David’s materialistic dualism, which itself has enormous ramifications. I hope this is a fair summary.
TONY: I should point out that the two of you are arguing psychology, one of the least respected fields of science because it is considered a soft science, meaning that it is virtually impossible to get objective data sets to study...that said...
The first qualm with the discussion seems to be over the use of the word 'complete'. Try using 'mature' instead. Like fruit, the fruit is complete at all times, though it may be unripe, ripe, or overly ripe. These are degrees of maturity, not scales of completeness.
DAVID: We are not at the level of psychology. Note dhw's Google entry about pre-frontal functions. I know psychological study is fuzzy.
Tony’s point about completeness echoes my own objection to your contradictory statements: (DAVID: "the human adult does not have a completed pre-frontal cortex until age 25." […] "What is not complete until age 25 is the complexity of the neuron network and the ability to use that network to its full capacity."
dhw: How can the complexity be “complete” if it continues to add new connections after the age of 25?
DAVID: The prefrontal cortex develops a judgmental area about one's actions future results as part of the development from birth. Can it be altered later. Of course. But the initial development takes to an average age 25. to be complete enough to make mature decisions.
So it’s not complete, and once more according to you, despite your claim to be a dualist, it is the prefrontal cortex that makes decisions.
TONY: Secondly, human behavior is too complex to just say "It's because of their age". Normally when say that, we are tacitly acknowledging either a lack of experience, a lack of development, or a lack in judgement making capability, which ties directly back into the first two while also depending on brain development.
I couldn’t agree more. Experience (under which I'll include nurture) is a crucial factor in the development of the s/s/c. A previous article emphasized the role that it plays in the actual development of the brain (which establishes its different patterns in response to experience) – patterns which of course develop as the child gets older and widens its experiences.
As David mentioned, in my post of yesterday I listed the activities attributed to the pre-frontal cortex, including our behaviour, emotions, abstract thinking, decision-making etc. David’s latest quote highlights what I consider to be the irreconcilable contradiction in his thinking:
QUOTES: "Research in the June 8, 2016 issue of The Journal of Neuroscience describes how the ability to control emotions moves from one brain area to another as teens mature into adults, offering an opportunity to understand how disorders related to emotional control emerge.
"The results may also help us understand how emotional control can go awry during development. It's possible that the failure of the prefrontal cortex to integrate properly into the emotional control circuit could contribute to the emergence of affective disorders in adolescence."
DAVID’s comment: Hard evidence and straight forward explanation of brain development. dhw take notice.
I am not disputing brain development. I am pointing out the discrepancies in your arguments. You cannot have it both ways. For a dualist the soul is responsible for the immaterial attributes I listed. Earlier I pointed out that it is the dualist’s s/s/c that controls the brain except when the latter is affected by outside influences such as disease, drugs, accidents, alcohol. You have repeatedly agreed to this, but now you support what you call “current medical theory” which argues the exact opposite: i.e. that the brain is responsible for all the attributes. In this context, I notice you have ignored my question: What does current medical theory tell us about the soul?
Big brain evolution: changes in sapiens skull shape;addendum
PART TWO
TONY: "Ability to control emotion"...sounds very much like psychology, unless you subscribe to a 100% mechanistic view of intelligence and emotion.
What they measured was brain activity. The interpretation of that activity, versus what it actually means, is actually pure speculation. We know this to be true because we have no way of definitively knowing what another person is thinking or feeling, or why.
DAVID: I think we can accept MRI studies establishing general areas of use and control not very precise meanings. I commented on this inexactitude many times . The amgdala does deal with emotional states and must have firm connections with the pre-frontal judgmental area for good emotional controls.. The psychological actions as stated are fairly straightforward. I don't trust clinical psychololgy studies. They often cannot be replicated, but I see this at a more controlled level.
Tony has hit the nail on the head. Unless you subscribe to a 100% mechanistic view, i.e. materialism, the meaning of the MRI studies is pure speculation, because in the context of dualism, the question is whether all this brain activity denotes that the brain creates the thoughts or responds to the thoughts. Once upon a time, David, you viewed the brain as only a receiver. (I always prefer “brain” to the more limited “pre-frontal cortex” as I am far from convinced that specific mental activities can be restricted to specific areas of the brain. My doubts seem to be confirmed by the article). By siding with “current medical theory”, David, you are siding with materialism.
DAVID: I used risk taking as an example. The judgment about the consequences of any new action by an individual is impaired or limited until the development of the prefrontal cortex is complete.
dhw: Most forms of human judgement are impaired or limited by a wide variety of circumstances. Only a God would be able to see the full picture of whatever we make judgements about. And if I were a dualist, I would vehemently deny that judgement depends on the pre-frontal cortex. Every statement you make about this confirms your materialism.
DAVID: And I continue to insist the s/s/c must be able to interface with fully developed functional areas of the brain to provide proper thought to the living individual.
What do you mean by “proper” thought? The living individual IS the self. Yes, the s/s/c must and does liaise with the functional area of the brain. According to you as a dualist, with your belief that not only does the s/s/c control the brain but it also survives the brain, it is the s/s/c that takes decisions (makes judgements) and not the brain. Whether a judgement is proper/mature or not is a highly subjective matter and applies to any age.
dhw: Defence attorneys use “diminished responsibility” of one sort or another in vast numbers of cases involving all ages, and ultimately it all ties up with the materialist argument that we do not have free will. I remain neutral, but you don’t. You have always argued that the soul/self has free will. Meanwhile, you have not responded to the logical extension of your argument: according to you, no one under the age of 25 is capable of reaching a rational conclusion because their pre-frontal cortex is not fully developed. A mass murderer over 25 has made a proper adult judgement because his pre-frontal cortex is fully developed. Is that what you believe?
DAVID: Current medical theory. I accept it.
Goodbye to your dualism, goodbye to your free will, and three cheers for current medical theory.
Big brain evolution: changes in sapiens skull shape;addendum
by David Turell , Wednesday, February 21, 2018, 15:35 (2250 days ago) @ dhw
DAVID: I think we can accept MRI studies establishing general areas of use and control not very precise meanings. I commented on this inexactitude many times . The amgdala does deal with emotional states and must have firm connections with the pre-frontal judgmental area for good emotional controls.. The psychological actions as stated are fairly straightforward. I don't trust clinical psychololgy studies. They often cannot be replicated, but I see this at a more controlled level.
dhw: Tony has hit the nail on the head. Unless you subscribe to a 100% mechanistic view, i.e. materialism, the meaning of the MRI studies is pure speculation, because in the context of dualism, the question is whether all this brain activity denotes that the brain creates the thoughts or responds to the thoughts. ... By siding with “current medical theory”, David, you are siding with materialism.
Balderdash. I've clearly presented in the past my thoughts about MRI studies, but they clearly show the regions where certain activities take place. It is general information not specific as to each thought. The s/s/c an only work to the point that brain development has reached from childhood to age 25 in the prefrontal area.
DAVID: And I continue to insist the s/s/c must be able to interface with fully developed functional areas of the brain to provide proper thought to the living individual.dhw: What do you mean by “proper” thought? The living individual IS the self. Yes, the s/s/c must and does liaise with the functional area of the brain. According to you as a dualist, with your belief that not only does the s/s/c control the brain but it also survives the brain, it is the s/s/c that takes decisions (makes judgements) and not the brain.
All I was offering was the statement you give above: must liaise with a functional area.
dhw: Defence attorneys use “diminished responsibility” of one sort or another in vast numbers of cases involving all ages, and ultimately it all ties up with the materialist argument that we do not have free will. I remain neutral, but you don’t. You have always argued that the soul/self has free will. Meanwhile, you have not responded to the logical extension of your argument: according to you, no one under the age of 25 is capable of reaching a rational conclusion because their pre-frontal cortex is not fully developed. A mass murderer over 25 has made a proper adult judgement because his pre-frontal cortex is fully developed. Is that what you believe?DAVID: Current medical theory. I accept it.
dhw: Goodbye to your dualism, goodbye to your free will, and three cheers for current medical theory.
If the prefrontal area is not complete, the s/s/c cannot make fully adult judgments, because it must liaise with a fully functioning prefrontal cortex to do that. This supports my theory that brain complexity comes before complex thought is developed.
Big brain evolution: changes in sapiens skull shape;addendum
by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Wednesday, February 21, 2018, 17:41 (2250 days ago) @ David Turell
So, we shouldn't allow people to be considered adults until 25?
--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.
Big brain evolution: changes in sapiens skull shape;addendum
by David Turell , Wednesday, February 21, 2018, 23:16 (2249 days ago) @ Balance_Maintained
Tony: So, we shouldn't allow people to be considered adults until 25?
Not according to current medical thinking. We can't turn around current societal practices, so kids can go to war at 17, but note they are giving orders and guidelines. But they would be better off if alcohol and cigarettes were available after 25. It would be better if voting also started after 25.
Big brain evolution: changes in sapiens skull shape;addendum
by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Thursday, February 22, 2018, 06:43 (2249 days ago) @ David Turell
So...able to make a very important decision, one that might get them killed, but not for anything "important" like whether to drink, smoke, or decide which idiot is going to send them off to die for whatever strikes his fancy. I'm going to have to give that two big thumbs down. Either people are mature, and thus able to be treated as adults, or they are not.
If we are not mature, medically, until 25, then every life altering decision prior to that should be invalid, because the person is not mentally capable of making it. Children should remain children until 25, living off their parents with no legal rights or responsibilities. 1/3rd of the human lifespan as a slave? I think I'll pass on that and acknowledge the following:
Mature is subjective. What are the objective qualifiers for maturity, as DHW asked? What qualifies those particular qualifiers as valid benchmarks? What objective benchmark are these fMRI readings being set against? Another subjective opinion of maturity? Emotional control? I know people of every generation that fail at that.
--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.
Big brain evolution: changes in sapiens skull shape;addendum
by David Turell , Thursday, February 22, 2018, 15:16 (2249 days ago) @ Balance_Maintained
Tony: So...able to make a very important decision, one that might get them killed, but not for anything "important" like whether to drink, smoke, or decide which idiot is going to send them off to die for whatever strikes his fancy. I'm going to have to give that two big thumbs down. Either people are mature, and thus able to be treated as adults, or they are not.
If we are not mature, medically, until 25, then every life altering decision prior to that should be invalid, because the person is not mentally capable of making it. Children should remain children until 25, living off their parents with no legal rights or responsibilities. 1/3rd of the human lifespan as a slave? I think I'll pass on that and acknowledge the following:
Mature is subjective. What are the objective qualifiers for maturity, as DHW asked? What qualifies those particular qualifiers as valid benchmarks? What objective benchmark are these fMRI readings being set against? Another subjective opinion of maturity? Emotional control? I know people of every generation that fail at that.
You are making everything black or white re' maturity. In general I agree with your point of view, but neuroscience tells us brain development takes up to age 25 to be initially complete. The current issue of Nature has several articles on the problem of defining adolescence and specifically the issue of risk taking. Take a look at one of the available articles or all of them:
http://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-018-02170-3?WT.ec_id=NATURE-20180223&spMailin...
Big brain evolution: changes in sapiens skull shape;addendum
by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Friday, February 23, 2018, 09:54 (2248 days ago) @ David Turell
Sometimes the articles can be rather misleading. For example, teens 15-19 have a mortality rate "35%" higher that those in the 10-14 range. Still, that is only 60:100,000....It doesn't seem so dramatic when you look at it that way. Given that they actually have a fairly low death rate, are they really making poorer decisions than their "more mature" counterparts, or are they simply making different ones. How many adults do drugs, drink and drive, put on their makeup while driving etc. Etc.
I do not doubt for a second d that they view risk differently, but I chalk the majority of that up to a simple lack of experience. Growing up in an impoverished community, kids being more mature than your average middle class 25yo was not uncommon. In short, while I do not disagree that the brain changes over time, or even that Teens assess risk differently, I think that is more an issue of life experience than purely hard wire issues.
--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.
Big brain evolution: changes in sapiens skull shape;addendum
by David Turell , Friday, February 23, 2018, 21:58 (2247 days ago) @ Balance_Maintained
Tony: Sometimes the articles can be rather misleading. For example, teens 15-19 have a mortality rate "35%" higher that those in the 10-14 range. Still, that is only 60:100,000....It doesn't seem so dramatic when you look at it that way. Given that they actually have a fairly low death rate, are they really making poorer decisions than their "more mature" counterparts, or are they simply making different ones. How many adults do drugs, drink and drive, put on their makeup while driving etc. Etc.
I do not doubt for a second d that they view risk differently, but I chalk the majority of that up to a simple lack of experience. Growing up in an impoverished community, kids being more mature than your average middle class 25yo was not uncommon. In short, while I do not disagree that the brain changes over time, or even that Teens assess risk differently, I think that is more an issue of life experience than purely hard wire issues.
But please recognize that brain studies have shown wiring from the amygdala (emotions) to the prefrontal cortex (judgment) as well as the prefrontal cortex itself are late developmental arrivals.
Big brain evolution: changes in sapiens skull shape;addendum
TONY: Mature is subjective. What are the objective qualifiers for maturity, as DHW asked? What qualifies those particular qualifiers as valid benchmarks? What objective benchmark are these fMRI readings being set against? Another subjective opinion of maturity? Emotional control? I know people of every generation that fail at that.
DAVID: You are making everything black or white re' maturity. In general I agree with your point of view, but neuroscience tells us brain development takes up to age 25 to be initially complete. The current issue of Nature has several articles on the problem of defining adolescence and specifically the issue of risk taking. Take a look at one of the available articles or all of them:
I hope Tony himself will reply***, but meanwhile let me admire your use of language. “Initially complete” is a wonderful expression. Once more: the brain continues to develop throughout our lives, and so – just like the immaterial s/s/c – its development is never completed. You ask elsewhere when adolescence ends. In relation to all the immaterial attributes we have been discussing – judgement, decision-making, emotion, thought analysis – there is no borderline. Some teenagers are a darn sight more mature in these fields than some adults. You say you are a dualist and believe in the existence of the “soul”. So why do you continue to cling to neuroscience which is confined to what is material? The articles you quote always cover activities in the brain. They cannot tell us whether those activities CAUSE our immaterial attributes or respond to them. (See final comment on all subjects raised here.)
*** I see Tony HAS replied, and emphasises the role of experience. I agree totally with his response.
dhw: ...the brain has to have the requisite means to express and implement the thoughts/feelings/decisions etc. of the s/s/c. The plastic brain is the requisite means, and each new experience establishes the new connections.
DAVID: Yes. We see initial developmental change and then plasticity changes.
Plasticity is what enables the brain to change. The question is what CAUSES the brain to change. So let’s spell it out again: the dualistic s/s/c’s thoughts, feelings, decisions CAUSE the brain to respond, and if the experiences involved are new, they CAUSE the brain to change (as confirmed by the example of the illiterate women).
DAVID: If the prefrontal area is not complete, the s/s/c cannot make fully adult judgments, because it must liaise with a fully functioning prefrontal cortex to do that. This supports my theory that brain complexity comes before complex thought is developed.
Dhw: The prefrontal area is never “complete” so long as it is capable of new complexities! Please explain what you mean by “fully adult judgements”. You accept that the s/s/c does the thinking and the brain does the expressing and implementing. Once the implementation/ expression has been mastered, then of course the complexity is there for subsequent use, but cometh the next new concept, cometh the next new complexification. Thought comes before the brain change that implements/expresses it.
DAVID: Agreed that there is development and then further complexification.
But material development itself has initially come about through the need for expression/implementation. It’s an on-going process: immaterial thought/concepts etc. (whether complex or not) come before material change – the exact opposite of your theory that brain complexity comes before complex thought/concepts etc..
TONY: So, we shouldn't allow people to be considered adults until 25?
dhw: I would take that two steps further: 1) we shouldn’t allow people to be considered responsible for their actions until 25? 2) If judgement depends on the “completion” of the pre-frontal cortex but, as Tony and I have pointed out, the pre-frontal cortex continues to complexify AFTER 25, then we shouldn’t allow people to be considered responsible for their actions at any age? Exit free will, exit responsibility, and adults who commit murder, rape etc. can blame their wretched pre-frontal cortex for their mature or immature judgement (apparently depending on age). Tony’s remaining posts highlight the general chaos of David’s materialistic dualism and the inadequacy of the tests with admirable clarity. (However, I hope eventually to continue my efforts to reconcile dualism and materialism!)
DAVID: I must use materialism type science to study how the brain and the s/s/c combine. I have presented the science finding regarding age 25 and risk taking. All sorts of so-called brain impaired crimes are defended on that basis for no good reason I can see. I think at last you understand how I think the s/s/c and brain work together.
It is you who keep insisting that thought depends on a fully functioning pre-frontal cortex. If you now agree that the s/s/c does the thinking, the brain provides information and expresses/implements the thoughts of the s/s/c, the brain changes as a result of implementing the concepts, wishes, emotions, ideas etc. of the s/s/c, thought therefore comes before brain change, and consequently it is absurd for a dualist to argue that the brain has to expand before the s/s/c can THINK new thoughts, then we will have agreed on how the s/s/c and the brain work together.
Big brain evolution: changes in sapiens skull shape;addendum
by David Turell , Friday, February 23, 2018, 22:12 (2247 days ago) @ dhw
dhw: You say you are a dualist and believe in the existence of the “soul”. So why do you continue to cling to neuroscience which is confined to what is material? The articles you quote always cover activities in the brain. They cannot tell us whether those activities CAUSE our immaterial attributes or respond to them.
The only studies available to tell us where different parts of our conscious thinking resides is from methodological materialist scientists. Your point is obvious.
DAVID: Agreed that there is development and then further complexification.dhw: But material development itself has initially come about through the need for expression/implementation. It’s an on-going process: immaterial thought/concepts etc. (whether complex or not) come before material change – the exact opposite of your theory that brain complexity comes before complex thought/concepts etc..
I have a different view: the human brain development is part of the embryology leading to an adult form from birth. At an average 25 that development is complete. As above, of course the prefrontal area responds to thev rest of one's life and modifies.
DAVID: I must use materialism type science to study how the brain and the s/s/c combine. I have presented the science finding regarding age 25 and risk taking. All sorts of so-called brain impaired crimes are defended on that basis for no good reason I can see. I think at last you understand how I think the s/s/c and brain work together.dhw: It is you who keep insisting that thought depends on a fully functioning pre-frontal cortex. If you now agree that the s/s/c does the thinking, the brain provides information and expresses/implements the thoughts of the s/s/c, the brain changes as a result of implementing the concepts, wishes, emotions, ideas etc. of the s/s/c, thought therefore comes before brain change, and consequently it is absurd for a dualist to argue that the brain has to expand before the s/s/c can THINK new thoughts, then we will have agreed on how the s/s/c and the brain work together.
We will never be together on this point. The brain provides the substrate or mechanics for thought. s/s/c is the immaterial software.
Big brain evolution: changes in sapiens skull shape;addendum
dhw: You say you are a dualist and believe in the existence of the “soul”. So why do you continue to cling to neuroscience which is confined to what is material? The articles you quote always cover activities in the brain. They cannot tell us whether those activities CAUSE our immaterial attributes or respond to them.
DAVID: The only studies available to tell us where different parts of our conscious thinking resides is from methodological materialist scientists. Your point is obvious.
“Resides” is an interesting concept. I hope it means that neuroscience shows us which parts of the brain are associated with which activities, but I thought we knew that long ago. My “obvious” point is that if, as you claim, the brain is only a RECEIVER of thought, you cannot use the findings of neurologists as evidence that the soul depends on a functioning material brain for its ability to THINK. (NDEs are used by dualists as evidence that it does not.) Once more: for a dualist the s/s/c does the thinking and the brain provides information and expresses/implements the thought. You keep agreeing and then trying to disagree.
DAVID: Agreed that there is development and then further complexification.
dhw: But material development itself has initially come about through the need for expression/implementation. It’s an on-going process: immaterial thought/concepts etc. (whether complex or not) come before material change – the exact opposite of your theory that brain complexity comes before complex thought/concepts etc.
DAVID: I have a different view: the human brain development is part of the embryology leading to an adult form from birth. At an average 25 that development is complete. As above, of course the prefrontal area responds to the rest of one's life and modifies.
I have pointed out to you that expression/implementation of immaterial thought CAUSES changes in the material brain (disregarding material changes caused by external influences such as disease, drugs etc., which are evidence for materialism) – the exact opposite of your theory that changes in the brain PRECEDE immaterial thought. You reply by telling me that the development of the brain is complete by 25, although it continues to change. This is a contradiction in terms, and it has nothing whatsoever to do with the argument you say you disagree with!
dhw: …you who keep insisting that thought depends on a fully functioning pre-frontal cortex. If you now agree that the s/s/c does the thinking, the brain provides information and expresses/implements the thoughts of the s/s/c, the brain changes as a result of implementing the concepts, wishes, emotions, ideas etc. of the s/s/c, thought therefore comes before brain change, and consequently it is absurd for a dualist to argue that the brain has to expand before the s/s/c can THINK new thoughts, then we will have agreed on how the s/s/c and the brain work together.
DAVID: We will never be together on this point. The brain provides the substrate or mechanics for thought. s/s/c is the immaterial software.
More obfuscation. The “mechanics for thought” could mean that the brain is the mechanism enabling thought or the mechanism used by thought to implement itself. Why do you keep changing the terms, when you have already agreed so many times that the s/s/c is the source of thought, and the brain provides information and expresses/implements the thoughts of the s/s/c. The latter is the software (thought) and the brain is the hardware (implementation). The rest follows as I have explained above, which I would ask you to reread. We will never be together on this point so long as you keep trying to avoid the implications of your own beliefs.
Big brain evolution: changes in sapiens skull shape;addendum
by David Turell , Saturday, February 24, 2018, 14:49 (2247 days ago) @ dhw
DAVID: The only studies available to tell us where different parts of our conscious thinking resides is from methodological materialist scientists. Your point is obvious.
dhw: “Resides” is an interesting concept. I hope it means that neuroscience shows us which parts of the brain are associated with which activities, but I thought we knew that long ago. My “obvious” point is that if, as you claim, the brain is only a RECEIVER of thought, you cannot use the findings of neurologists as evidence that the soul depends on a functioning material brain for its ability to THINK. (NDEs are used by dualists as evidence that it does not.) Once more: for a dualist the s/s/c does the thinking and the brain provides information and expresses/implements the thought. You keep agreeing and then trying to disagree.
My use of the word receives is that we receive the software of s/s/c. In the other sense, the functioning human brain receives thought specific areas of the brain.
DAVID: I have a different view: the human brain development is part of the embryology leading to an adult form from birth. At an average 25 that development is complete. As above, of course the prefrontal area responds to the rest of one's life and modifies.
dhw: I have pointed out to you that expression/implementation of immaterial thought CAUSES changes in the material brain (disregarding material changes caused by external influences such as disease, drugs etc., which are evidence for materialism) – the exact opposite of your theory that changes in the brain PRECEDE immaterial thought. You reply by telling me that the development of the brain is complete by 25, although it continues to change. This is a contradiction in terms, and it has nothing whatsoever to do with the argument you say you disagree with!
Developmental completion is a simple concept: your Volkswagen came from the factory completely constructed (developed). You the added a few aftermarket refinements. Same car with some adaptations. I view the prefrontal cortex the same way. And from the standpoint of immaterial thought, way do adolescents have judgmental problems until that development is complete?
dhw: …you who keep insisting that thought depends on a fully functioning pre-frontal cortex. If you now agree that the s/s/c does the thinking, the brain provides information and expresses/implements the thoughts of the s/s/c, the brain changes as a result of implementing the concepts, wishes, emotions, ideas etc. of the s/s/c, thought therefore comes before brain change, and consequently it is absurd for a dualist to argue that the brain has to expand before the s/s/c can THINK new thoughts, then we will have agreed on how the s/s/c and the brain work together.DAVID: We will never be together on this point. The brain provides the substrate or mechanics for thought. s/s/c is the immaterial software.
dhw: More obfuscation. The “mechanics for thought” could mean that the brain is the mechanism enabling thought or the mechanism used by thought to implement itself. Why do you keep changing the terms, when you have already agreed so many times that the s/s/c is the source of thought, and the brain provides information and expresses/implements the thoughts of the s/s/c. The latter is the software (thought) and the brain is the hardware (implementation). The rest follows as I have explained above, which I would ask you to reread. We will never be together on this point so long as you keep trying to avoid the implications of your own beliefs.
I don't know why you are so confused. The brain is a computer and the s/s/c is its software. That is what I said in the comment before your long paragraph.
Big brain evolution: changes in sapiens skull shape;addendum
DAVID: The only studies available to tell us where different parts of our conscious thinking resides is from methodological materialist scientists. Your point is obvious.
dhw: “Resides” is an interesting concept. I hope it means that neuroscience shows us which parts of the brain are associated with which activities, but I thought we knew that long ago. My “obvious” point is that if, as you claim, the brain is only a RECEIVER of thought, you cannot use the findings of neurologists as evidence that the soul depends on a functioning material brain for its ability to THINK.
DAVID: My use of the word receives is that we receive the software of s/s/c. In the other sense, the functioning human brain receives thought specific areas of the brain.
Round we go. “We” ARE the software of the s/s/c. How does the self/soul receive the self/soul? I’m not sure what you mean by the brain receiving thought specific areas of the brain, but if the brain provides the brain with thought, what does the s/s/c do?
l’d like to go back to your use of “resides”, simply to illustrate once more the dichotomy you refuse to acknowledge. If the thinking self (software) resides in the implementing brain (hardware), and if when the brain dies the s/s/c goes its merry way but continues to be its thinking self (as apparently evidenced by NDEs), how can you possibly argue that thought depends on the functioning brain?
DAVID: Developmental completion is a simple concept: your Volkswagen came from the factory completely constructed (developed). You the added a few aftermarket refinements. Same car with some adaptations. I view the prefrontal cortex the same way. And from the standpoint of immaterial thought, why do adolescents have judgmental problems until that development is complete?
Again you are trying to divert attention away from the fact that expression/ implementation of immaterial thought CAUSES changes in the material brain – the exact opposite of your hypothesis that changes in the brain PRECEDE immaterial thought. Why are you so afraid to tackle this issue? I don’t have a problem with the claim that the brain takes about 25 years to become “adult”. (It becomes “adult” as it learns to implement the tasks imposed on it by the s/s/c – tasks which arise as the s/s/c is exposed to a multitude of new experiences, ranging from using a spoon to using a pen to driving a VW. Concept/task first, brain change second – the opposite of your hypothesis.) But I do have enormous problems when a dualist claims that the s/s/c depends on the brain to make its judgements, and therefore its judgements are problematic until the age of 25, after which its judgements are mature/adult/proper. Tell that to the victims of criminals over the age of 25. My 9.5-year-old grandson thinks helping other people is one of the most important things in life – and his school reports show he puts this into practice. Ts, ts, how immature. Let’s hope that by 25 his pre-frontal cortex will have given him a more complete judgement. You have no criteria for any of your statements. Judgements, just like the rest of our immaterial attributes, will depend on a wide range of factors, including experience, and experience continues to “develop” each individual’s s/s/c from birth to death, for better or for worse, regardless of when the brain becomes “adult”.
dhw: … consequently it is absurd for a dualist to argue that the brain has to expand before the s/s/c can THINK new thoughts…
DAVID: We will never be together on this point. The brain provides the substrate or mechanics for thought. s/s/c is the immaterial software.
dhw: More obfuscation. The “mechanics for thought” could mean that the brain is the mechanism enabling thought or the mechanism used by thought to implement itself. Why do you keep changing the terms, when you have already agreed so many times that the s/s/c is the source of thought, and the brain provides information and expresses/implements the thoughts of the s/s/c. […] We will never be together on this point so long as you keep trying to avoid the implications of your own beliefs.
DAVID: I don't know why you are so confused. The brain is a computer and the s/s/c is its software. […]
“Mechanics for thought” is ambiguous. The confusion lies in your agreement that the s/s/c does the thinking (software), but you say it cannot think without a functioning brain (hardware) – as explained in my first response above. Dualism separates thinking (soul) from implementation of thought (brain).
Big brain evolution: changes in sapiens skull shape;addendum
by David Turell , Sunday, February 25, 2018, 15:38 (2246 days ago) @ dhw
DAVID: My use of the word receives is that we receive the software of s/s/c. In the other sense, the functioning human brain receives thought specific areas of the brain.
dhw: If the thinking self (software) resides in the implementing brain (hardware), and if when the brain dies the s/s/c goes its merry way but continues to be its thinking self (as apparently evidenced by NDEs), how can you possibly argue that thought depends on the functioning brain?
You are not looking at the two different stages. Receiving "Living thought" requires a functional brain. The s/s/c as I conceive it has two quantum stages/forms, interfaced with the material brain and after death interfaced with the afterlife.
DAVID: Developmental completion is a simple concept: your Volkswagen came from the factory completely constructed (developed). You the added a few aftermarket refinements. Same car with some adaptations. I view the prefrontal cortex the same way. And from the standpoint of immaterial thought, why do adolescents have judgmental problems until that development is complete?dhw: Again you are trying to divert attention away from the fact that expression/ implementation of immaterial thought CAUSES changes in the material brain – the exact opposite of your hypothesis that changes in the brain PRECEDE immaterial thought. Why are you so afraid to tackle this issue?
I've tackled it over and over. Only advanced brains can produce advanced artifacts/civilizations. Implementation causes more complexity and shrinks the brain.
DAVID: I don't know why you are so confused. The brain is a computer and the s/s/c is its software. […]dhw: “Mechanics for thought” is ambiguous. The confusion lies in your agreement that the s/s/c does the thinking (software), but you say it cannot think without a functioning brain (hardware) – as explained in my first response above. Dualism separates thinking (soul) from implementation of thought (brain).
We may be using different concepts of dualism, which is why we are constantly cross talking. I cannot think without using a living brain. I am the s/s/c. My brain allows me to think (immaterial) but my brain is obviously material. Obvious dualism. You seem to add something that is a different concept.
Big brain evolution: changes in sapiens skull shape;addendum
DAVID: My use of the word receives is that we receive the software of s/s/c. In the other sense, the functioning human brain receives thought specific areas of the brain.
dhw: If the thinking self (software) resides in the implementing brain (hardware), and if when the brain dies the s/s/c goes its merry way but continues to be its thinking self (as apparently evidenced by NDEs), how can you possibly argue that thought depends on the functioning brain?
DAVID: You are not looking at the two different stages. Receiving "Living thought" requires a functional brain. The s/s/c as I conceive it has two quantum stages/forms, interfaced with the material brain and after death interfaced with the afterlife.
There are two different stages and what you call “interfaces” but only one s/s/c! In life the s/s/c requires a functional brain so that it can acquire information, implement its thoughts, and “interface” with the material world. In death (according to NDEs) it acquires information (presumably by psychic means) and “interfaces” with whatever world the afterlife consists of. In both cases the s/s/c is you and it does the thinking. That is why in dualism the s/s/c does the thinking and the brain does the implementing.
dhw: Again you are trying to divert attention away from the fact that expression/ implementation of immaterial thought CAUSES changes in the material brain – the exact opposite of your hypothesis that changes in the brain PRECEDE immaterial thought. Why are you so afraid to tackle this issue?
DAVID: I've tackled it over and over. Only advanced brains can produce advanced artifacts/civilizations. Implementation causes more complexity and shrinks the brain.
Agreed. The brain and body produce the artefacts, and the s/s/c produces the concepts of the artefacts. In implementing concepts, we know for a fact that the brain modifies itself (and in Homo sapiens, complexification is so efficient that it also shrinks the brain.) Nobody knows what caused enlargement, but there is no reason to suppose that the process of brain modification would have been the absolute reverse in pre-sapiens – i.e. that the brain was modified BEFORE new concepts were conceived and implemented.
DAVID: I don't know why you are so confused. The brain is a computer and the s/s/c is its software. […]
dhw: “Mechanics for thought” is ambiguous. The confusion lies in your agreement that the s/s/c does the thinking (software), but you say it cannot think without a functioning brain (hardware) – as explained in my first response above. Dualism separates thinking (soul) from implementation of thought (brain).
DAVID: We may be using different concepts of dualism, which is why we are constantly cross talking. I cannot think without using a living brain. I am the s/s/c. My brain allows me to think (immaterial) but my brain is obviously material. Obvious dualism. You seem to add something that is a different concept.
You believe that you, the s/s/c, CAN think without a living brain, as explained above (NDEs). Your material brain does not “allow” you to think: it provides information for you the s/s/c to think about, and it “allows” you the s/s/c to express/implement these thoughts materially, which is the essence of dualism (= mind and body are separate, though they work together), as you have agreed a thousand times.
Big brain evolution: changes in sapiens skull shape;addendum
by David Turell , Monday, February 26, 2018, 14:33 (2245 days ago) @ dhw
DAVID: You are not looking at the two different stages. Receiving "Living thought" requires a functional brain. The s/s/c as I conceive it has two quantum stages/forms, interfaced with the material brain and after death interfaced with the afterlife.dhw: There are two different stages and what you call “interfaces” but only one s/s/c! In life the s/s/c requires a functional brain so that it can acquire information, implement its thoughts, and “interface” with the material world. In death (according to NDEs) it acquires information (presumably by psychic means) and “interfaces” with whatever world the afterlife consists of. In both cases the s/s/c is you and it does the thinking. That is why in dualism the s/s/c does the thinking and the brain does the implementing.
Agreed. However, I conceive of an s/s/c which has two constructions or forms, one interfaced with the brain and the other separated in NDE's or death.
dhw: Again you are trying to divert attention away from the fact that expression/ implementation of immaterial thought CAUSES changes in the material brain – the exact opposite of your hypothesis that changes in the brain PRECEDE immaterial thought. Why are you so afraid to tackle this issue?DAVID: I've tackled it over and over. Only advanced brains can produce advanced artifacts/civilizations. Implementation causes more complexity and shrinks the brain.
dhw: Agreed. The brain and body produce the artefacts, and the s/s/c produces the concepts of the artifacts. In implementing concepts, we know for a fact that the brain modifies itself (and in Homo sapiens, complexification is so efficient that it also shrinks the brain.) Nobody knows what caused enlargement, but there is no reason to suppose that the process of brain modification would have been the absolute reverse in pre-sapiens – i.e. that the brain was modified BEFORE new concepts were conceived and implemented.
You have no reason. I say God did it.
DAVID: We may be using different concepts of dualism, which is why we are constantly cross talking. I cannot think without using a living brain. I am the s/s/c. My brain allows me to think (immaterial) but my brain is obviously material. Obvious dualism. You seem to add something that is a different concept.dhw: You believe that you, the s/s/c, CAN think without a living brain, as explained above (NDE's). Your material brain does not “allow” you to think: it provides information for you the s/s/c to think about, and it “allows” you the s/s/c to express/implement these thoughts materially, which is the essence of dualism (= mind and body are separate, though they work together), as you have agreed a thousand times.
I see it differently and experience it differently than your statement. My brain does 'allow' me to think. Unless I am attached to my brain I will have no thoughts I am aware of, which is why I think the s/s/c has two forms as discussed above.
Big brain evolution: changes in sapiens skull shape;addendum
dhw: There are two different stages and what you call “interfaces” but only one s/s/c! In life the s/s/c requires a functional brain so that it can acquire information, implement its thoughts, and “interface” with the material world. In death (according to NDEs) it acquires information (presumably by psychic means) and “interfaces” with whatever world the afterlife consists of. In both cases the s/s/c is you and it does the thinking. That is why in dualism the s/s/c does the thinking and the brain does the implementing.
DAVID: Agreed. However, I conceive of an s/s/c which has two constructions or forms, one interfaced with the brain and the other separated in NDE's or death.
There is no “however”. You keep agreeing that the self/soul is the immaterial thinking/conscious YOU. The immaterial thinking/conscious YOU interfaces with the material brain and the rest of the material world in life, and in death the immaterial thinking/conscious you interfaces with whatever world the afterlife consists of. I can’t see much point in your having an afterlife if you are no longer the thinking/conscious you. Can you?
dhw: The brain and body produce the artefacts, and the s/s/c produces the concepts of the artifacts. In implementing concepts, we know for a fact that the brain modifies itself (and in Homo sapiens, complexification is so efficient that it also shrinks the brain.) Nobody knows what caused enlargement, but there is no reason to suppose that the process of brain modification would have been the absolute reverse in pre-sapiens – i.e. that the brain was modified BEFORE new concepts were conceived and implemented.
DAVID: You have no reason. I say God did it.
“God did it” is not a reason! I offer the drive for survival and/or improvement as the reason for evolutionary innovation, and I acknowledge that your God may have invented the mechanisms that enable evolution to take place. We know for a fact that the brain is modified (complexifies with a degree of resultant shrinkage) by implementing new concepts. Yes or no? You say your God reversed the known process of brain modification by modifying (in this case enlarging) the pre-sapiens brain BEFORE there was a reason to do so. Why would he do that if he has already designed a mechanism whereby the s/s/c does the thinking and the brain modifies itself by implementing the thoughts of the s/s/c?
dhw: You believe that you, the s/s/c, CAN think without a living brain, as explained above (NDE's). Your material brain does not “allow” you to think: it provides information for you the s/s/c to think about, and it “allows” you the s/s/c to express/implement these thoughts materially, which is the essence of dualism (= mind and body are separate, though they work together), as you have agreed a thousand times.
DAVID: I see it differently and experience it differently than your statement. My brain does 'allow' me to think. Unless I am attached to my brain I will have no thoughts I am aware of, which is why I think the s/s/c has two forms as discussed above.
Your dualist’s s/s/c has one form but is capable of thinking in two different worlds (as discussed above). If you are not yourself and do not have thoughts you are aware of in the afterlife, you might as well be dead.
Big brain evolution: changes in sapiens skull shape;addendum
by David Turell , Tuesday, February 27, 2018, 18:03 (2244 days ago) @ dhw
DAVID: Agreed. However, I conceive of an s/s/c which has two constructions or forms, one interfaced with the brain and the other separated in NDE's or death.dhw: There is no “however”. You keep agreeing that the self/soul is the immaterial thinking/conscious YOU. The immaterial thinking/conscious YOU interfaces with the material brain and the rest of the material world in life, and in death the immaterial thinking/conscious you interfaces with whatever world the afterlife consists of. I can’t see much point in your having an afterlife if you are no longer the thinking/conscious you. Can you?
I don't know where the confusion in your answer comes from. As above: In life I reach my immaterial s/s/c by working within my brain, which is a soft wet material, and it which I am materially connected. In death or NDE my physical self is disconnected and my s/s/c operates independently of anything material. I therefore conceive of the s/s/c as having two separate quantum forms, one as a software interface with the brain and the other as an interface with the afterlife.
DAVID: You have no reason. I say God did it.dhw: “God did it” is not a reason! I offer the drive for survival and/or improvement as the reason for evolutionary innovation, and I acknowledge that your God may have invented the mechanisms that enable evolution to take place. We know for a fact that the brain is modified (complexifies with a degree of resultant shrinkage) by implementing new concepts. Yes or no? You say your God reversed the known process of brain modification by modifying (in this case enlarging) the pre-sapiens brain BEFORE there was a reason to do so. Why would he do that if he has already designed a mechanism whereby the s/s/c does the thinking and the brain modifies itself by implementing the thoughts of the s/s/c?
The brain has no built-in mechanism for enlargement that has been demonstrated. Only complexification with accompanying shrinkage has been shown. In my analogy about the brain and s/s/c as computer and software, it is reasonable to compare what we observe to that approach. Only larger more complex computers can receive and handle more complex software. The appearance of the large more complex brain allows the development of more complex thought and concept.
dhw: You believe that you, the s/s/c, CAN think without a living brain, as explained above (NDE's). Your material brain does not “allow” you to think: it provides information for you the s/s/c to think about, and it “allows” you the s/s/c to express/implement these thoughts materially, which is the essence of dualism (= mind and body are separate, though they work together), as you have agreed a thousand times.DAVID: I see it differently and experience it differently than your statement. My brain does 'allow' me to think. Unless I am attached to my brain I will have no thoughts I am aware of, which is why I think the s/s/c has two forms as discussed above.
dhw: Your dualist’s s/s/c has one form but is capable of thinking in two different worlds (as discussed above). If you are not yourself and do not have thoughts you are aware of in the afterlife, you might as well be dead.
I am dead and my s/s/c is active, and I theorize it has two forms, one in life and one in afterlife. Same s/s/c but slightly different in how it interfaces with where it is.
Big brain evolution: mental illness perspective
by David Turell , Tuesday, February 27, 2018, 20:07 (2243 days ago) @ David Turell
Persons who are mentally ill are an example of an improper brain-s/s/c interface:
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/getting-to-the-root-of-the-problem-stem-cell...
"last year San Diego–based researchers uncovered new details about how lithium may alter moods, thanks to an approach recently championed by a small number of scientists studying mental illness: The San Diego team used established lab techniques to reprogram patients’ skin cells into stem cells capable of becoming any other kind—and then chemically coaxed them into becoming brain cells.
"This process is now providing the first real stand-ins for brain cells from mentally ill humans, allowing for unprecedented direct experiments. Proponents hope studying these lab-grown neurons and related cells will eventually lead to more precise and effective treatment options for a variety of conditions. The San Diego team has already used this technique to show some bipolar cases may have more to do with protein regulation than genetic errors. And another lab discovered the activity of glial cells (a type of brain cell that supports neuron function) likely helps fuel schizophrenia—upending the theory that the disorder results mainly from faulty neurons.
***
"Work with induced pluripotent stem cells has helped change how clinicians think about schizophrenia. Goldman and some colleagues reported in August glial cells play a central role in the disorder. The researchers took iPSCs from schizophrenic and healthy subjects, turned them into glial progenitor cells and showed that only the ones from the mentally ill patients would alter the behavior of mice implanted with them. These mice developed symptoms similar to those of some humans with schizophrenia, including reduced inhibition, social isolation and excessive anxiety."
Comment: this research demonstrates the obvious, how the s/s/c must depend on a properly functioning brain. An improperly functioning brain results in a skewed s/s/c. Just as a normal s/s/c must depend on a normal brain, advanced conceptualization must have an advanced complex brain with which to work.
Big brain evolution: changes in sapiens skull shape;addendum
DAVID: I conceive of an s/s/c which has two constructions or forms, one interfaced with the brain and the other separated in NDE's or death.
dhw: You keep agreeing that the self/soul is the immaterial thinking/conscious YOU. The immaterial thinking/conscious YOU interfaces with the material brain and the rest of the material world in life, and in death the immaterial thinking/conscious you interfaces with whatever world the afterlife consists of. I can’t see much point in your having an afterlife if you are no longer the thinking/conscious you. Can you?
DAVID: I don't know where the confusion in your answer comes from. As above: In life I reach my immaterial s/s/c by working within my brain, which is a soft wet material, and it which I am materially connected. In death or NDE my physical self is disconnected and my s/s/c operates independently of anything material. I therefore conceive of the s/s/c as having two separate quantum forms, one as a software interface with the brain and the other as an interface with the afterlife.
Once again, you ARE your self/soul, you don’t “reach” your self/soul! And your thinking “self” is the same in life as in NDEs, as you are about to acknowledge:
dhw: Your dualist’s s/s/c has one form but is capable of thinking in two different worlds (as discussed above). If you are not yourself and do not have thoughts you are aware of in the afterlife, you might as well be dead.
DAVID: I am dead and my s/s/c is active, and I theorize it has two forms, one in life and one in afterlife. Same s/s/c but slightly different in how it interfaces with where it is.
Yes, the SAME s/s/c. Of course the manner in which it interfaces with the afterworld is different. It no longer has a material body with which to speak, observe, make material movements, objects, implementations. SAME s/s/c, different circumstances. You’ve got it! And so we return to the obvious fact that if it’s the SAME s/s/c which thinks independently of the material brain, it makes no sense to argue that the s/s/c depends on the material brain to come up with its THOUGHTS. In life the s/s/c USES the material brain to IMPLEMENT its thoughts, as you keep agreeing and then disagreeing, though saying the same thing in different words!
DAVID: The brain has no built-in mechanism for enlargement that has been demonstrated. Only complexification with accompanying shrinkage has been shown.
Agreed. But since the only process of brain modification that we know of is concept first, implementation/modification second, why assume that in the old days modification preceded conceptualization? Your subsequent computer analogy does not answer the question. Software does not change the computer, whereas we know for a fact that thought changes the brain. The computer analogy is inappropriate and an unnecessary distraction.
David’s comment (under “mental illness perspective”): this research demonstrates the obvious, how the s/s/c must depend on a properly functioning brain. An improperly functioning brain results in a skewed s/s/c. Just as a normal s/s/c must depend on a normal brain, advanced conceptualization must have an advanced complex brain with which to work.
I have already drawn attention to the fact that disease, accident, drugs, alcohol etc. can change a person’s s/s/c, which is prime evidence for MATERIALISM. It contradicts the dualistic theory that the s/s/c controls the brain. (I remain neutral in the debate between dualism and materialism, though I have tried once and will eventually try again to find a reconciliation between them.) This does not in any way alter the fact that we KNOW modern thoughts/ideas/concepts RESULT in modifications to modern brains. The modifications do not precede the concepts. You therefore have no reason to assume that this process was reversed in pre-sapiens times. But yes, conceptualization (it doesn’t have to be “advanced”) does depend on a material brain for its material implementation. And the only evidence we have is that it is the implementation that CAUSES complexification and resultant shrinkage, which suggests that implementation would also have CAUSED earlier modifications, such as enlargement.
Big brain evolution: changes in sapiens skull shape;addendum
by David Turell , Thursday, March 01, 2018, 01:17 (2242 days ago) @ dhw
dhw: Once again, you ARE your self/soul, you don’t “reach” your self/soul! And your thinking “self” is the same in life as in NDEs, as you are about to acknowledge:
I ( the physical me) can't be in contact with reach) my s/s/c if I am in coma like Alexander.
dhw: Your dualist’s s/s/c has one form but is capable of thinking in two different worlds (as discussed above). If you are not yourself and do not have thoughts you are aware of in the afterlife, you might as well be dead.DAVID: I am dead and my s/s/c is active, and I theorize it has two forms, one in life and one in afterlife. Same s/s/c but slightly different in how it interfaces with where it is.
dhw: Yes, the SAME s/s/c. Of course the manner in which it interfaces with the afterworld is different. It no longer has a material body with which to speak, observe, make material movements, objects, implementations. SAME s/s/c, different circumstances. You’ve got it! And so we return to the obvious fact that if it’s the SAME s/s/c which thinks independently of the material brain, it makes no sense to argue that the s/s/c depends on the material brain to come up with its THOUGHTS. In life the s/s/c USES the material brain to IMPLEMENT its thoughts, as you keep agreeing and then disagreeing, though saying the same thing in different words!
We are back to the same takeoff point. The baby stars as a blank slate at birth. Yes, there is a genetic input to come, but as the brain develops the child develops its own particular construction of a s/s/c. The two must work together and advances in the s/s/c must wait until brain development is ready for each step.
DAVID: The brain has no built-in mechanism for enlargement that has been demonstrated. Only complexification with accompanying shrinkage has been shown.dhw: Agreed. But since the only process of brain modification that we know of is concept first, implementation/modification second, why assume that in the old days modification preceded conceptualization?
Why not? Our current iteration of Homo is built on past advances and processes. You are imagining something for which there is no evidence. As with newborns concepts wait for brain development first.
David’s comment (under “mental illness perspective”): this research demonstrates the obvious, how the s/s/c must depend on a properly functioning brain. An improperly functioning brain results in a skewed s/s/c. Just as a normal s/s/c must depend on a normal brain, advanced conceptualization must have an advanced complex brain with which to work.dhw: I have already drawn attention to the fact that disease, accident, drugs, alcohol etc. can change a person’s s/s/c, which is prime evidence for MATERIALISM.
No it isn't. It changes the brain's ability to receive and express the s/s/c properly. The interface is damaged.
dhw: It contradicts the dualistic theory that the s/s/c controls the brain.
IT doesn't control the brain. The s/s/c is a software program that uses the brain to express itself.
dhw: This does not in any way alter the fact that we KNOW modern thoughts/ideas/concepts RESULT in modifications to modern brains. The modifications do not precede the concepts.
Remember you are discussing a sapiens brain which suddenly appeared quite enlarged, and then did nothing for 250,000 years. Concepts could only arrive as we learned to use the newly complexified prefrontal cortex.
dhw: You therefore have no reason to assume that this process was reversed in pre-sapiens times. But yes, conceptualization (it doesn’t have to be “advanced”) does depend on a material brain for its material implementation. And the only evidence we have is that it is the implementation that CAUSES complexification and resultant shrinkage, which suggests that implementation would also have CAUSED earlier modifications, such as enlargement.
Again twisting the only evidence we have which is shrinkage, which could more likely have occurred in Erectus. Evolution builds on processes from its past.
Big brain evolution: changes in sapiens skull shape;addendum
dhw: Once again, you ARE your self/soul, you don’t “reach” your self/soul! And your thinking “self” is the same in life as in NDEs, as you are about to acknowledge:
DAVID: I ( the physical me) can't be in contact with reach) my s/s/c if I am in coma like Alexander.
Of course there is no contact between the brain and the s/s/c if the brain is dead! That is why NDEs are used as evidence that the s/s/c exists and thinks separately from the brain, whether this is functioning or not, and that is the meaning of dualism.
DAVID: I am dead and my s/s/c is active, and I theorize it has two forms, one in life and one in afterlife. Same s/s/c but slightly different in how it interfaces with where it is.
dhw: Yes, the SAME s/s/c. […] And so we return to the obvious fact that if it’s the SAME s/s/c which thinks independently of the material brain, it makes no sense to argue that the s/s/c depends on the material brain to come up with its THOUGHTS. […]
DAVID: We are back to the same takeoff point.
And off you go at a tangent, talking about babies. I am putting that discussion back on the baby brain thread where it belongs. Please stick to the point. The SAME s/s/c does its thinking in different circumstances, which means that the s/s/c does not depend on the functioning brain to come up with its THOUGHTS. Yes or no?
David’s comment (under “mental illness perspective”): this research demonstrates the obvious, how the s/s/c must depend on a properly functioning brain. An improperly functioning brain results in a skewed s/s/c.
dhw: I have already drawn attention to the fact that disease, accident, drugs, alcohol etc. can change a person’s s/s/c, which is prime evidence for MATERIALISM.
DAVID: No it isn't. It changes the brain's ability to receive and express the s/s/c properly. The interface is damaged.
What are you saying? That the s/s/c is telling the drunkard's brain not to rape the woman but the message has got garbled? (“Sorry, m’lud, but my self kept telling my brain not to do it and it misunderstood.”) Does the s/s/c of a dementia victim actually know perfectly well what is going on, but the brain doesn’t get the message? Changes to the brain, whether temporary or permanent, are known to change the thoughts and behaviour of the s/s/c, and that is evidence for materialism.
dhw: It contradicts the dualistic theory that the s/s/c controls the brain.
DAVID: IT doesn't control the brain. The s/s/c is a software program that uses the brain to express itself.
And part of what is expressed is the will. The s/s/c wishes to perform an action, and the brain implements the will of the s/s/c. What we call “normal” is the situation in which the mind tells the body what to do, i.e. the mind CONTROLS the brain. What we call “abnormal” is when that situation is reversed, as in cases of illness, addiction etc.
dhw: This does not in any way alter the fact that we KNOW modern thoughts/ideas/concepts RESULT in modifications to modern brains. The modifications do not precede the concepts.
DAVID: Remember you are discussing a sapiens brain which suddenly appeared quite enlarged, and then did nothing for 250,000 years. Concepts could only arrive as we learned to use the newly complexified prefrontal cortex.
I don’t know how often we have to go over this. Each pre-sapiens enlargement was also followed by a long period of comparative stasis. It needs individuals to come up with major new concepts, and these require brain change to be implemented. The cortex does not complexify in advance of new concepts – it complexifies when concepts demand new connections. Yes, it took a long time for sapiens to use his newly enlarged brain, and when he did, instead of expanding still further (probably because further expansion would have caused anatomical problems), it became increasingly complexified as more and more concepts required implementation.
dhw: […] […] it is the implementation that CAUSES complexification and resultant shrinkage, which suggests that implementation would also have CAUSED earlier modifications, such as enlargement.
DAVID: Again twisting the only evidence we have which is shrinkage, which could more likely have occurred in Erectus. Evolution builds on processes from its past.
If evolution builds on processes from the past, then clearly present processes are highly likely to be the continuation of past processes, and so past brains would have been modified by implementation of concepts, just as they are today. I suggest shrinkage has come about because of the efficiency of complexification (some cells and connections are no longer required). There is no reason to suppose that pre-sapiens brains shrank, but even if their brains did complexify and shrink, that is not the point! We know they expanded. And expansion is also a modification of the brain, which suggests that the same process – implementation causes brain changes – caused expansion when the capacity was not great enough. Perhaps your dualist’s mind will now be kind enough to think why you regard this hypothesis as unreasonable, and then to use your materialist brain to give your immaterial thoughts their material expression.
Big brain evolution: changes in sapiens skull shape;addendum
by David Turell , Friday, March 02, 2018, 00:53 (2241 days ago) @ dhw
dhw:And off you go at a tangent, talking about babies. I am putting that discussion back on the baby brain thread where it belongs. Please stick to the point. The SAME s/s/c does its thinking in different circumstances, which means that the s/s/c does not depend on the functioning brain to come up with its THOUGHTS. Yes or no?
It is not one circumstance or issue for the s/s/c. It plays two roles, one in life interfaced with the brain and one in the afterlife. The s/s/c MUST work with the brain during life and an injured brain can create a skewed appearance to the s/s/c. In the afterlife the s/s/c will be whatever it will be, not skewed.
DAVID: No it isn't. It changes the brain's ability to receive and express the s/s/c properly. The interface is damaged.
dhw: What are you saying? That the s/s/c is telling the drunkard's brain not to rape the woman but the message has got garbled? (“Sorry, m’lud, but my self kept telling my brain not to do it and it misunderstood.”) Does the s/s/c of a dementia victim actually know perfectly well what is going on, but the brain doesn’t get the message? Changes to the brain, whether temporary or permanent, are known to change the thoughts and behaviour of the s/s/c, and that is evidence for materialism. /
See above for my approach. The brain is material, the s/s/c is not. A sick brain stands in the way of the s/s/c expressing itself properly. Interfaced!
dhw: […] […] it is the implementation that CAUSES complexification and resultant shrinkage, which suggests that implementation would also have CAUSED earlier modifications, such as enlargement.
DAVID: Again twisting the only evidence we have which is shrinkage, which could more likely have occurred in Erectus. Evolution builds on processes from its past.
dhw: If evolution builds on processes from the past, then clearly present processes are highly likely to be the continuation of past processes, and so past brains would have been modified by implementation of concepts, just as they are today. I suggest shrinkage has come about because of the efficiency of complexification (some cells and connections are no longer required). There is no reason to suppose that pre-sapiens brains shrank, but even if their brains did complexify and shrink, that is not the point! We know they expanded. And expansion is also a modification of the brain, which suggests that the same process – implementation causes brain changes – caused expansion when the capacity was not great enough. Perhaps your dualist’s mind will now be kind enough to think why you regard this hypothesis as unreasonable, and then to use your materialist brain to give your immaterial thoughts their material expression.
You and I come from very different viewpoints about the interaction of the brain and the s/s/c. They are not resolved, but as I see it, remain very far apart. As a result I cannot accept your theory that the need to implement concepts forces the brain to enlarge. God makes major speciation changes. We have no materialistic explanation for speciation. I see a designer must be present.
Big brain evolution: changes in sapiens skull shape;addendum
Dhw: The SAME s/s/c does its thinking in different circumstances, which means that the s/s/c does not depend on the functioning brain to come up with its THOUGHTS. Yes or no?
DAVID: It is not one circumstance or issue for the s/s/c. It plays two roles, one in life interfaced with the brain and one in the afterlife. The s/s/c MUST work with the brain during life and an injured brain can create a skewed appearance to the s/s/c. In the afterlife the s/s/c will be whatever it will be, not skewed.
Of course in life it must work with the brain, using the information the brain provides and using the material brain to give material expression/implementation to its immaterial thoughts. But if NDEs are to be believed, the s/s/c plays the same role in life and in death: it is the thinking, experiencing, remembering, decision-making YOU. Yes or no?
dhw: Changes to the brain, whether temporary or permanent, are known to change the thoughts and behaviour of the s/s/c, and that is evidence for materialism.
DAVID: The brain is material, the s/s/c is not.
That is indeed the essence of dualism. Two separate things that work together.
DAVID: A sick brain stands in the way of the s/s/c expressing itself properly. Interfaced!
A materialist will argue that if a change to the brain entails a change to the personality, that is clear evidence that the basis of the personality is material. If a dementia victim - i'm thinking of an extreme case here - could be cured (if only…), then their former self would be restored, but this suggests that the brain makes the self – not that the self is actually present trying in vain to get the brain to say/do what he/she wants it to say/do! (But I’m not taking sides here. I’m pointing out the dichotomy that makes it so difficult to take sides, though eventually I will try to formulate a way of reconciling the two approaches.)
DAVID: You and I come from very different viewpoints about the interaction of the brain and the s/s/c. They are not resolved, but as I see it, remain very far apart. As a result I cannot accept your theory that the need to implement concepts forces the brain to enlarge. God makes major speciation changes. We have no materialistic explanation for speciation. I see a designer must be present.
Fact 1): pre-sapiens brains underwent enlargement. Fact 2): nobody knows the cause. Fact 3): implementation of concepts is known to modify the brain.
Hypothesis 1): the thinking, conceptualizing s/s/c is a separate entity from the information-providing, concept-implementing brain, but they work together. Hypothesis 2): if implementation of s/s/c-generated concepts is known to modify the brain, maybe pre-sapiens brains needed greater capacity to implement new concepts, and so implementation caused modification in the form of expansion. Hypothesis 3): although concepts are generated by the s/s/c and not the brain, the s/s/c could not generate new concepts until God had enlarged the brain.
I suggest that Hypothesis 2) is logical. I suggest that Hypothesis 3) is illogical. A designer can be present in both hypotheses.
Big brain evolution: changes in sapiens skull shape;addendum
by David Turell , Friday, March 02, 2018, 15:25 (2241 days ago) @ dhw
edited by David Turell, Friday, March 02, 2018, 15:54
DAVID: It is not one circumstance or issue for the s/s/c. It plays two roles, one in life interfaced with the brain and one in the afterlife. The s/s/c MUST work with the brain during life and an injured brain can create a skewed appearance to the s/s/c. In the afterlife the s/s/c will be whatever it will be, not skewed.
dhw: Of course in life it must work with the brain, using the information the brain provides and using the material brain to give material expression/implementation to its immaterial thoughts. But if NDEs are to be believed, the s/s/c plays the same role in life and in death: it is the thinking, experiencing, remembering, decision-making YOU. Yes or no?
Yes.
dhw: Changes to the brain, whether temporary or permanent, are known to change the thoughts and behaviour of the s/s/c, and that is evidence for materialism.
DAVID: The brain is material, the s/s/c is not.dhw: That is indeed the essence of dualism. Two separate things that work together.
DAVID: A sick brain stands in the way of the s/s/c expressing itself properly. Interfaced!
dhw: A materialist will argue that if a change to the brain entails a change to the personality, that is clear evidence that the basis of the personality is material. If a dementia victim - i'm thinking of an extreme case here - could be cured (if only…), then their former self would be restored, but this suggests that the brain makes the self – not that the self is actually present trying in vain to get the brain to say/do what he/she wants it to say/do!
I see no problem. The material brain only allows expression to an immaterial s/s/c. A sick brain gives a sick improper expression. I use the idea of the brain receiving the s/s/c as an explanation, just as a damaged radio gives a garbled output. The underlying s/s/c is really the same and normal.
DAVID: You and I come from very different viewpoints about the interaction of the brain and the s/s/c. They are not resolved, but as I see it, remain very far apart. As a result I cannot accept your theory that the need to implement concepts forces the brain to enlarge. God makes major speciation changes. We have no materialistic explanation for speciation. I see a designer must be present.
dhw: Fact 1): pre-sapiens brains underwent enlargement. Fact 2): nobody knows the cause. Fact 3): implementation of concepts is known to modify the brain.
Hypothesis 1): the thinking, conceptualizing s/s/c is a separate entity from the information-providing, concept-implementing brain, but they work together. Hypothesis 2): if implementation of s/s/c-generated concepts is known to modify the brain, maybe pre-sapiens brains needed greater capacity to implement new concepts, and so implementation caused modification in the form of expansion. Hypothesis 3): although concepts are generated by the s/s/c and not the brain, the s/s/c could not generate new concepts until God had enlarged the brain.I suggest that Hypothesis 2) is logical. I suggest that Hypothesis 3) is illogical. A designer can be present in both hypotheses.
I'm still with Hypo 3. The theory of implementation requiring enlargement where development of complex concepts does not, is an inconsistent thought. Einstein's brain is a point in my favor. His conceptual area was almost a centimeter thicker than the average human, but his overall brain was the same size as the rest of us. He was obviously born a genius. (Page 209 of The Atheist Delusion)
Big brain evolution: it mushroomed!
by David Turell , Friday, March 02, 2018, 18:23 (2241 days ago) @ David Turell
A wild theory presented tongue-in-cheek:
http://bigthink.com/paul-ratner/is-there-evidence-that-magic-mushrooms-played-a-role-in...
“'The great embarrassment to evolutionary theory is the human neocortex,” says McKenna. He argues that there is no explanation for how such a major organ was dramatically transformed in complexity in a narrow window of time to create the jump from hominids to humans.
"What lit “the fire of intelligence”? McKenna’s answer lies in the hominid’s diet. He essentially thinks that “we ate our way to higher consciousness."
"McKenna’s “Stoned Ape” theory of human evolution breaks the process into three stages. In stage one, around 40 to 50 thousand years ago, early hominids in Africa, like Homo Erectus, were forced to abandon their canopy-dwelling lifestyle due to the desertification of the African continent. As they were forced to find new sources of food, they followed herds of wild cattle in whose dung they found insects that became part of their diet. Also in the dung were magic mushrooms that often grow in such environments.
"As they started to eat these mushrooms in low doses, early hominids improved their visuals acuity and became betters hunters and survivors, giving them an advantage over those who did not consume the shrooms.
"Stage Two of how the psilocybin diet impacted the human brain under McKenna’s theory took place 20 to 10 thousand years ago, as hominids discovered the aphrodisiac qualities of ingesting the shrooms. According to McKenna, at higher doses, the mushrooms caused increased male potency and led to group sexual activities. “Everyone would get loaded around the campfire and hump in an enormous writhing heap,” half-jokingly posits McKenna.
"Causing greater genetic diversification, these orgies also had the effect of creating the first societies, where males could not trace paternity and as such did not identify children as personal “property," raising them as a community.
"These orgiastic sessions also led to the development of symbolic functions in hominid cognitive abilities via early art creation and dance.
"The last stage of how psychedelics changed the brain came from taking higher doses of the mushrooms. McKenna argued that when doses doubled, psilocybin affected the language-forming region of the brain, causing vocalizations that became the raw material for the evolution of language. This also led to the first human religious impulse.
"Challenges to McKenna’s theories have mainly revolved around the lack of evidence for a number of his assertions. Many scientists have dismissed his ideas as “a story” rather than an explanation based on proven facts. Yet, there has been a growing amount of evidence about the lives of early hominids that provides some corroboration to McKenna’s work.
"In particular, evidence has been found that Stone Age humans ate mushrooms. German anthropologists discovered mushroom spores on the teeth of a prehistoric woman who lived around 18,700 years ago.
"In 2015, the Spanish anthropologist Professor Guerra-Doce published a paper outlining the use of hallucinogenic plants by early humans. Additionally, Neolithic and Bronze cave paintings that resembled psilocybin mushrooms were found in the Italian Alps and in Villar del Humo in Cuenca, Spain."
Comment: All of this weird theory occurs in sapiens from 40-50 thousand years ago. The pre-frontal cortex was already there waiting to wake up. The mushrooms didn't enlarge it, but might have helped complexify it at least in sexual ways, as this hippy theory implies. My other take is this website is called BIGTHINK, but this author isn't thinking very clearly in presenting this mess as possible.
Big brain evolution: changes in sapiens skull shape;addendum
dhw: A materialist will argue that if a change to the brain entails a change to the personality, that is clear evidence that the basis of the personality is material.
DAVID: I see no problem. The material brain only allows expression to an immaterial s/s/c. A sick brain gives a sick improper expression. I use the idea of the brain receiving the s/s/c as an explanation, just as a damaged radio gives a garbled output. The underlying s/s/c is really the same and normal.
So do you accept the argument that anyone under 25 is not responsible for his criminal actions because his brain is not yet fully developed and so his nice kind s/s/c couldn’t express itself properly? And do you believe that a dementia sufferer actually knows what is going on but is simply unable to communicate that knowledge?
Dhw: Hypothesis 2): if implementation of s/s/c-generated concepts is known to modify the brain, maybe pre-sapiens brains needed greater capacity to implement new concepts, and so implementation caused modification in the form of expansion. Hypothesis 3): although concepts are generated by the s/s/c and not the brain, the s/s/c could not generate new concepts until God had enlarged the brain.
I suggest that Hypothesis 2) is logical. I suggest that Hypothesis 3) is illogical. A designer can be present in both hypotheses.
DAVID: I'm still with Hypo 3. The theory of implementation requiring enlargement where development of complex concepts does not, is an inconsistent thought.
Pre-sapiens brain expanded. Implementation of concepts requires brain modification. Pre-sapiens brains may well have complexified (modification) but eventually needed greater capacity and expanded (modification). There has to be a limit to expansion unless you believe sapiens could function with an elephant-sized head, and so complexification took over (so efficiently that there was shrinkage). No inconsistency. And you continue to ignore the obvious illogicality of 3).
DAVID: Einstein's brain is a point in my favor. His conceptual area was almost a centimeter thicker than the average human, but his overall brain was the same size as the rest of us. He was obviously born a genius. (Page 209 of The Atheist Delusion)
If you are a dualist, the obvious conclusion is that the thoughts of his genius s/s/c created ever greater complexity within the conceptual area and even expanded it within the given capacity of the brain. More evidence for my hypothesis. But if there were no limits to expansion, we would have elephant-sized heads. The brain responds to the s/s/c. Concept first, brain change second.
QUOTE (under : What lit “the fire of intelligence”? McKenna’s answer lies in the hominid’s diet. He essentially thinks that “we ate our way to higher consciousness."
DAVID’s comment: All of this weird theory occurs in sapiens from 40-50 thousand years ago. The pre-frontal cortex was already there waiting to wake up. The mushrooms didn't enlarge it, but might have helped complexify it at least in sexual ways, as this hippy theory implies.
Diet is a common explanation for brain expansion, though as you point out, this theory has nothing to do with expansion. I share your scepticism. But the conventional diet theory does equate brain expansion with lighting the fire of intelligence, to which you as a dualist ought to be fiercely opposed, since you believe that intelligence springs from the s/s/c and not the material brain. And yet you continue to defend exactly the same basic process: that brain expansion preceded each increase in intelligence.
Big brain evolution: changes in sapiens skull shape;addendum
by David Turell , Saturday, March 03, 2018, 15:42 (2240 days ago) @ dhw
dhw: A materialist will argue that if a change to the brain entails a change to the personality, that is clear evidence that the basis of the personality is material.
DAVID: I see no problem. The material brain only allows expression to an immaterial s/s/c. A sick brain gives a sick improper expression. I use the idea of the brain receiving the s/s/c as an explanation, just as a damaged radio gives a garbled output. The underlying s/s/c is really the same and normal.dhw: So do you accept the argument that anyone under 25 is not responsible for his criminal actions because his brain is not yet fully developed and so his nice kind s/s/c couldn’t express itself properly?
Perhaps the s/s/c he created from birth is not so kind. He creates his own s/s/c attributes. You imply his s/s/c is separated from him!
dhw: And do you believe that a dementia sufferer actually knows what is going on but is simply unable to communicate that knowledge?
Medically, many demented actually recognize their impairment and try to cover it over in conversation.
dhw: Pre-sapiens brain expanded. Implementation of concepts requires brain modification. Pre-sapiens brains may well have complexified (modification) but eventually needed greater capacity and expanded (modification). There has to be a limit to expansion unless you believe sapiens could function with an elephant-sized head, and so complexification took over (so efficiently that there was shrinkage).
Complexification of a network with possible shrinkage does the whole job. You constantly forget the bony case must be coordinated with the enlargement as well as the mother's birth canal must be adjusted to the new-sized baby head. This can only happen by design.
DAVID: Einstein's brain is a point in my favor. His conceptual area was almost a centimeter thicker than the average human, but his overall brain was the same size as the rest of us. He was obviously born a genius. (Page 209 of The Atheist Delusion)dhw: If you are a dualist, the obvious conclusion is that the thoughts of his genius s/s/c created ever greater complexity within the conceptual area and even expanded it within the given capacity of the brain. More evidence for my hypothesis. But if there were no limits to expansion, we would have elephant-sized heads. The brain responds to the s/s/c. Concept first, brain change second.
What a contorted answer! His genius resulted from the enlarged area from birth, because we know complexification causes shrinkage! Please lets use factual material. Perhaps you know Einstein is the only known sapiens who had brain area expansion abilities, and the rest of us don't.
QUOTE (under : What lit “the fire of intelligence”? McKenna’s answer lies in the hominid’s diet. He essentially thinks that “we ate our way to higher consciousness."
DAVID’s comment: All of this weird theory occurs in sapiens from 40-50 thousand years ago. The pre-frontal cortex was already there waiting to wake up. The mushrooms didn't enlarge it, but might have helped complexify it at least in sexual ways, as this hippy theory implies.dhw: Diet is a common explanation for brain expansion, though as you point out, this theory has nothing to do with expansion. I share your scepticism. But the conventional diet theory does equate brain expansion with lighting the fire of intelligence, to which you as a dualist ought to be fiercely opposed, since you believe that intelligence springs from the s/s/c and not the material brain.
No. Intelligence springs from the s/s/c being able to use an advanced brain in size and complexity.
dhw: And yet you continue to defend exactly the same basic process: that brain expansion preceded each increase in intelligence.
Of course. Logical
Big brain evolution: changes in sapiens skull shape;addendum
dhw: So do you accept the argument that anyone under 25 is not responsible for his criminal actions because his brain is not yet fully developed and so his nice kind s/s/c couldn’t express itself properly?
DAVID: Perhaps the s/s/c he created from birth is not so kind. He creates his own s/s/c attributes. You imply his s/s/c is separated from him!
I am following up on your claim (Feb. 19) that “judgment about the consequences of any new action by an individual is impaired or limited until the development of the prefrontal cortex is complete”, which you say happens at 25. This can only mean that either the cortex and not the s/s/c is responsible for making judgements or, according to your latest theory, the s/s/c can’t get the cortex to obey its instructions. Which is it?
dhw: And do you believe that a dementia sufferer actually knows what is going on but is simply unable to communicate that knowledge?
DAVID: Medically, many demented actually recognize their impairment and try to cover it over in conversation.
In my earlier post I specified extreme cases, so will you now answer the question?
dhw: Pre-sapiens brain expanded. Implementation of concepts requires brain modification. Pre-sapiens brains may well have complexified (modification) but eventually needed greater capacity and expanded (modification). There has to be a limit to expansion unless you believe sapiens could function with an elephant-sized head, and so complexification took over (so efficiently that there was shrinkage).
DAVID: Complexification of a network with possible shrinkage does the whole job. You constantly forget the bony case must be coordinated with the enlargement as well as the mother's birth canal must be adjusted to the new-sized baby head. This can only happen by design.
It does the whole job NOW. We are trying to explain why the pre-sapiens brain expanded. Of course the skull had to expand as well. Modifications to one part of the body may well require modifications elsewhere, whether your God did it or he endowed cell communities with the means of doing it themselves. You appear to believe that your God is incapable of devising a mechanism that can work without his interference.
DAVID: Einstein's brain is a point in my favor. His conceptual area was almost a centimeter thicker than the average human, but his overall brain was the same size as the rest of us. He was obviously born a genius. (Page 209 of The Atheist Delusion)
dhw: If you are a dualist, the obvious conclusion is that the thoughts of his genius s/s/c created ever greater complexity within the conceptual area and even expanded it within the given capacity of the brain. More evidence for my hypothesis. But if there were no limits to expansion, we would have elephant-sized heads. The brain responds to the s/s/c. Concept first, brain change second.
DAVID: What a contorted answer! His genius resulted from the enlarged area from birth, because we know complexification causes shrinkage! Please lets use factual material. Perhaps you know Einstein is the only known sapiens who had brain area expansion abilities, and the rest of us don't.
The contortions are entirely yours. If his genius resulted from the enlarged area, you have provided rock solid evidence for materialism (which of course may be correct, but you the dualist are supposed to reject that theory). How do you know his “conceptual area” was thicker from birth? You keep telling us that the cortex isn’t fully developed until the age of 25. His skull was clearly able to accommodate the extra centimetre, whether he had it from birth or it developed with his great thoughts. Who knows, your own cortex might be a centimetre thicker than mine. Have you had it measured? Shrinkage is believed to have taken place over the last 10,000-20,000 years. I suggest that some cells have become redundant as a result of the efficiency of complexification. That doesn’t mean the brain shrinks every time we implement a concept! According to you, then, we’ll end up with a pin-size brain!
dhw: Diet is a common explanation for brain expansion, though as you point out, this theory has nothing to do with expansion. I share your scepticism. But the conventional diet theory does equate brain expansion with lighting the fire of intelligence, to which you as a dualist ought to be fiercely opposed, since you believe that intelligence springs from the s/s/c and not the material brain.
DAVID: No. Intelligence springs from the s/s/c being able to use an advanced brain in size and complexity.
Strange, I thought you’d agreed (a few dozen times) that the s/s/c is the thinking, experiencing, remembering, decision-making you, both in life and in death. Now apparently, in the afterlife you believe in, you will leave your intelligence behind because you haven’t got a brain to use.
Big brain evolution: changes in sapiens skull shape;addendum
by David Turell , Sunday, March 04, 2018, 15:07 (2239 days ago) @ dhw
dhw: I am following up on your claim (Feb. 19) that “judgment about the consequences of any new action by an individual is impaired or limited until the development of the prefrontal cortex is complete”, which you say happens at 25. This can only mean that either the cortex and not the s/s/c is responsible for making judgements or, according to your latest theory, the s/s/c can’t get the cortex to obey its instructions. Which is it?
Each person develops his own ability at judgments using his pre-frontal cortex. Again you are implying the s/s/c is separate from the brain. Both are interlocked with each other and must work together. You are confused about this, and therefore misrepresent what I am presenting.
dhw: And do you believe that a dementia sufferer actually knows what is going on but is simply unable to communicate that knowledge?
DAVID: Medically, many demented actually recognize their impairment and try to cover it over in conversation.dhw: In my earlier post I specified extreme cases, so will you now answer the question?
Severely demented may be total vegetables. So?
DAVID: Complexification of a network with possible shrinkage does the whole job. You constantly forget the bony case must be coordinated with the enlargement as well as the mother's birth canal must be adjusted to the new-sized baby head. This can only happen by design.
dhw: It does the whole job NOW. We are trying to explain why the pre-sapiens brain expanded. Of course the skull had to expand as well. Modifications to one part of the body may well require modifications elsewhere, whether your God did it or he endowed cell communities with the means of doing it themselves. You appear to believe that your God is incapable of devising a mechanism that can work without his interference.
But I've said he could! With general outline to follow.
dhw: If you are a dualist, the obvious conclusion is that the thoughts of his genius s/s/c created ever greater complexity within the conceptual area and even expanded it within the given capacity of the brain. More evidence for my hypothesis. But if there were no limits to expansion, we would have elephant-sized heads. The brain responds to the s/s/c. Concept first, brain change second.DAVID: What a contorted answer! His genius resulted from the enlarged area from birth, because we know complexification causes shrinkage! Please lets use factual material. Perhaps you know Einstein is the only known sapiens who had brain area expansion abilities, and the rest of us don't.
dhw: The contortions are entirely yours. If his genius resulted from the enlarged area, you have provided rock solid evidence for materialism (which of course may be correct, but you the dualist are supposed to reject that theory). How do you know his “conceptual area” was thicker from birth?
I admit I should have said developed from birth. The enlarged area allowed his s/s/c to have a greater ability at conceptualization, dualism
dhw: You keep telling us that the cortex isn’t fully developed until the age of 25. His skull was clearly able to accommodate the extra centimetre, whether he had it from birth or it developed with his great thoughts. Who knows, your own cortex might be a centimetre thicker than mine. Have you had it measured?
Our brains are equal, but my thoughts are stronger.
DAVID: No. Intelligence springs from the s/s/c being able to use an advanced brain in size and complexity.
dhw: Strange, I thought you’d agreed (a few dozen times) that the s/s/c is the thinking, experiencing, remembering, decision-making you, both in life and in death. Now apparently, in the afterlife you believe in, you will leave your intelligence behind because you haven’t got a brain to use.
And the only way there can be advanced thinking, as Einstein shows, is through brain complexity. The s/s/c and brain are fully interfaced in life and depend upon each other. And the s/s/c in afterlife is in a different circumstance. It carries all of its knowledge. We have no idea if it can develop new thoughts or not. All we know from NDE testimony is thoughts/information are transmitted telepathically.
Big brain evolution: changes in sapiens skull shape;addendum
dhw: I am following up on your claim (Feb. 19) that “judgment about the consequences of any new action by an individual is impaired or limited until the development of the prefrontal cortex is complete”, which you say happens at 25. This can only mean that either the cortex and not the s/s/c is responsible for making judgements or, according to your latest theory, the s/s/c can’t get the cortex to obey its instructions. Which is it?
DAVID: Each person develops his own ability at judgments using his pre-frontal cortex. Again you are implying the s/s/c is separate from the brain. Both are interlocked with each other and must work together. You are confused about this, and therefore misrepresent what I am presenting.
Yes, they must work together, but according to your dualistic beliefs they have different functions. You have described the distinction yourself under “Panpsychism”:
DAVID: My manifestations of mind, as I write this, is not my mind. I can express my mind's thoughts through physical activity of my fingers, but the thoughts are still immaterial. But only works if my mind is intimately interfaced with an active brain capable of inducing the activity of eyes and fingers at the keyboard to give expression to those current thoughts.
You see, you’ve understood perfectly that the s/s/c does the thinking, but manifestation can only occur when the brain gives material implementation to the immaterial thoughts. So why do you keep insisting that your mind cannot THINK its thoughts without the functioning brain?
Next we move to the complete contrast between the dementia victim's dualism (the s/s/c is normal but can't express itself) and Einstein's materialism (his brain is the source of his genius):
DAVID: Severely demented may be total vegetables. So?
I pointed out that disease can change the nature of the self, which is evidence for materialism. You argued that “a sick brain gives a sick improper impression…The underlying s/s/c is really the same and normal”. So when the vegetable thinks he/she is now a child, or the doctor wants to kill him/her, or he/she wants to kill the doctor, are you saying the s/s/c is perfectly normal but can’t communicate its normal thoughts because the receiver isn’t working properly?If not, what ARE you saying?
DAVID: What a contorted answer! His [Einstein’s] genius resulted from the enlarged area from birth, because we know complexification causes shrinkage! Please lets use factual material. Perhaps you know Einstein is the only known sapiens who had brain area expansion abilities, and the rest of us don't.
dhw: The contortions are entirely yours. If his genius resulted from the enlarged area, you have provided rock solid evidence for materialism (which of course may be correct, but you the dualist are supposed to reject that theory). How do you know his “conceptual area” was thicker from birth?
DAVID: I admit I should have said developed from birth. The enlarged area allowed his s/s/c to have a greater ability at conceptualization, dualism
In dualism, as you have agreed a thousand times, conceptualization is the province of the s/s/c, not the brain. The brain does not “allow” the s/s/c to conceptualize. The brain provides information and implements the concepts.
DAVID: No. Intelligence springs from the s/s/c being able to use an advanced brain in size and complexity.
dhw: Strange, I thought you’d agreed (a few dozen times) that the s/s/c is the thinking, experiencing, remembering, decision-making you, both in life and in death. Now apparently, in the afterlife you believe in, you will leave your intelligence behind because you haven’t got a brain to use.
DAVID: And the only way there can be advanced thinking, as Einstein shows, is through brain complexity.
So did Einstein show us that the complexities of his brain were the source of his great thoughts, thereby embracing materialism, or did he show us that his great thoughts resulted in increased brain complexity, thereby embracing dualism?
DAVID: The s/s/c and brain are fully interfaced in life and depend upon each other. And the s/s/c in afterlife is in a different circumstance. It carries all of its knowledge. We have no idea if it can develop new thoughts or not. All we know from NDE testimony is thoughts/information are transmitted telepathically.
Since this hasn't penetrated, let me repeat: You said that intelligence sprang from the s/s/c being able to use its brain. This can only mean that without a brain, the s/s/c cannot be intelligent. On Friday 2 March I wrote: “If NDEs are to be believed, the s/s/c plays the same role in life and in death: it is the thinking, experiencing, remembering, decision-making YOU. Yes or no?” And on the very same day you answered yes. On Sunday 4 March your afterlife s/s/c will apparently have lost its intelligence.
Big brain evolution: changes in sapiens skull shape;addendum
by David Turell , Monday, March 05, 2018, 14:56 (2238 days ago) @ dhw
dhw: You see, you’ve understood perfectly that the s/s/c does the thinking, but manifestation can only occur when the brain gives material implementation to the immaterial thoughts. So why do you keep insisting that your mind cannot THINK its thoughts without the functioning brain?
You keep forgetting I have two views of the state of the s/s/c. In life it MUST use the brain, but in the afterlife it is independent.
Next we move to the complete contrast between the dementia victim's dualism (the s/s/c is normal but can't express itself) and Einstein's materialism (his brain is the source of his genius):DAVID: Severely demented may be total vegetables. So?
dhw: I pointed out that disease can change the nature of the self, which is evidence for materialism. You argued that “a sick brain gives a sick improper impression…The underlying s/s/c is really the same and normal”. So when the vegetable thinks he/she is now a child, or the doctor wants to kill him/her, or he/she wants to kill the doctor, are you saying the s/s/c is perfectly normal but can’t communicate its normal thoughts because the receiver isn’t working properly?If not, what ARE you saying?
Of course, the receiver is not working properly.
DAVID: I admit I should have said developed from birth. The enlarged area allowed his s/s/c to have a greater ability at conceptualization, dualism
dhw: In dualism, as you have agreed a thousand times, conceptualization is the province of the s/s/c, not the brain. The brain does not “allow” the s/s/c to conceptualize. The brain provides information and implements the concepts.
These quotes answer:
DAVID: No. Intelligence springs from the s/s/c being able to use an advanced brain in size and complexity.
DAVID: And the only way there can be advanced thinking, as Einstein shows, is through brain complexity.
dhw: So did Einstein show us that the complexities of his brain were the source of his great thoughts, thereby embracing materialism, or did he show us that his great thoughts resulted in increased brain complexity, thereby embracing dualism?
The thickened area allowed the more complex thoughts to be developed. Why do IQ levels differ in different people? It must be the individual complexity of the prefrontal cortex.
DAVID: The s/s/c and brain are fully interfaced in life and depend upon each other. And the s/s/c in afterlife is in a different circumstance. It carries all of its knowledge. We have no idea if it can develop new thoughts or not. All we know from NDE testimony is thoughts/information are transmitted telepathically.dhw: Since this hasn't penetrated, let me repeat: You said that intelligence sprang from the s/s/c being able to use its brain. This can only mean that without a brain, the s/s/c cannot be intelligent. On Friday 2 March I wrote: “If NDEs are to be believed, the s/s/c plays the same role in life and in death: it is the thinking, experiencing, remembering, decision-making YOU. Yes or no?” And on the very same day you answered yes. On Sunday 4 March your afterlife s/s/c will apparently have lost its intelligence.
My s/s/c has dual roles in life and in death, with brain and without brain. Its underlying mechanism of action may be slightly different in each role. I don't think of the s/s/c as you do, seemingly one neat package.
Big brain evolution: brain damage legal defense
by David Turell , Monday, March 05, 2018, 19:37 (2237 days ago) @ David Turell
Our discussion leads to this consideration in court. If the brain is incompetent in some way, I'm not guiklty!:
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/my-brain-made-me-do-it-is-becoming-a-more-co...
"Criminal defense strategies are increasingly relying on neurological evidence—psychological evaluations, behavioral tests or brain scans—to potentially mitigate punishment. Defendants may cite earlier head traumas or brain disorders as underlying reasons for their behavior, hoping this will be factored into a court’s decisions. Such defenses have been employed for decades, mostly in death penalty cases. But as science has evolved in recent years, the practice has become more common in criminal cases ranging from drug offenses to robberies.
***
“'In 2012 alone over 250 judicial opinions—more than double the number in 2007—cited defendants arguing in some form or another that their ‘brains made them do it,’” according to an analysis by Nita Farahany, a law professor and director of Duke University’s Initiative for Science and Society. More recently, she says, that number has climbed to around 420 each year.
"Even when lawyers do not bring neuroscience into the courtroom, this shift can still affect a case: Some defendants are now using the omission of neuroscience as grounds for questioning the competency of the defenses they received. In a bid to untangle the issue, Sanes, Farahany and other members of a committee of The National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine are meeting in Washington, D.C., on Tuesday to discuss what they have dubbed “neuroforensics.”
***
"Currently, most neuroscience enters the courtroom in the form of psychological evaluations or behavioral studies. Actual snapshots of the brain from MRIs or CT scans are only showing up in about 15 percent of judicial opinions that involve neuroscience, according to Farahany’s research. But ahead of their meeting, committee members cautioned the role of brain scans could surge in the very near future—a good reason to start discussing these issues now.
“'This is such a fraught area, and it’s prone to hype and overstatement,” Sanes says of neuroforensics. But at the meeting, “hopefully we’ll both get some feedback about good avenues to explore, and get some suggestions about how to mount a full study, he says. “This meeting is the starting point.'”
Comment: The brain is the seat of operations for the s/s/c. There is no way around it. Normal s/s/c requires a normal brain. But this is a legal slippery slope.
Big brain evolution: changes in sapiens skull shape;addendum
dhw: You see, you’ve understood perfectly that the s/s/c does the thinking, but manifestation can only occur when the brain gives material implementation to the immaterial thoughts. So why do you keep insisting that your mind cannot THINK its thoughts without the functioning brain?
DAVID: You keep forgetting I have two views of the state of the s/s/c. In life it MUST use the brain, but in the afterlife it is independent.
DAVID (later): My s/s/c has dual roles in life and in death, with brain and without brain. Its underlying mechanism of action may be slightly different in each role. I don't think of the s/s/c as you do, seemingly one neat package.
I haven’t forgotten it at all, but you have forgotten our exchange on 2 March: “If NDEs are to be believed, the s/s/c plays the same role in life and in death: it is the thinking, experiencing, remembering, decision-making YOU. Yes or no?” You answered yes. But now, since you believe that intelligence ”springs from the s/s/c being able to use an advanced brain in size and complexity”, you can only believe that without your advanced brain, your soul will leave its intelligence behind! A thinking, decision-making you without your intelligence. A fine prospect.
Dhw: Next we move to the complete contrast between the dementia victim's dualism (the s/s/c is normal but can't express itself) and Einstein's materialism (his brain is the source of his genius):
DAVID: Severely demented may be total vegetables. So?
dhw: So when the vegetable thinks he/she is now a child, or the doctor wants to kill him/her, or he/she wants to kill the doctor, are you saying the s/s/c is perfectly normal but can’t communicate its normal thoughts because the receiver isn’t working properly?If not, what ARE you saying?
DAVID: Of course, the receiver is not working properly.
So the vegetable who thinks he/she is a child actually knows he/she is her normal self but his/her brain is doing all the talking? The other example I used earlier related to your claim that judgement is impaired until the prefrontal cortex is fully mature at around the age of 25. I asked if that meant anyone under the age of 25 was not responsible for their criminal actions. You have now posted an article on that very subject, but extending the question to brain damage at all ages. You comment: “The brain is the seat of operations for the s/s/c. There is no way around it. Normal s/s/c requires a normal brain. But this is a legal slippery slope.” It is also a philosophical slippery slope. It hinges on the debate between dualism and materialism. You continue to favour dualism while arguing for materialism, as below:
DAVID: And the only way there can be advanced thinking, as Einstein shows, is through brain complexity.
dhw: So did Einstein show us that the complexities of his brain were the source of his great thoughts, thereby embracing materialism, or did he show us that his great thoughts resulted in increased brain complexity, thereby embracing dualism?
DAVID: The thickened area allowed the more complex thoughts to be developed. Why do IQ levels differ in different people? It must be the individual complexity of the prefrontal cortex.
You’re off again with “allowed”. What is the source of Einstein’s genius or of intelligence in general: the soul/self or the prefrontal cortex? If your answer is the latter, welcome once more to the world of materialism. And you may well be right. I’m not taking sides. However, NDEs suggest that there is an immaterial self that uses the brain and body to express and implement its thoughts. And so I don’t understand how anyone can believe that a person’s thoughts (including intelligence) are dependent on a functioning brain, and yet at the same time believe that when the functioning brain dies, the person’s thoughts (including intelligence) continue without it. Has your yes to my question of 2 March now turned into a no on 5 March?
Big brain evolution: changes in sapiens skull shape;addendum
by David Turell , Tuesday, March 06, 2018, 18:18 (2237 days ago) @ dhw
edited by David Turell, Tuesday, March 06, 2018, 18:39
dhw: You see, you’ve understood perfectly that the s/s/c does the thinking, but manifestation can only occur when the brain gives material implementation to the immaterial thoughts. So why do you keep insisting that your mind cannot THINK its thoughts without the functioning brain?
DAVID: You keep forgetting I have two views of the state of the s/s/c. In life it MUST use the brain, but in the afterlife it is independent.
DAVID (later): My s/s/c has dual roles in life and in death, with brain and without brain. Its underlying mechanism of action may be slightly different in each role. I don't think of the s/s/c as you do, seemingly one neat package.dhw: I haven’t forgotten it at all, but you have forgotten our exchange on 2 March: “If NDEs are to be believed, the s/s/c plays the same role in life and in death: it is the thinking, experiencing, remembering, decision-making YOU. Yes or no?” You answered yes. But now, since you believe that intelligence ”springs from the s/s/c being able to use an advanced brain in size and complexity”, you can only believe that without your advanced brain, your soul will leave its intelligence behind! A thinking, decision-making you without your intelligence. A fine prospect.
Please read carefully what I present. My view of the s/s/c is presented above. It functions interfaced with the brain in life and on its own in the afterlife, perhaps slightly different in quantum mechanism. The information, memories and thought processes are the same in both places and in both forms, and you know my theory!
DAVID: Of course, the receiver is not working properly.
dhw: So the vegetable who thinks he/she is a child actually knows he/she is her normal self but his/her brain is doing all the talking? The other example I used earlier related to your claim that judgement is impaired until the prefrontal cortex is fully mature at around the age of 25. I asked if that meant anyone under the age of 25 was not responsible for their criminal actions. You have now posted an article on that very subject, but extending the question to brain damage at all ages. You comment: “The brain is the seat of operations for the s/s/c. There is no way around it. Normal s/s/c requires a normal brain. But this is a legal slippery slope.” It is also a philosophical slippery slope. It hinges on the debate between dualism and materialism. You continue to favour dualism while arguing for materialism,
The brain IS material and it acts as a receiver for the s/s/c. In dualism part of the issue is always that the material part of the arrangement must play an equal role. Why can't you see that? Part of the brain is running the body, part of it is conceptualizing with the s/s/c
DAVID: And the only way there can be advanced thinking, as Einstein shows, is through brain complexity.
dhw: So did Einstein show us that the complexities of his brain were the source of his great thoughts, thereby embracing materialism, or did he show us that his great thoughts resulted in increased brain complexity, thereby embracing dualism?
DAVID: The thickened area allowed the more complex thoughts to be developed. Why do IQ levels differ in different people? It must be the individual complexity of the prefrontal cortex.
dhw: You’re off again with “allowed”. What is the source of Einstein’s genius or of intelligence in general: the soul/self or the prefrontal cortex? If your answer is the latter, welcome once more to the world of materialism. And you may well be right. I’m not taking sides. However, NDEs suggest that there is an immaterial self that uses the brain and body to express and implement its thoughts. And so I don’t understand how anyone can believe that a person’s thoughts (including intelligence) are dependent on a functioning brain, and yet at the same time believe that when the functioning brain dies, the person’s thoughts (including intelligence) continue without it. Has your yes to my question of 2 March now turned into a no on 5 March?
Don't you realize an s/s/c develops from birth with a living interaction of a developing person? Of course you do. It must be formed and it will contain the personality that appears. It is a material quantum mechanism to be filled with the immaterial characteristics of the 'person'. Your NDE comment is correct. Einstein's thickened area permitted the appearance of his genius s/s/c. Complex thought development (immaterial) requires a more complex material brain. Pure dualism.
Further we measure IQ. There is a normal range from below 100 to folks with 150+. Part is difference in training to think, part is in brain structure, as research in genomes for responsible genes testifies. The s/s/c can develop more deep complexity of concepts with a more complex underlying brain in the interface.
Big brain evolution: changes in sapiens skull shape;addendum
dhw: […] you have forgotten our exchange on 2 March: “If NDEs are to be believed, the s/s/c plays the same role in life and in death: it is the thinking, experiencing, remembering, decision-making YOU. Yes or no?” You answered yes. But now, since you believe that intelligence ”springs from the s/s/c being able to use an advanced brain in size and complexity”, you can only believe that without your advanced brain, your soul will leave its intelligence behind! A thinking, decision-making you without your intelligence. A fine prospect.
DAVID: Please read carefully what I present. My view of the s/s/c is presented above. It functions interfaced with the brain in life and on its own in the afterlife, perhaps slightly different in quantum mechanism. The information, memories and thought processes are the same in both places and in both forms, and you know my theory!
I do know your theory, and you are repeating what I have just said! So if it is the same, how can you argue that intelligence “springs” from the s/s/c being able to use an advanced brain, and yet you still have your intelligence in the afterlife WITHOUT your advanced brain? Or do think your s/s/c (which is the same in both places) can think without its intelligence?
DAVID: The brain IS material and it acts as a receiver for the s/s/c. In dualism part of the issue is always that the material part of the arrangement must play an equal role. Why can't you see that? Part of the brain is running the body, part of it is conceptualizing with the s/s/c.
As you keep agreeing and then disagreeing, the role the brain plays in life is providing information and giving material expression/implementation to the thoughts of the s/s/c. Yes, equally important in life, but the roles are different. The thinker provides the concept, the implementer implements it. THAT is dualism. Part of the brain is running the body, part of it is interfacing with the s/s/c so that it can implement the concepts of the s/s/c. “Conceptualizing WITH” the s/s/c? Do you now think the pfc and the s/s/c hold discussions and come up with a concept for which each is 50% responsible?
DAVID: Don't you realize an s/s/c develops from birth with a living interaction of a developing person? Of course you do. It must be formed and it will contain the personality that appears. It is a material quantum mechanism to be filled with the immaterial characteristics of the 'person'.
No disagreement here.
DAVID: Einstein's thickened area permitted the appearance of his genius s/s/c. Complex thought development (immaterial) requires a more complex material brain. Pure dualism.
Requires the brain to do what? To do the thinking? From your dualist standpoint: Firstly, his genius could not have “appeared” (= material manifestation) without the means to give it material expression (the brain). Secondly, in life all thought, complex or not, requires a brain if it is to be expressed or implemented. If you believe in NDEs, however, thought itself does NOT require a brain. Thought is the province of the s/s/c. So Einstein would still be a genius in an afterlife even without his prefrontal cortex.
DAVID: Further we measure IQ. There is a normal range from below 100 to folks with 150+. Part is difference in training to think, part is in brain structure, as research in genomes for responsible genes testifies. The s/s/c can develop more deep complexity of concepts with a more complex underlying brain in the interface.
IQ tests depend on lots of different factors, as does the self/soul. Stick to dualism v materialism. Concepts are concepts, no matter how deep the complexity, and you have to decide whether it is the s/s/c that does the thinking or the pfc. If you believe the s/s/c cannot THINK without the pfc, you are a materialist. No shame in that, but forget about NDEs.
Big brain evolution: changes in sapiens skull shape;addendum
by David Turell , Wednesday, March 07, 2018, 18:32 (2236 days ago) @ dhw
DAVID: Please read carefully what I present. My view of the s/s/c is presented above. It functions interfaced with the brain in life and on its own in the afterlife, perhaps slightly different in quantum mechanism. The information, memories and thought processes are the same in both places and in both forms, and you know my theory!dhw: I do know your theory, and you are repeating what I have just said! So if it is the same, how can you argue that intelligence “springs” from the s/s/c being able to use an advanced brain, and yet you still have your intelligence in the afterlife WITHOUT your advanced brain? Or do think your s/s/c (which is the same in both places) can think without its intelligence?
In the other entry I've explained, as I have over and over, the s/s/c interfaces in life in one way with the brain and in death in a different way with the afterlife. I believe it is a quantum mechanism which carries all of its intelligence in both circumstances but may be slightly different in how it operates in b oth places.
DAVID: The brain IS material and it acts as a receiver for the s/s/c. In dualism part of the issue is always that the material part of the arrangement must play an equal role. Why can't you see that? Part of the brain is running the body, part of it is conceptualizing with the s/s/c.dhw: Do you now think the pfc and the s/s/c hold discussions and come up with a concept for which each is 50% responsible?
The s/s/c is the software for the material computer-like brain. They interface and work together as I generate thought in life. I sit here feeling my self generates the thoughts under my control. You keep separating s/s/c and brain. You can't. I am still at the point of I think therefore I am.
DAVID: Einstein's thickened area permitted the appearance of his genius s/s/c. Complex thought development (immaterial) requires a more complex material brain. Pure dualism.dhw: Requires the brain to do what? To do the thinking? From your dualist standpoint: Firstly, his genius could not have “appeared” (= material manifestation) without the means to give it material expression (the brain). Secondly, in life all thought, complex or not, requires a brain if it is to be expressed or implemented. If you believe in NDEs, however, thought itself does NOT require a brain. Thought is the province of the s/s/c. So Einstein would still be a genius in an afterlife even without his prefrontal cortex.
Of course. You've gotten my concept.
DAVID: Further we measure IQ. There is a normal range from below 100 to folks with 150+. Part is difference in training to think, part is in brain structure, as research in genomes for responsible genes testifies. The s/s/c can develop more deep complexity of concepts with a more complex underlying brain in the interface.dhw: IQ tests depend on lots of different factors, as does the self/soul. Stick to dualism v materialism. Concepts are concepts, no matter how deep the complexity, and you have to decide whether it is the s/s/c that does the thinking or the pfc. If you believe the s/s/c cannot THINK without the pfc, you are a materialist. No shame in that, but forget about NDEs.
Again, confusing the interface in life and death. The s/s/c adapts to each circumstance. And IQ is an issue. An IQ of 70 does not have the same brain as an IQ of 150 no matter how much it tries. s/s/c is software for the computer brain. The more complex and bigger the brain, the more the s/s/c can accomplish. I am a double dualist, in life and differently in death, as I've explained. I AM NOT A MATERIALIST, but I understand the brain has parts with differing functions, and that must be excepted as factual. After all, the brain is wet material and is responsive to our use as s/s/c's with its plasticity.
Big brain evolution: adult neurogenesis?
by David Turell , Thursday, March 08, 2018, 00:59 (2235 days ago) @ David Turell
New research casts doubt on much adult development of new neurons in one area:
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-018-02629-3?utm_source=breakingnews&utm_medi...
"Pick up any article on neuronal development in adulthood, and there is a good chance you will read that the birth of new neurons has been observed in the hippocampal region of the brain in every mammalian species examined, including humans. This idea underlies the view — widespread among neuroscientists — that analysis of such neurogenesis in animals can benefit our understanding of learning, emotional disorders and neurodegenerative disease in humans. But in a paper in Nature, Sorrells et al.1 report that, unlike in other mammals, the last new neurons in the human hippocampus are generated in childhood. These findings are certain to stir up controversy.
***
"Although the scope and function of neurogenesis remain debatable, there has been a general consensus that the hippocampus is one region in which adult neurogenesis exists in humans as it does in animals. This is based on several studies. For example, one study in patients given a synthetic nucleoside molecule called bromodeoxyuridine (BrdU) showed that it had been incorporated into the DNA of dividing cells in the dentate gyrus4. Another found that protein markers of neurogenesis in animals were present in post-mortem human brain tissue5, and a third used radiocarbon dating to identify hippocampal-neuron turnover6. However, methodological challenges make human studies difficult to interpret, and more are required to make definitive conclusions.
Sorrells et al. set out to address this need using classic immunohistochemical techniques in which specific antibodies are bound to proteins of interest, revealing their locations in tissue. The authors used this strategy to count neural precursor cells, proliferating cells and immature neurons in samples from 59 human subjects, spanning fetal development through to old age. They found streams of all three cell types migrating from an embryonic ‘germinal zone’ to the developing dentate gyrus at 14 weeks of gestation. By 22 weeks, migration was reduced, and immature neurons were largely restricted to the dentate gyrus. And there were many fewer immature neurons at one year of life than at earlier stages. The oldest sample containing immature neurons was taken from a 13-year-old individual. These findings are in stark contrast to the prevailing view that human hippocampal neurogenesis extends throughout adult life.
***
"How do the authors’ findings fit with the animal literature? With a bit of conceptual recalibration, they might fit quite well. Rodents are born with relatively immature nervous systems, so adult rodent neurogenesis could be a decent model of neurogenesis in children or adolescents. Given that depression, schizophrenia and Alzheimer’s disease are rooted in early hippocampal defects, even neurons generated in childhood could have a key role in the aetiology of disease in humans. In addition, primate data10 suggest that new neurons in humans could go through an extended period of maturation (years or even decades) relative to what occurs in rodents, during which time they might have enhanced plasticity and important functional properties. Thus, whereas the continual addition of new neurons might provide plasticity in adult rodents, the prolonged development of neurons could provide a similar plasticity in adult humans.
"At the other end of the developmental spectrum, even in rodents, neurogenesis is very low by middle age2. Thus, Sorrells and colleagues’ human data again are not wholly inconsistent with the animal literature. "
Comment: the hippocampus is a deep structure in the brain in the so-called limbic system which is an area of earlier cortical structures which are also in lesser animals, but not a part of pre-cortical development as in humans.
From Wikipedia: The structures of the limbic system are involved in motivation, emotion, learning, and memory. The limbic system is where the subcortical structures meet the cerebral cortex
The hippocampus deals in part with new memories. This study does not preclude pre-frontal neuronal development, but does not advance in any way the theory that adult use of the brain forces enlargement.
Big brain evolution: adult neurogenesis? II
by David Turell , Thursday, March 08, 2018, 22:00 (2234 days ago) @ David Turell
New research casts doubt on much adult development of new neurons in one area:
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-018-02629-3?utm_source=breakingnews&utm_medi...
There are many doubters about this new study, who did a different type of study in the past:
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/does-the-adult-brain-really-grow-new-neurons...
"The observation that the human brain churns out new neurons throughout life is one of the biggest neuroscience discoveries of the past 20 years. The idea has captured immense popular and scientific interest—not least, because of hopes the brain’s regenerative capacity might be harnessed to boost cognition or to treat injury or disease. In nonhuman animals the continued production of new neurons has been linked to improved learning and memory, and possibly even mood regulation.
"But new findings in humans, reported online in Nature on Wednesday, pump the brakes on this idea. In a direct challenge to earlier studies, the authors report adults produce no new cells in the hippocampus, a key hub for processing memories.
***
"Yet others argue it is too early to change course based on the new results. Jonas Frisén, senior author of the 2013 study, stands by his original findings. “Since it is a rare phenomenon they are looking for, they may just not have looked carefully enough,” he says. The 1,400 neurons Frisén’s team estimated arise daily comprise a small fraction of the tens of millions of hippocampal cells. To find them, his group at the Karolinska Institute in Stockholm studied people who were exposed to cold war nuclear bomb testing, and incorporated a radioactive carbon isotope into their dividing cells over many years. This cumulative measure, Frisén argues, can detect neurogenesis better than antibodies that label new neurons at a single time point.
"The U.C.S.F.-led group is “not really measuring neurogenesis in this study,” adds neuroscientist Fred Gage at the Salk Institute for Biological Studies. “Neurogenesis is a process, not an event. They just took dead tissue and looked at it at that moment in time.” In their seminal 1998 study Gage and his colleagues studied the brains of people who had received as part of cancer treatment an imaging molecule that became integrated into the DNA of actively dividing cells. Gage also believes the authors used overly restrictive criteria for counting neural progenitor cells, further reducing the chances of seeing them in adults. Far from settling the debate, Gage predicts this provocative paper will intensify interest in this area of study. “There will be lots and lots more papers,” he says."
Comment: Reminder, this debate is about a deeper structure than the pre-frontal cortex where most of the brain enlargement in Erectus and afterward occurred. If the pre-frontal cortex in adults cannot produce more neurons, the argument that concepts forced an enlargement of the brain by making new neurons and new networks falls by the wayside. I would trust the earlier studies based on exposure to isotopes more than this study.
Big brain evolution: adult neurogenesis? II
DAVID: If the pre-frontal cortex in adults cannot produce more neurons, the argument that concepts forced an enlargement of the brain by making new neurons and new networks falls by the wayside. I would trust the earlier studies based on exposure to isotopes more than this study.
Perhaps you could make this clearer. How could any part of the brain expand without making more neurons – other, I suppose, than existing neurons expanding? Even in your own hypothesis, did your God add neurons or simply expand existing neurons? Either way, it still makes perfect sense that new concepts required greater brain capacity. I’m glad to see that your distrust of these new findings suggests that my hypothesis does not fall by the wayside.
Big brain evolution: adult neurogenesis? II
by David Turell , Friday, March 09, 2018, 20:04 (2233 days ago) @ dhw
DAVID: If the pre-frontal cortex in adults cannot produce more neurons, the argument that concepts forced an enlargement of the brain by making new neurons and new networks falls by the wayside. I would trust the earlier studies based on exposure to isotopes more than this study.
dhw: Perhaps you could make this clearer. How could any part of the brain expand without making more neurons – other, I suppose, than existing neurons expanding? Even in your own hypothesis, did your God add neurons or simply expand existing neurons? Either way, it still makes perfect sense that new concepts required greater brain capacity. I’m glad to see that your distrust of these new findings suggests that my hypothesis does not fall by the wayside.
These studies involve the finding of whether adult neurogenesis can occur. The current study involves a deeper structure, the hippocampus. Based on the negative comments, yes, I do not trust it. You are correct, the expanded pfc in each new stage of homo had to have new neurons and new networks. The deeper structure study is a strange entry into the debate about the frontal cortex.
Big brain evolution: adult neurogenesis? II
DAVID: If the pre-frontal cortex in adults cannot produce more neurons, the argument that concepts forced an enlargement of the brain by making new neurons and new networks falls by the wayside. I would trust the earlier studies based on exposure to isotopes more than this study.
dhw: Perhaps you could make this clearer. How could any part of the brain expand without making more neurons – other, I suppose, than existing neurons expanding? Even in your own hypothesis, did your God add neurons or simply expand existing neurons? Either way, it still makes perfect sense that new concepts required greater brain capacity. I’m glad to see that your distrust of these new findings suggests that my hypothesis does not fall by the wayside.
DAVID: These studies involve the finding of whether adult neurogenesis can occur. The current study involves a deeper structure, the hippocampus. Based on the negative comments, yes, I do not trust it. You are correct, the expanded pfc in each new stage of homo had to have new neurons and new networks. The deeper structure study is a strange entry into the debate about the frontal cortex.
Thank you. Clearly then, we are in agreement and, in your view, my hypothesis does not fall by the wayside. Good news!
Big brain evolution: adult neurogenesis? II
by David Turell , Saturday, March 10, 2018, 17:59 (2233 days ago) @ dhw
DAVID: If the pre-frontal cortex in adults cannot produce more neurons, the argument that concepts forced an enlargement of the brain by making new neurons and new networks falls by the wayside. I would trust the earlier studies based on exposure to isotopes more than this study.
dhw: Perhaps you could make this clearer. How could any part of the brain expand without making more neurons – other, I suppose, than existing neurons expanding? Even in your own hypothesis, did your God add neurons or simply expand existing neurons? Either way, it still makes perfect sense that new concepts required greater brain capacity. I’m glad to see that your distrust of these new findings suggests that my hypothesis does not fall by the wayside.
DAVID: These studies involve the finding of whether adult neurogenesis can occur. The current study involves a deeper structure, the hippocampus. Based on the negative comments, yes, I do not trust it. You are correct, the expanded pfc in each new stage of homo had to have new neurons and new networks. The deeper structure study is a strange entry into the debate about the frontal cortex.
dhw: Thank you. Clearly then, we are in agreement and, in your view, my hypothesis does not fall by the wayside. Good news!
Yes
Big brain evolution: improving sharp flint tools
by David Turell , Saturday, March 10, 2018, 18:21 (2233 days ago) @ David Turell
A survey of flint artifacts for cutting and scraping shows continuous improvement in sharpness as time passed:
https://cosmosmagazine.com/archaeology/stone-tools-improved-over-millennia
"Stone flakes – the single most common type of tool made by prehistoric humans and other hominins – show longer, sharper and more complex cutting edges as time goes by.
***
"a team led by Željko Režek from the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology in Leipzig, Germany, reports that flake-tools changed between the Early Pleistocene period (2.6 million to 780,000 years ago), the Middle Pleistocene (to 50,000 years ago) and the Late Pleistocene (to 12,000 years ago).
“'Over time, hominins produced tools with more sharp edge, but there was also more variability in sharp edge production,” the researchers write.
***
"The scientists examined more than 19,000 flakes drawn from 81 collections unearthed at 34 archaeological sites in Africa, southwest Asia and western Europe, ranging across 2.5 million years. The flakes were made by Homo habilis, Homo erectus and Neanderthals as well as Homo sapiens.
"Režek and his colleagues opted to look at stone flakes rather than other types of stone tools or weapons because, they say, they represent a type of common currency across time and space. Other stone tools tend to vary according to the specific demands and needs of the population creating them – making direct comparisons difficult. Many, too, were often reshaped and reworked by their owners.
Flakes, in contrast, represent the fundamental product of stone technology: a sharp working edge. They therefore represent unmodified examples of the application of basic method.
***
"The researchers found that in general the number and length of sharp edges was least in the Early Pleistocene tools, but then started to increase during the Middle Pleistocene. Starting about one million years ago, they write, “H. erectus, H. heidelbergensis and Neanderthals started to manipulate platform depth and exterior platform angle in a way that allowed them to produce more sharp edge relative to the size of a tool.”
"This process increased again sharply as Homo sapiens got into the act and developed more techniques, such indirect percussion, that resulted in sharper, longer and more robust edges.
"Not all modern humans, however, appear to have been technically adept. Some H. sapiens tools, the authors report, had some of the dullest cutting edges of the lot.
“"This suggests that the application of improved flaking skills, once they were acquired, was not universal,” they note."
Comment: this is not so much brain size or complexity, as it is one person teaching another, and personal dexterity. Note H. sapiens was no better than earlier forms. Look at the illustration to appreciate the differences. Eleven, an arrow head looks just like the ones I've seen and found in our West.
Big brain evolution: improving sharp flint tools
DAVID: A survey of flint artifacts for cutting and scraping shows continuous improvement in sharpness as time passed:
https://cosmosmagazine.com/archaeology/stone-tools-improved-over-millennia
QUOTE:“"This suggests that the application of improved flaking skills, once they were acquired, was not universal,” they note."
DAVID’s comment: this is not so much brain size or complexity, as it is one person teaching another, and personal dexterity. Note H. sapiens was no better than earlier forms. Look at the illustration to appreciate the differences. Eleven, an arrow head looks just like the ones I've seen and found in our West.
Some H. sapiens were no better than earlier forms – but some were. This reinforces my point that innovations spring from individuals. However, I think the main thrust of the article lies in your first statement: once we have an innovation, subsequent generations and species of hominin improve it. The big question, of course, is how it all started, and whether brain size CAUSED the ability to innovate or was the RESULT of innovation. Round we go!
Big brain evolution: improving sharp flint tools
by David Turell , Sunday, March 11, 2018, 18:55 (2232 days ago) @ dhw
DAVID: A survey of flint artifacts for cutting and scraping shows continuous improvement in sharpness as time passed:
https://cosmosmagazine.com/archaeology/stone-tools-improved-over-millenniaQUOTE:“"This suggests that the application of improved flaking skills, once they were acquired, was not universal,” they note."
DAVID’s comment: this is not so much brain size or complexity, as it is one person teaching another, and personal dexterity. Note H. sapiens was no better than earlier forms. Look at the illustration to appreciate the differences. Eleven, an arrow head looks just like the ones I've seen and found in our West.
dhw: Some H. sapiens were no better than earlier forms – but some were. This reinforces my point that innovations spring from individuals. However, I think the main thrust of the article lies in your first statement: once we have an innovation, subsequent generations and species of hominin improve it. The big question, of course, is how it all started, and whether brain size CAUSED the ability to innovate or was the RESULT of innovation. Round we go!
I'll stick to size first.
Big brain evolution: adult neurogenesis? II
by David Turell , Thursday, April 05, 2018, 18:54 (2207 days ago) @ David Turell
More information on the hippocampus study of the appearance of new adult neurons:
https://medicalxpress.com/news/2018-04-older-adults-brain-cells-young.html
"This study, to appear in the journal Cell Stem Cell on April 5, counters that notion. Lead author Maura Boldrini, associate professor of neurobiology at Columbia University, says the findings may suggest that many senior citizens remain more cognitively and emotionally intact than commonly believed.
"'We found that older people have similar ability to make thousands of hippocampal new neurons from progenitor cells as younger people do," Boldrini says. "We also found equivalent volumes of the hippocampus (a brain structure used for emotion and cognition) across ages. Nevertheless, older individuals had less vascularization and maybe less ability of new neurons to make connections."
"The researchers autopsied hippocampi from 28 previously healthy individuals aged 14-79 who had died suddenly. This is the first time researchers looked at newly formed neurons and the state of blood vessels within the entire human hippocampus soon after death. (The researchers had determined that study subjects were not cognitively impaired and had not suffered from depression or taken antidepressants, which Boldrini and colleagues had previously found could impact the production of new brain cells.)
"In rodents and primates, the ability to generate new hippocampal cells declines with age. Waning production of neurons and an overall shrinking of the dentate gyrus, part of the hippocampus thought to help form new episodic memories, was believed to occur in aging humans as well.
"The researchers from Columbia University and New York State Psychiatric Institute found that even the oldest brains they studied produced new brain cells. "We found similar numbers of intermediate neural progenitors and thousands of immature neurons," they wrote. Nevertheless, older individuals form fewer new blood vessels within brain structures and possess a smaller pool of progenitor cells—descendants of stem cells that are more constrained in their capacity to differentiate and self-renew.
"Boldrini surmised that reduced cognitive-emotional resilience in old age may be caused by this smaller pool of neural stem cells, the decline in vascularization, and reduced cell-to-cell connectivity within the hippocampus. "It is possible that ongoing hippocampal neurogenesis sustains human-specific cognitive function throughout life and that declines may be linked to compromised cognitive-emotional resilience," she says."
Comment: It appears to be a reasonable finding, but as I noted before, this is a deeper level than the prefrontal cortex, wich may or may not do this.
Big brain evolution: adult neurogenesis? II
by David Turell , Friday, March 29, 2019, 18:05 (1849 days ago) @ David Turell
The battle rages over the issue of new neurons appearing throughout a lifetime. This study shows it is true in mice but the human issue is unsettled:
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2019/03/190328150854.htm
"It was once believed that mammals were born with the entire supply of neurons they would have for a lifetime. However, over the past few decades, neuroscientists have found that at least two brain regions -- the centers of the sense of smell and the hippocampus, the seat of learning and memory -- grow new neurons throughout life.
"Researchers from the Perelman School of Medicine at the University of Pennsylvania have shown, in mice, that one type of stem cell that makes adult neurons is the source of this lifetime stock of new cells in the hippocampus.
***
"'We've shown for the first time, in mammals, that neurons in the dentate gyrus of the hippocampus grow and develop from a single population of stem cells, over an entire lifespan," said senior author Hongjun Song, PhD a professor of Neuroscience. "The new immature neurons are more flexible in making connections in the hippocampus compared to mature neurons, which is paramount for healthy learning, memory, and adjusting mood."
"The researchers showed that the neural stem cells they found had a common molecular signature across the lifespan of the mice. They did this by labeling neural stem cells in embryos when the brain was still developing and following the cells from birth into adulthood. This approach revealed that new neural stem cells with their precursor's label were continuously making neurons throughout an animal's lifetime.
"'This process is unique in the brain," said co-senior author Guo-li Ming, MD, PhD, a professor of Neuroscience. "In the hippocampus, these cells never stop replicating and contribute to the flexibility of the brain in mammals."
"This capacity is called plasticity, which is the brain's ability to form new connections throughout life to compensate for injury and disease and to adjust in response to new input from the environment. Ming likens the process of new neuron growth in the hippocampus to adding new units into the circuitry of the brain's motherboard.
Comment: the recent study in human cadavers is under strong debate, so that issue is not yet settled, but there now appears to be no question in mice. The enlarged brain areas in London taxi drivers, for example, would imply more neurons were added.
Big brain evolution: adult neurogenesis? more proof
by David Turell , Saturday, May 25, 2019, 20:23 (1791 days ago) @ David Turell
A new study says yes, even with Alzheimer's:
https://medicalxpress.com/news/2019-05-neurons-brain-tenth-decade-life.html
"In a new study from the University of Illinois at Chicago, researchers examining post-mortem brain tissue from people ages 79 to 99 found that new neurons continue to form well into old age. The study provides evidence that this occurs even in people with cognitive impairment and Alzheimer's disease, although neurogenesis is significantly reduced in these people compared to older adults with normal cognitive functioning.
***
"The UIC study is the first to find evidence of significant numbers of neural stem cells and newly developing neurons present in the hippocampal tissue of older adults, including those with disorders that affect the hippocampus, which is involved in the formation of memories and in learning.
"'We found that there was active neurogenesis in the hippocampus of older adults well into their 90s," said Orly Lazarov, professor of anatomy and cell biology in the UIC College of Medicine and lead author of the paper. "The interesting thing is that we also saw some new neurons in the brains of people with Alzheimer's disease and cognitive impairment." She also found that people who scored better on measures of cognitive function had more newly developing neurons in the hippocampus compared to those who scored lower on these tests, regardless of levels of brain pathology.
"Lazarov thinks that lower levels of neurogenesis in the hippocampus are associated with symptoms of cognitive decline and reduced synaptic plasticity rather than with the degree of pathology in the brain. For patients with Alzheimer's disease, pathological hallmarks include deposits of neurotoxic proteins in the brain.
"'In brains from people with no cognitive decline who scored well on tests of cognitive function, these people tended to have higher levels of new neural development at the time of their death, regardless of their level of pathology," Lazarov said. "The mix of the effects of pathology and neurogenesis is complex and we don't understand exactly how the two interconnect, but there is clearly a lot of variation from individual to individual."
***
"Lazarov and colleagues looked at post-mortem hippocampal tissue from 18 people with an average age of 90.6 years. They stained the tissue for neural stem cells and also for newly developing neurons. They found, on average, approximately 2,000 neural progenitor cells per brain. They also found an average of 150,000 developing neurons. Analysis of a subset of these developing neurons revealed that the number of proliferating developing neurons is significantly lower in people with cognitive impairment and Alzheimer's disease."
Comment: Older folks actively using their brains apparently keep neurogenesis active, just as in brain plasticity from new uses.
Big brain evolution: changes in sapiens skull shape;addendum
I am combining two threads here as they deal with the same subject. Apologies for all the repetition, but as I see it, all David’s arguments hinge on the same contradiction in his thinking.
dhw: This would be fine (a) if you were a materialist, and (b) if we knew how the brain functions.
DAVID: But we do know the areas of brain activity that control functions of the body! For example we know the motor area where every part of the body has its represented parts of the bodies muscles. […]
We know what does what in some areas, but we don’t know HOW! Explain to me HOW thought takes place, and HOW thought directs the materials of the brain.
DAVID: In life we have to use the brain and its fairly specific areas. Brain, material; thoughts immaterial. Dualism in life. Dualism exists in two different circumstances.
Dualism does not exist in death! You don’t have a brain in death! It is the s/s/c, the THINKING you that exists in two different circumstances.
dhw: All the material actions you described earlier have to be directed. If the self/soul/consciousness thought up the concept, then it will also direct the implementing areas of the brain to realize the concept. It will presumably do this through the prefrontal cortex, as its material link to the rest of the brain.
DAVID: Once the cortex using the s/s/c conceives of a flint tip idea, which may involve complexification of the neuronal web and shrinkage of the cortex, implementation involves eye hand coordination with teaching the muscles and arm in hammering and shaping, a job which is controlled in the cerebellum. The cerebellum was enlarged to its present size back in Erectus times. No evidence for your theory.
So now you have the cortex responsible for conceptions and using the s/s/c! We know what implementation involves: namely, the brain giving material expression to the thought. So once again, please tell us what came up with the thought, and how instructions were passed on to the implementing sections of the brain. I have no idea why you think the cortex shrunk. On 6 March you told us: “I have shown you implementation occurs in areas that did not enlarge as the cortex did.” (My bold) Please clarify which areas of the pre-sapiens brain expanded and which did not.
dhw You keep agreeing [...] that the s/s/c plays the same thinking role in NDEs, though in a different situation, but then you revert back to the argument that the s/s/c cannot THINK without a functioning brain. That is the massive contradiction you refuse to face up to.
DAVID: Again you are putting together two different circumstances for the s/s/c. Life and death seem quite different to me. Therefore, the s/s/c interacts differently in each realm.
Repeat: the interaction is different, but you keep agreeing that the s/s/c is the same: the thinking you. In life it interacts with the material world, and therefore needs the material brain to implement its thoughts. In death there is no material world, and so it does not need the brain. It is therefore absurd to argue that the s/s/c cannot THINK without a brain. It cannot give material form to its thinking without a brain.
DAVID: …the s/s/c interfaces in life in one way with the brain and in death in a different way with the afterlife. I believe it is a quantum mechanism which carries all of its intelligence in both circumstances but may be slightly different in how it operates in both places.
And I keep agreeing with you (if we accept dualism). Of course the interface is different: one is with the material world, and therefore requiring a material brain; the other is with an immaterial world, which does not require a brain. The s/s/c remains the same: the thinking you. Therefore you can’t argue that the s/s/c cannot think without a brain.
DAVID: The s/s/c is the software for the material computer-like brain. They interface and work together as I generate thought in life. I sit here feeling my self generates the thoughts under my control. You keep separating s/s/c and brain. You can't. I am still at the point of I think therefore I am.
Yes, the immaterial s/s/c works together with the material brain, but they have different functions, and you are the one who separates them in NDEs, which are your evidence for DUALISM. The s/s/c and material body are TWO, not one, whereas materialists believe in ONE: namely there is no such thing as an immaterial self.
Dhw: So Einstein would still be a genius in an afterlife even without his prefrontal cortex.
DAVID: Of course, You’ve gotten my concept.
And so when you tell us that intelligence “springs from the s/s/c being able to use an advanced brain” you’ve forgotten your concept.
DAVID: I am a double dualist, in life and differently in death, as I've explained. I AM NOT A MATERIALIST, but I understand the brain has parts with differing functions, and that must be excepted as factual. After all, the brain is wet material and is responsive to our use as s/s/c's with its plasticity.
Of course the brain has parts with differing functions. But once again: there is no dualism in death. That is why NDEs are regarded as evidence that the soul thinks independently of the brain. If you insist that you cannot THINK without a material brain, you are a materialist. Currently you not a double dualist, you are a dualist/materialist.
Big brain evolution: changes in sapiens skull shape;addendum
by David Turell , Thursday, March 08, 2018, 17:26 (2235 days ago) @ dhw
DAVID: But we do know the areas of brain activity that control functions of the body! For example we know the motor area where every part of the body has its represented parts of the bodies muscles. […]
dhw: We know what does what in some areas, but we don’t know HOW! Explain to me HOW thought takes place, and HOW thought directs the materials of the brain.
That is the miraculous part of the consciousness God gave us. We know where issues are handled but not how thought is produced.
DAVID: In life we have to use the brain and its fairly specific areas. Brain, material; thoughts immaterial. Dualism in life. Dualism exists in two different circumstances.dhw: Dualism does not exist in death! You don’t have a brain in death! It is the s/s/c, the THINKING you that exists in two different circumstances.
Correct. I mis-wrote it. s/s/c is in two circumstances.
DAVID: Once the cortex using the s/s/c conceives of a flint tip idea, which may involve complexification of the neuronal web and shrinkage of the cortex, implementation involves eye hand coordination with teaching the muscles and arm in hammering and shaping, a job which is controlled in the cerebellum. The cerebellum was enlarged to its present size back in Erectus times. No evidence for your theory.
dhw: So now you have the cortex responsible for conceptions and using the s/s/c! We know what implementation involves: namely, the brain giving material expression to the thought. So once again, please tell us what came up with the thought, and how instructions were passed on to the implementing sections of the brain. I have no idea why you think the cortex shrunk. On 6 March you told us: “I have shown you implementation occurs in areas that did not enlarge as the cortex did.” (My bold) Please clarify which areas of the pre-sapiens brain expanded and which did not.
The limbic area, the cerebellum, and the areas from the middle (motor strip) to the back where vision is handled were developed first. As pre-sapiens developed, the major growth in size was the frontal area, specifically with Erectus and later the pre-frontal cortex really exploded as we arrived.
DAVID: The s/s/c is the software for the material computer-like brain. They interface and work together as I generate thought in life. I sit here feeling my self generates the thoughts under my control. You keep separating s/s/c and brain. You can't. I am still at the point of I think therefore I am.
dhw: Yes, the immaterial s/s/c works together with the material brain, but they have different functions, and you are the one who separates them in NDEs, which are your evidence for DUALISM. The s/s/c and material body are TWO, not one, whereas materialists believe in ONE: namely there is no such thing as an immaterial self.
Yes
Dhw: So Einstein would still be a genius in an afterlife even without his prefrontal cortex.
DAVID: Of course, You’ve gotten my concept.dhw: And so when you tell us that intelligence “springs from the s/s/c being able to use an advanced brain” you’ve forgotten your concept.
Not so. Only in life with a brain to use.
DAVID: I am a double dualist, in life and differently in death, as I've explained. I AM NOT A MATERIALIST, but I understand the brain has parts with differing functions, and that must be excepted as factual. After all, the brain is wet material and is responsive to our use as s/s/c's with its plasticity.dhw: Of course the brain has parts with differing functions. But once again: there is no dualism in death. That is why NDEs are regarded as evidence that the soul thinks independently of the brain. If you insist that you cannot THINK without a material brain, you are a materialist. Currently you not a double dualist, you are a dualist/materialist.
The NDE shows the s/s/c can function without a brain IN death, not in life.
Big brain evolution: changes in sapiens skull shape;addendum
DAVID: But we do know the areas of brain activity that control functions of the body! For example we know the motor area where every part of the body has its represented parts of the bodies muscles. […]
dhw: We know what does what in some areas, but we don’t know HOW! Explain to me HOW thought takes place, and HOW thought directs the materials of the brain.
DAVID: That is the miraculous part of the consciousness God gave us. We know where issues are handled but not how thought is produced.
So I’m afraid your focus on where issues are handled is irrelevant to our discussion. According to dualists, the s/s/c and not the prefrontal cortex does the thinking, and so it makes no sense for a dualist to say that the s/s/c can’t THINK without the prefrontal cortex.
DAVID: Once the cortex using the s/s/c conceives of a flint tip idea, which may involve complexification of the neuronal web and shrinkage of the cortex, implementation involves eye hand coordination with teaching the muscles and arm in hammering and shaping, a job which is controlled in the cerebellum. The cerebellum was enlarged to its present size back in Erectus times. No evidence for your theory.
dhw: So now you have the cortex responsible for conceptions and using the s/s/c! We know what implementation involves: namely, the brain giving material expression to the thought. So once again, please tell us what came up with the thought, and how instructions were passed on to the implementing sections of the brain. I have no idea why you think the cortex shrunk. On 6 March you told us: “I have shown you implementation occurs in areas that did not enlarge as the cortex did.” (My bold) Please clarify which areas of the pre-sapiens brain expanded and which did not.
DAVID: The limbic area, the cerebellum, and the areas from the middle (motor strip) to the back where vision is handled were developed first. As pre-sapiens developed, the major growth in size was the frontal area, specifically with Erectus and later the pre-frontal cortex really exploded as we arrived.
Thank you. This fits in perfectly with the dualistic hypothesis that initially the concepts thought up by the pre-sapiens s/s/c caused expansion of the implementing areas of the brain, but as concepts became more complex, the pfc itself as the material link between immaterial thought and material implementation also had to expand. In both cases, the expansion can be interpreted dualistically as a RESPONSE to concepts, not as their source (= materialistically)
DAVID: You keep separating s/s/c and brain. You can't.
dhw: […] the immaterial s/s/c works together with the material brain, but they have different functions, and you are the one who separates them in NDEs, which are your evidence for DUALISM. The s/s/c and material body are TWO, not one, whereas materialists believe in ONE: namely there is no such thing as an immaterial self.
DAVID: Yes
Thank you. Dualists separate s/s/c and brain,using NDEs as evidence, which means that the s/s/c does not depend on the brain for its ability to THINK.
Dhw: So Einstein would still be a genius in an afterlife even without his prefrontal cortex.
DAVID: Of course, You’ve gotten my concept.
dhw: And so when you tell us that intelligence “springs from the s/s/c being able to use an advanced brain” you’ve forgotten your concept.
DAVID: Not so. Only in life with a brain to use.
If intelligence survives the death of the brain, it is absurd to say that it “springs from” the ability to use the brain. According to dualism, intelligence is what USES the brain, it is not the product of its use of the brain!
dhw: If you insist that you cannot THINK without a material brain, you are a materialist. Currently you not a double dualist, you are a dualist/materialist.
DAVID: The NDE shows the s/s/c can function without a brain IN death, not in life.
Once more: In life the s/s/c “functions” as the thinking self which uses the material self to cope with the material world. NDEs appear to show that the thinking self survives the death of the material self, and that is why it is used as evidence for DUALISM – namely that mind and body are TWO different things. Therefore it is a complete contradiction to argue that the s/s/c or mind cannot THINK without the body/material brain. It simply cannot translate its thoughts into materiality without the brain.
Big brain evolution: changes in sapiens skull shape;addendum
by David Turell , Friday, March 09, 2018, 19:57 (2233 days ago) @ dhw
DAVID: That is the miraculous part of the consciousness God gave us. We know where issues are handled but not how thought is produced.
dhw: So I’m afraid your focus on where issues are handled is irrelevant to our discussion. According to dualists, the s/s/c and not the prefrontal cortex does the thinking, and so it makes no sense for a dualist to say that the s/s/c can’t THINK without the prefrontal cortex.
I agree, but in life the area where the s/s/c is focused is the frontal cortex. I am my s/s/c but can only work with it through the frontal cortex.
dhw: Please clarify which areas of the pre-sapiens brain expanded and which did not.[/i]
DAVID: The limbic area, the cerebellum, and the areas from the middle (motor strip) to the back where vision is handled were developed first. As pre-sapiens developed, the major growth in size was the frontal area, specifically with Erectus and later the pre-frontal cortex really exploded as we arrived.
dhw: Thank you. This fits in perfectly with the dualistic hypothesis that initially the concepts thought up by the pre-sapiens s/s/c caused expansion of the implementing areas of the brain, but as concepts became more complex, the pfc itself as the material link between immaterial thought and material implementation also had to expand. In both cases, the expansion can be interpreted dualistically as a RESPONSE to concepts, not as their source (= materialistically)
That may be your view, not mine. All animals have these early areas because they involve smell, vision, muscle control and coordination, etc. to conduct themselves in activity. No concepts. Early hominins are the same. When given a larger pfc then they can conceptualize and these other earlier parts of the brain don't have to change much. Artifacts prove that.
DAVID: You keep separating s/s/c and brain. You can't.dhw: […] the immaterial s/s/c works together with the material brain, but they have different functions, and you are the one who separates them in NDEs, which are your evidence for DUALISM. The s/s/c and material body are TWO, not one, whereas materialists believe in ONE: namely there is no such thing as an immaterial self.
DAVID: Yesdhw: Thank you. Dualists separate s/s/c and brain,using NDE's as evidence, which means that the s/s/c does not depend on the brain for its ability to THINK.
NDE's offer no evidence that new conceptualization occurs. The NDE'r observes and wishes to stay. I don't think the s/s/c in the afterlife invents new theories. It can only exist as it was in life.
Dhw: So Einstein would still be a genius in an afterlife even without his prefrontal cortex.
DAVID: Of course, You’ve gotten my concept.
dhw: And so when you tell us that intelligence “springs from the s/s/c being able to use an advanced brain” you’ve forgotten your concept.
DAVID: Not so. Only in life with a brain to use.dhw: If intelligence survives the death of the brain, it is absurd to say that it “springs from” the ability to use the brain. According to dualism, intelligence is what USES the brain, it is not the product of its use of the brain!
If your point is true why do different brains in structure have different IQ's as in Einstein?
dhw: If you insist that you cannot THINK without a material brain, you are a materialist. Currently you not a double dualist, you are a dualist/materialist.DAVID: The NDE shows the s/s/c can function without a brain IN death, not in life.
dhw: Once more: In life the s/s/c “functions” as the thinking self which uses the material self to cope with the material world. NDEs appear to show that the thinking self survives the death of the material self, and that is why it is used as evidence for DUALISM – namely that mind and body are TWO different things. Therefore it is a complete contradiction to argue that the s/s/c or mind cannot THINK without the body/material brain. It simply cannot translate its thoughts into materiality without the brain.
Not my view. I can only construct my personalty by working on my s/s/c with my brain. I think, therefore I am. Any s/s/c is not me unless I can reach it and construct it, using my brain. This is why consciousness is the HARD problem. Material brain, immaterial personality.
Big brain evolution: changes in sapiens skull shape;addendum
dhw: According to dualists, the s/s/c and not the prefrontal cortex does the thinking, and so it makes no sense for a dualist to say that the s/s/c can’t THINK without the prefrontal cortex.
DAVID: I agree, but in life the area where the s/s/c is focused is the frontal cortex. I am my s/s/c but can only work with it through the frontal cortex.
Your immaterial self (s/s/c) does not work with your immaterial self (s/s/c)! In dualism your s/s/c “works” with the material world through the material brain. The s/s/c does the thinking and the material brain provides information and does the implementing, as you keep agreeing and then disagreeing.
dhw: [The history of expansion] fits in perfectly with the dualistic hypothesis that initially the concepts thought up by the pre-sapiens s/s/c caused expansion of the implementing areas of the brain, but as concepts became more complex, the pfc itself as the material link between immaterial thought and material implementation also had to expand. In both cases, the expansion can be interpreted dualistically as a RESPONSE to concepts, not as their source (= materialistically)
DAVID: That may be your view, not mine. All animals have these early areas because they involve smell, vision, muscle control and coordination, etc. to conduct themselves in activity. No concepts. Early hominins are the same. When given a larger pfc then they can conceptualize and these other earlier parts of the brain don't have to change much. Artifacts prove that.
No concepts? How do you think our fellow animals first managed to build nests, devise protection against predators, hunt in packs, create all the natural wonders that we so much admire? All preprogrammed or dabbled? If so, you are saying that autonomous thought only came into existence when your God gave hominins a larger pfc. But if it is the pfc that is the source of autonomous thought, then you are a materialist, though you think you are a dualist. (Dualist view: the s/s/c thinks; the brain provides information and gives material form to concepts.)
dhw: Dualists separate s/s/c and brain, using NDE's as evidence, which means that the s/s/c does not depend on the brain for its ability to THINK.
DAVID: NDE's offer no evidence that new conceptualization occurs. The NDE'r observes and wishes to stay. I don't think the s/s/c in the afterlife invents new theories. It can only exist as it was in life.
Conceptualizing is only one aspect of the s/s/c's thinking capacity. The discussion concerns the source of thought, which covers conceptualization, emotion, memory, decision-making, judgement and every other immaterial aspect of the self/soul. But I too would very much doubt if during an immaterial afterlife there was any need for it to conceive of objects that require a brain to give them material form. Neither of us has the slightest idea what an immortal soul would think about for the rest of eternity, but that’s another subject. Our current subject is your materialistic claim that the s/s/c can’t THINK without the brain, even though it THINKS without a brain in the afterlife you believe in.
dhw: If intelligence survives the death of the brain, it is absurd to say that it “springs from” the ability to use the brain. According to dualism, intelligence is what USES the brain, it is not the product of its use of the brain!
DAVID: If your point is true why do different brains in structure have different IQ's as in Einstein?
Everybody’s brain is different. Everybody’s s/s/c is different. I myself do not know if the structure of the brain determines intelligence. If, however, you believe the s/s/c is the source of immaterial intelligence (and conceptualization and every other immaterial element of your self), then please answer your own question. You are the dualist. I would say your question implies evidence for materialism.
dhw: Once more: In life the s/s/c “functions” as the thinking self which uses the material self to cope with the material world. NDEs appear to show that the thinking self survives the death of the material self, and that is why it is used as evidence for DUALISM – namely that mind and body are TWO different things. Therefore it is a complete contradiction to argue that the s/s/c or mind cannot THINK without the body/material brain. It simply cannot translate its thoughts into materiality without the brain.
DAVID: Not my view. I can only construct my personalty by working on my s/s/c with my brain. I think, therefore I am. Any s/s/c is not me unless I can reach it and construct it, using my brain. This is why consciousness is the HARD problem. Material brain, immaterial personality.
This answer completely ignores the contradiction I have highlighted! Your personality IS your self/soul, and you ARE your personality. Yes, it uses the brain throughout its development, and yes indeed, consciousness is the hard problem but, as you keep agreeing and then trying to disagree, the s/s/c (c = consciousness) IS the thinking you, and remains the thinking you in brainless NDEs. And so once again: it makes no sense to claim that the s/s/c can’t think without a functioning brain. “I think, therefore I am” is the whole basis of Descartes’ separation of mind and body. He does not say, “I have a prefrontal cortex, and therefore I am.”
Big brain evolution: changes in sapiens skull shape;addendum
by David Turell , Saturday, March 10, 2018, 18:53 (2233 days ago) @ dhw
dhw: According to dualists, the s/s/c and not the prefrontal cortex does the thinking, and so it makes no sense for a dualist to say that the s/s/c can’t THINK without the prefrontal cortex.
DAVID: I agree, but in life the area where the s/s/c is focused is the frontal cortex. I am my s/s/c but can only work with it through the frontal cortex.
dhw: Your immaterial self (s/s/c) does not work with your immaterial self (s/s/c)! In dualism your s/s/c “works” with the material world through the material brain. The s/s/c does the thinking and the material brain provides information and does the implementing, as you keep agreeing and then disagreeing.
Your definition of dualism in not mine which is why we keep arguing. In life the brain and the s/s/c are inextricably intertwined and work together. I shape my personality and the characteristics from the blank slate at birth using my living brain. The s/s/c IS blank at birth with limiting potentialities in genes and nurture. After age 25 the s/s/c's structure will guide further adaptations throughout life. The s/s/c in life and death at its basis a quantum mechanism, just as the universe (reality) does.
dhw: But if it is the pfc that is the source of autonomous thought, then you are a materialist, though you think you are a dualist. (Dualist view: the s/s/c thinks; the brain provides information and gives material form to concepts.)dhw: Dualists separate s/s/c and brain, using NDE's as evidence, which means that the s/s/c does not depend on the brain for its ability to THINK.
This is your dualist concept, not mine. I have no philosophic training and have presented my own thinking: in life the brain is a computer and the s/s/c the software. In death the s/s/c is operating on its own and I doubt any new concepts, just communication with other souls:
DAVID: NDE's offer no evidence that new conceptualization occurs. The NDE'r observes and wishes to stay. I don't think the s/s/c in the afterlife invents new theories. It can only exist as it was in life.Conceptualizing is only one aspect of the s/s/c's thinking capacity. The discussion concerns the source of thought, which covers conceptualization, emotion, memory, decision-making, judgement and every other immaterial aspect of the self/soul. But I too would very much doubt if during an immaterial afterlife there was any need for it to conceive of objects that require a brain to give them material form. ...Our current subject is your materialistic claim that the s/s/c can’t THINK without the brain, even though it THINKS without a brain in the afterlife you believe in.
Answered above. The s/s/c functions in two ways in the two different circumstances.
dhw: If intelligence survives the death of the brain, it is absurd to say that it “springs from” the ability to use the brain. According to dualism, intelligence is what USES the brain, it is not the product of its use of the brain!DAVID: If your point is true why do different brains in structure have different IQ's as in Einstein?
dhw: Everybody’s brain is different. Everybody’s s/s/c is different. I myself do not know if the structure of the brain determines intelligence. If, however, you believe the s/s/c is the source of immaterial intelligence (and conceptualization and every other immaterial element of your self), then please answer your own question. You are the dualist. I would say your question implies evidence for materialism.
Einstein's unusual brain allowed his brilliance. The s/s/c can develop in conceptualization only as far as the complexity of his brain allows. The s/s/c concepts are immaterial but their complexity requires a material brain's capacity to allow more complex thought. Your brain and mine are not constructed for an IQ of 90.
dhw: Your personality IS your self/soul, and you ARE your personality. Yes, it uses the brain throughout its development, and yes indeed, consciousness is the hard problem but, as you keep agreeing and then trying to disagree, the s/s/c (c = consciousness) IS the thinking you, and remains the thinking you in brainless NDEs. And so once again: it makes no sense to claim that the s/s/c can’t think without a functioning brain. “I think, therefore I am” is the whole basis of Descartes’ separation of mind and body. He does not say, “I have a prefrontal cortex, and therefore I am.”
Descartes did not know current research. You are completely ignoring my concept of the duality. It does not fit your neat philosophic summary which dos not fit what NDE's tell us, presuming quantum mechanics is involved. The s/s/c must have two different mechanism in life and death. Nothing else fits. Part of the solution to the issue is understanding quantum reality. That is why I introduced quantum theory to these discussions years ago.
Big brain evolution: changes in sapiens skull shape;addendum
DAVID: Your definition of dualism is not mine which is why we keep arguing. In life the brain and the s/s/c are inextricably intertwined and work together.
There is no difference in our definitions! You keep agreeing that the s/s/c does the THINKING, is the same in life as in death, and in life works together with the brain, which gathers information and gives material expression to thoughts.
DAVID: I shape my personality and the characteristics from the blank slate at birth using my living brain. The s/s/c IS blank at birth with limiting potentialities in genes and nurture. After age 25 the s/s/c's structure will guide further adaptations throughout life. The s/s/c in life and death at its basis a quantum mechanism, just as the universe (reality) does.
The blank slate is a separate argument, but genes are not a blank slate. I have no idea what the “quantum mechanism” is, but since you say the s/s/c is the same in life as in death, it clearly makes no difference to the argument. In life and in death, the “quantum mechanism” of the s/s/c is the THINKING mechanism.
DAVID: …in life the brain is a computer and the s/s/c the software. In death the s/s/c is operating on its own and I doubt any new concepts, just communication with other souls…
In death I also doubt the need for concepts concerning materials. We don’t know what an immortal soul would think about, if such a thing exists, but NDEs indicate the ability to remember (recognition), feel emotion (awe, fear, love), try to take decisions (“I wanner stay here!”) etc. Conceptualization is not the only kind of “thought”. That is why NDEs are seen as evidence for an immaterial THINKING s/s/c, which in life works together with a material brain/body - the definition of dualism with which you keep agreeing and disagreeing.
Dhw: Our current subject is your materialistic claim that the s/s/c can’t THINK without the brain, even though it THINKS without a brain in the afterlife you believe in.
DAVID: Answered above. The s/s/c functions in two ways in the two different circumstances.
Yes,different circumstances, but what “two ways”? You agree that the s/s/c is the SAME in life as in death. Of course it will think about different things in different circumstances, but in both sets of circumstances, it is the THINKING mechanism.
Dhw: “I think, therefore I am” is the whole basis of Descartes’ separation of mind and body. He does not say, “I have a prefrontal cortex, and therefore I am.”
DAVID: Descartes did not know current research. You are completely ignoring my concept of the duality. It does not fit your neat philosophic summary which dos not fit what NDE's tell us, presuming quantum mechanics is involved. The s/s/c must have two different mechanisms in life and death. Nothing else fits. Part of the solution to the issue is understanding quantum reality. That is why I introduced quantum theory to these discussions years ago.
Since nobody understands quantum reality, this is not very helpful. And since you say the s/s/c in life and death is a “quantum mechanism” and the s/s/c is the same in life as in death, I don’t see why you think the mechanisms must be different. Thinking is thinking: the same mechanism applied to two different sets of circumstances (as you keep agreeing and then disagreeing). If current research shows Descartes was wrong, and mind and body are not TWO, then current research favours materialism.
DAVID: If your point is true why do different brains in structure have different IQ's as in Einstein?
dhw: If [..] you believe the s/s/c is the source of immaterial intelligence (and conceptualization and every other immaterial element of your self), then please answer your own question. You are the dualist. I would say your question implies evidence for materialism.
DAVID: Einstein's unusual brain allowed his brilliance.
Or his brilliance resulted in his unusual brain (dualism).
I’ve just read a review in The Times of a book called Inventing Ourselves, The Secret Life of the Teenage Brain by Sarah-Jayne Blakemore, a professor of cognitive neuroscience. She confirms everything you have written about the teenage brain, development “levelling off” at 25, risk-taking etc., and the self is “a complex interaction – which Blakemore is candid enough to concede nobody fully understands – between chemistry, psychology and circumstance.” However, the following passage has major implications regarding Einstein, and the expansion of the pre-sapiens brain:
“We do know, however, that the brain is shaped by circumstance. Remarkably, the hippocampus, the warehouse of memory in the brain, is significantly larger in drivers of London black cabs than it is in men of comparable age who do other jobs. All that knowledge of the London landmarks makes their brains go bigger. (My bold) The same is true for musicians, whose auditory cortex is, on average, a full 25% larger than it is in people who play no instrument.” My bold points to the fact that they are not born with bigger bits, but exertion CAUSES the expansion. By extension, then, Einstein’s bigger pfc would have been CAUSED by exertion (working out his theories), just as the expansion of the pre-sapiens brain would have been CAUSED by exertion (working out how to implement the concept of the spear). The bigger brain did not precede the thoughts.
Big brain evolution: changes in sapiens skull shape;addendum
by David Turell , Sunday, March 11, 2018, 19:50 (2231 days ago) @ dhw
edited by David Turell, Sunday, March 11, 2018, 19:59
DAVID: Your definition of dualism is not mine which is why we keep arguing. In life the brain and the s/s/c are inextricably intertwined and work together.
dhw: There is no difference in our definitions! You keep agreeing that the s/s/c does the THINKING, is the same in life as in death, and in life works together with the brain, which gathers information and gives material expression to thoughts.
I have not said the s/s/c is the same in life and death. See below.
DAVID: I shape my personality and the characteristics from the blank slate at birth using my living brain. The s/s/c IS blank at birth with limiting potentialities in genes and nurture. After age 25 the s/s/c's structure will guide further adaptations throughout life. The s/s/c in life and death at its basis a quantum mechanism, just as the universe (reality) does.dhw: The blank slate is a separate argument, but genes are not a blank slate. I have no idea what the “quantum mechanism” is, but since you say the s/s/c is the same in life as in death, it clearly makes no difference to the argument. In life and in death, the “quantum mechanism” of the s/s/c is the THINKING mechanism.
But its interface in life and death is different, and i suspect the mechanism differs also to fit.
DAVID: …in life the brain is a computer and the s/s/c the software. In death the s/s/c is operating on its own and I doubt any new concepts, just communication with other souls…dhw: In death I also doubt the need for concepts concerning materials. We don’t know what an immortal soul would think about, if such a thing exists, but NDEs indicate the ability to remember (recognition), feel emotion (awe, fear, love), try to take decisions.
Dhw: Our current subject is your materialistic claim that the s/s/c can’t THINK without the brain, even though it THINKS without a brain in the afterlife you believe in.
DAVID: Answered above. The s/s/c functions in two ways in the two different circumstances.dhw: Yes,different circumstances, but what “two ways”? You agree that the s/s/c is the SAME in life as in death. Of course it will think about different things in different circumstances, but in both sets of circumstances, it is the THINKING mechanism.
Yes, thinking, but in two different realms.
David: The s/s/c must have two different mechanisms in life and death. Nothing else fits. Part of the solution to the issue is understanding quantum reality. That is why I introduced quantum theory to these discussions years ago.[/i]
dhw: Since nobody understands quantum reality, this is not very helpful. And since you say the s/s/c in life and death is a “quantum mechanism” and the s/s/c is the same in life as in death, I don’t see why you think the mechanisms must be different. Thinking is thinking: the same mechanism applied to two different sets of circumstances (as you keep agreeing and then disagreeing).
See above. Two realms, two interfaces.
dhw:If current research shows Descartes was wrong, and mind and body are not TWO, then current research favours materialism.
Of course current scientific study is materialistic.
DAVID: Einstein's unusual brain allowed his brilliance.
dhw: Or his brilliance resulted in his unusual brain (dualism).
I’ve just read a review in The Times of a book called Inventing Ourselves, The Secret Life of the Teenage Brain by Sarah-Jayne Blakemore, a professor of cognitive neuroscience. She confirms everything you have written about the teenage brain, development “levelling off” at 25, risk-taking etc., and the self is “a complex interaction – which Blakemore is candid enough to concede nobody fully understands – between chemistry, psychology and circumstance.” However, the following passage has major implications regarding Einstein, and the expansion of the pre-sapiens brain:“We do know, however, that the brain is shaped by circumstance. Remarkably, the hippocampus, the warehouse of memory in the brain, is significantly larger in drivers of London black cabs than it is in men of comparable age who do other jobs. All that knowledge of the London landmarks makes their brains go bigger. (My bold) The same is true for musicians, whose auditory cortex is, on average, a full 25% larger than it is in people who play no instrument.” My bold points to the fact that they are not born with bigger bits, but exertion CAUSES the expansion. By extension, then, Einstein’s bigger pfc would have been CAUSED by exertion (working out his theories), just as the expansion of the pre-sapiens brain would have been CAUSED by exertion (working out how to implement the concept of the spear). The bigger brain did not precede the thoughts.
She is correct in her description about cabbies. I've read the study in the past. As a storage area it had to enlarge. You are comparing her memory areas to cortical thinking conceptual areas, which is where Einstein genius is.
Big brain evolution: changes in sapiens skull shape;addendum
DAVID: Your definition of dualism is not mine which is why we keep arguing. In life the brain and the s/s/c are inextricably intertwined and work together.
dhw: There is no difference in our definitions! You keep agreeing that the s/s/c does the THINKING, is the same in life as in death, and in life works together with the brain, which gathers information and gives material expression to thoughts.
DAVID: I have not said the s/s/c is the same in life and death. See below.
We have been having this same discussion for months, and so on March 2 I tried to pin your down:
dhw: If NDEs are to be believed, the s/s/c plays the same role in life and in death: it is the thinking, experiencing, remembering, decision-making YOU. Yes or no?”
David: Yes.
dhw: I have no idea what the “quantum mechanism” is, but since you say the s/s/c is the same in life as in death, it clearly makes no difference to the argument. In life and in death, the “quantum mechanism” of the s/s/c is the THINKING mechanism.
DAVID: But its interface in life and death is different, and i suspect the mechanism differs also to fit.
Of course the interface with an immaterial world will be different from the interface with a material world, and of course you will no longer have material means of expression and communication. There is no longer a brain mechanism! That is why dualists believe that there is an immaterial s/s/c that works with the brain in life, but the same s/s/c separates from the brain in death, and that is the THINKING you.
DAVID: Yes, thinking, but in two different realms.
That is what I keep telling you. The SAME THINKING s/s/c in two different circumstances, or realms if you prefer. And so a dualist cannot insist that thought is impossible without a prefrontal cortex.
dhw (quoting and commenting) “We do know, however, that the brain is shaped by circumstance. Remarkably, the hippocampus, the warehouse of memory in the brain, is significantly larger in drivers of London black cabs than it is in men of comparable age who do other jobs. All that knowledge of the London landmarks makes their brains go bigger. (My bold) The same is true for musicians, whose auditory cortex is, on average, a full 25% larger than it is in people who play no instrument.” My bold points to the fact that they are not born with bigger bits, but exertion CAUSES the expansion. By extension, then, Einstein’s bigger pfc would have been CAUSED by exertion (working out his theories), just as the expansion of the pre-sapiens brain would have been CAUSED by exertion (working out how to implement the concept of the spear). The bigger brain did not precede the thoughts.
DAVID: She is correct in her description about cabbies. I've read the study in the past. As a storage area it had to enlarge. You are comparing her memory areas to cortical thinking conceptual areas, which is where Einstein genius is.
Is it? March 7:
dhw: So Einstein would still be a genius in an afterlife without his prefrontal cortex.
DAVID: Of course. You’ve gotten my concept.
So your concept is that Einstein could not be a genius without his pfc (because according to you intelligence springs from the s/s/c being able to use an advanced brain), but he can be a genius without his pfc provided he hasn’t got a pfc.
The point of the cabby and musician references is to show that thought enlarges the brain, and the brain does not enlarge in anticipation of thought. Since this applies to the hippocampus and to the auditory cortex, why should it not apply to other areas of the brain as well, such as thought expanding Einstein’s pfc and the brain of pre-sapiens?
Big brain evolution: changes in sapiens skull shape;addendum
by David Turell , Monday, March 12, 2018, 19:29 (2230 days ago) @ dhw
edited by David Turell, Monday, March 12, 2018, 20:06
dhw: I have no idea what the “quantum mechanism” is, but since you say the s/s/c is the same in life as in death, it clearly makes no difference to the argument. In life and in death, the “quantum mechanism” of the s/s/c is the THINKING mechanism.
DAVID: But its interface in life and death is different, and i suspect the mechanism differs also to fit.dhw: Of course the interface with an immaterial world will be different from the interface with a material world, and of course you will no longer have material means of expression and communication. There is no longer a brain mechanism! That is why dualists believe that there is an immaterial s/s/c that works with the brain in life, but the same s/s/c separates from the brain in death, and that is the THINKING you.
I agree.
DAVID: Yes, thinking, but in two different realms.dhw: That is what I keep telling you. The SAME THINKING s/s/c in two different circumstances, or realms if you prefer. And so a dualist cannot insist that thought is impossible without a prefrontal cortex.
If you accept the two realms, a person cannot think in life unless his cortex is functioning. That is the only point I have been making
DAVID: She is correct in her description about cabbies. I've read the study in the past. As a storage area it had to enlarge. You are comparing her memory areas to cortical thinking conceptual areas, which is where Einstein genius is.Is it? March 7:
dhw: So Einstein would still be a genius in an afterlife without his prefrontal cortex.
DAVID: Of course. You’ve gotten my concept.dhw: So your concept is that Einstein could not be a genius without his pfc (because according to you intelligence springs from the s/s/c being able to use an advanced brain), but he can be a genius without his pfc provided he hasn’t got a pfc.
The point of the cabby and musician references is to show that thought enlarges the brain, and the brain does not enlarge in anticipation of thought. Since this applies to the hippocampus and to the auditory cortex, why should it not apply to other areas of the brain as well, such as thought expanding Einstein’s pfc and the brain of pre-sapiens?
The hippocampus is a storage area for memory and the auditory area also for the musician. Einstein was an amazing genius with a huge concept area, that I am convinced he was born to develop and allow his concepts to appear. His hat size was not extraordinary. The brain is very soft fatty material and can give room elsewhere which would allow for his large areas without pressing on the skull. Brains with very high IQ are different.
Big brain evolution: changes in sapiens skull shape;addendum
dhw: Of course the interface with an immaterial world will be different from the interface with a material world, and of course you will no longer have material means of expression and communication. There is no longer a brain mechanism! That is why dualists believe that there is an immaterial s/s/c that works with the brain in life, but the same s/s/c separates from the brain in death, and that is the THINKING you.
DAVID: I agree.
Thank you. No doubt I will be reminding you again of your agreement!
DAVID: Yes, thinking, but in two different realms.
dhw: That is what I keep telling you. The SAME THINKING s/s/c in two different circumstances, or realms if you prefer. And so a dualist cannot insist that thought is impossible without a prefrontal cortex.
DAVID: If you accept the two realms, a person cannot think in life unless his cortex is functioning. That is the only point I have been making.
You are simply glossing over the distinction that dualism makes between the mind and the body IN LIFE. (There is no dualism in death.) The whole point of NDEs as evidence is that even though the person’s cortex is NOT functioning, the person is still a thinking being, and therefore the soul/self/consciousness does NOT depend on the brain. The point you have been making, however, is that immaterial pre-sapiens minds could not have had new ideas until their material brains grew bigger, and immaterial intelligence “springs from” the immaterial mind being able to use the brain. Even now you are still insisting that Einstein’s intelligence was the RESULT of his having a bigger cortex. All these points support materialism – and they may be correct, but you claim to be a dualist!
DAVID: She is correct in her description about cabbies. I've read the study in the past. As a storage area it had to enlarge. You are comparing her memory areas to cortical thinking conceptual areas, which is where Einstein genius is.
dhw: Is it? March 7:
So Einstein would still be a genius in an afterlife without his prefrontal cortex.
DAVID: Of course. You’ve gotten my concept.
dhw: So your concept is that Einstein could not be a genius without his pfc (because according to you intelligence springs from the s/s/c being able to use an advanced brain), but he can be a genius without his pfc provided he hasn’t got a pfc.
The point of the cabby and musician references is to show that thought enlarges the brain, and the brain does not enlarge in anticipation of thought. Since this applies to the hippocampus and to the auditory cortex, why should it not apply to other areas of the brain as well, such as thought expanding Einstein’s pfc and the brain of pre-sapiens?
DAVID: The hippocampus is a storage area for memory and the auditory area also for the musician. Einstein was an amazing genius with a huge concept area, that I am convinced he was born to develop and allow his concepts to appear. His hat size was not extraordinary. The brain is very soft fatty material and can give room elsewhere which would allow for his large areas without pressing on the skull. Brains with very high IQ are different.
All brains are different. We know there is enough room inside the skull for areas of the brain to expand. Cab drivers’ immaterial ways of thinking expand their material hippocampus; musicians’ immaterial ways of thinking expand their material auditory cortex. But apparently Einstein’s immaterial ways of thinking depended on his already having had an expanded material prefrontal cortex.
xxxxxx
For a dualist the will would be an integral part of the immaterial self, as opposed to the material brain. Under “Free will….”:
QUOTE: "'To be clear, we're not taking a position on free will," Dubljevic says. "We're just saying neuroscience hasn't definitively proven anything one way or the other.'"
DAVID’s comment: So free will may exist.
Science is only equipped to study the material world, and personally I would regard it as sheer arrogance to assume that the material world as we know it now is all that exists. Hence the centuries-old debate between dualism and materialism, which extends all the way through to the possible existence of a God. However, please note that anyone who insists that thought is impossible without a functioning prefrontal cortex is siding with the materialists.
Big brain evolution: changes in sapiens skull shape;addendum
by David Turell , Tuesday, March 13, 2018, 15:34 (2230 days ago) @ dhw
DAVID: If you accept the two realms, a person cannot think in life unless his cortex is functioning. That is the only point I have been making.
dhw: You are simply glossing over the distinction that dualism makes between the mind and the body IN LIFE. (There is no dualism in death.) The whole point of NDEs as evidence is that even though the person’s cortex is NOT functioning, the person is still a thinking being, and therefore the soul/self/consciousness does NOT depend on the brain. The point you have been making, however, is that immaterial pre-sapiens minds could not have had new ideas until their material brains grew bigger, and immaterial intelligence “springs from” the immaterial mind being able to use the brain. Even now you are still insisting that Einstein’s intelligence was the RESULT of his having a bigger cortex. All these points support materialism – and they may be correct, but you claim to be a dualist!
I'm not glossing over anything. What happens in life is different than the circumstance in death. In life we must use our brain to reach our s/s/c, nothing more. And only our complex brain has allowed the advances humans have created.
DAVID: She is correct in her description about cabbies. I've read the study in the past. As a storage area it had to enlarge. You are comparing her memory areas to cortical thinking conceptual areas, which is where Einstein genius is.dhw: Is it? March 7:
So Einstein would still be a genius in an afterlife without his prefrontal cortex.DAVID: Of course. You’ve gotten my concept.
dhw: So your concept is that Einstein could not be a genius without his pfc (because according to you intelligence springs from the s/s/c being able to use an advanced brain), but he can be a genius without his pfc provided he hasn’t got a pfc.
The point of the cabby and musician references is to show that thought enlarges the brain, and the brain does not enlarge in anticipation of thought. Since this applies to the hippocampus and to the auditory cortex, why should it not apply to other areas of the brain as well, such as thought expanding Einstein’s pfc and the brain of pre-sapiens?DAVID: The hippocampus is a storage area for memory and the auditory area also for the musician. Einstein was an amazing genius with a huge concept area, that I am convinced he was born to develop and allow his concepts to appear. His hat size was not extraordinary. The brain is very soft fatty material and can give room elsewhere which would allow for his large areas without pressing on the skull. Brains with very high IQ are different.
dhw: All brains are different. We know there is enough room inside the skull for areas of the brain to expand. Cab drivers’ immaterial ways of thinking expand their material hippocampus; musicians’ immaterial ways of thinking expand their material auditory cortex. But apparently Einstein’s immaterial ways of thinking depended on his already having had an expanded material prefrontal cortex.
No need for an expansion of the skull opposite to your theory that forceful concepts create bigger skulls.
xxxxxxFor a dualist the will would be an integral part of the immaterial self, as opposed to the material brain. Under “Free will….”:
QUOTE: "'To be clear, we're not taking a position on free will," Dubljevic says. "We're just saying neuroscience hasn't definitively proven anything one way or the other.'"
DAVID’s comment: So free will may exist.
dhw: Science is only equipped to study the material world, and personally I would regard it as sheer arrogance to assume that the material world as we know it now is all that exists. Hence the centuries-old debate between dualism and materialism, which extends all the way through to the possible existence of a God. However, please note that anyone who insists that thought is impossible without a functioning prefrontal cortex is siding with the materialists.
Yes, in life. Death is in a different set of circumstances.
Big brain evolution: changes in sapiens skull shape;addendum
DAVID: If you accept the two realms, a person cannot think in life unless his cortex is functioning. That is the only point I have been making.
dhw: You are simply glossing over the distinction that dualism makes between the mind and the body IN LIFE. (There is no dualism in death.) The whole point of NDEs as evidence is that even though the person’s cortex is NOT functioning, the person is still a thinking being, and therefore the soul/self/consciousness does NOT depend on the brain. The point you have been making, however, is that immaterial pre-sapiens minds could not have had new ideas until their material brains grew bigger, and immaterial intelligence “springs from” the immaterial mind being able to use the brain. Even now you are still insisting that Einstein’s intelligence was the RESULT of his having a bigger cortex. All these points support materialism – and they may be correct, but you claim to be a dualist!
DAVID: I'm not glossing over anything. What happens in life is different than the circumstance in death. In life we must use our brain to reach our s/s/c, nothing more. And only our complex brain has allowed the advances humans have created.
Once more: we ARE our s/s/c. “The s/s/c plays the same role in life and in death: it is the thinking, experiencing, remembering, decision-making YOU. Yes or no?” You replied yes. “Dualists believe that there is an immaterial s/s/c that works with the brain in life, but the same s/s/c separates from the brain in death, and that is the THINKING you.” You responded “I agree”. Of course what happens in life is different from what happens in death, but you agree that your dualism means the s/s/c is what does the THINKING. And of course our complex brain has allowed the advances in the material world. We would not be able to give material expression/implementation to the thoughts of the THINKING s/s/c without our material brains and bodies!
dhw: All brains are different. We know there is enough room inside the skull for areas of the brain to expand. Cab drivers’ immaterial ways of thinking expand their material hippocampus; musicians’ immaterial ways of thinking expand their material auditory cortex. But apparently Einstein’s immaterial ways of thinking depended on his already having had an expanded material prefrontal cortex.
DAVID: No need for an expansion of the skull opposite to your theory that forceful concepts create bigger skulls.
There is obviously still room in the sapiens skull for brain areas to expand! Expansion of the pre-sapiens skull is an established scientific fact. You claim God did it because pre-sapiens couldn’t have come up with new thoughts until he had a bigger brain. If the thoughts of cab drivers and musicians cause expansion to certain areas of the brain, it is logical to deduce that thoughts may have caused expansion to pre-sapiens brains, and the time came when the skull was not large enough to contain the expanding brain, and so the skull expanded.
Dhw: …please note that anyone who insists that thought is impossible without a functioning prefrontal cortex is siding with the materialists.
DAVID: Yes, in life. Death is in a different set of circumstances.
Are you now saying that in life the s/s/c can’t THINK without the pfc, even though you agree that the s/s/c plays the same THINKING role in life as in death? Please clarify what you are saying “yes” to here.
Big brain evolution: changes in sapiens skull shape;addendum
by David Turell , Wednesday, March 14, 2018, 14:47 (2229 days ago) @ dhw
DAVID: I'm not glossing over anything. What happens in life is different than the circumstance in death. In life we must use our brain to reach our s/s/c, nothing more. And only our complex brain has allowed the advances humans have created.
dhw: Once more: we ARE our s/s/c. “The s/s/c plays the same role in life and in death: it is the thinking, experiencing, remembering, decision-making YOU. Yes or no?” You replied yes. “Dualists believe that there is an immaterial s/s/c that works with the brain in life, but the same s/s/c separates from the brain in death, and that is the THINKING you.” You responded “I agree”. Of course what happens in life is different from what happens in death, but you agree that your dualism means the s/s/c is what does the THINKING. And of course our complex brain has allowed the advances in the material world. We would not be able to give material expression/implementation to the thoughts of the THINKING s/s/c without our material brains and bodies!
We still differ: In life I cannot reach my s/s/c without using my brain. In life my s/s/c is not floating around separate from my brain as you constantly imply, but firmly interfaced with it. I cannot enter new concepts or change my immaterial personality without using my brain to think. That is not just external implementation but actual internal modification of my s/s/c by my own free will.
DAVID: No need for an expansion of the skull opposite to your theory that forceful concepts create bigger skulls.dhw: There is obviously still room in the sapiens skull for brain areas to expand! Expansion of the pre-sapiens skull is an established scientific fact. You claim God did it because pre-sapiens couldn’t have come up with new thoughts until he had a bigger brain. If the thoughts of cab drivers and musicians cause expansion to certain areas of the brain, it is logical to deduce that thoughts may have caused expansion to pre-sapiens brains, and the time came when the skull was not large enough to contain the expanding brain, and so the skull expanded.
The changes in cabby and musician brains is in memory areas which are then used by the pre-frontal areas. No need for expansion as you have just pointed out. Your 'logical' explanation does not fit 200 cc sudden jumps in frontal size between advancing species.
Dhw: …please note that anyone who insists that thought is impossible without a functioning prefrontal cortex is siding with the materialists.DAVID: Yes, in life. Death is in a different set of circumstances.
dhw: Are you now saying that in life the s/s/c can’t THINK without the pfc, even though you agree that the s/s/c plays the same THINKING role in life as in death? Please clarify what you are saying “yes” to here.
In life the s/s/c does not think without using the brain.
Big brain evolution: changes in sapiens skull shape;addendum
DAVID: We still differ: In life I cannot reach my s/s/c without using my brain. In life my s/s/c is not floating around separate from my brain as you constantly imply, but firmly interfaced with it. I cannot enter new concepts or change my immaterial personality without using my brain to think. That is not just external implementation but actual internal modification of my s/s/c by my own free will.
You continue to ignore your own dualistic belief that the s/s/c is the THINKING you. Of course it doesn’t “float around” separately in life. Dualists believe that it only floats around in NDEs and in death, and of course in material life it interfaces with the material you. But your thinking self does not use your brain in order to THINK. It uses your brain in order to gather information that it thinks about, and to give material expression/ implementation to its thoughts. They work together, but the whole point of dualism is that although they are interdependent, interactive, interwoven in life, the s/s/c is the THINKING part of the mechanism. Otherwise, in death, “you” would not and could not be you.
DAVID: The changes in cabby and musician brains is in memory areas which are then used by the pre-frontal areas. No need for expansion as you have just pointed out. Your 'logical' explanation does not fit 200 cc sudden jumps in frontal size between advancing species.
But those areas of the brain HAVE expanded. We come back to Einstein. If memory and auditory sections of the brain expand with use, why can’t you accept the possibility that the genius Einstein’s thinking expanded the section of his brain connected with theoretical thinking? Immaterial concepts are also theoretical thinking until they are given material form. So why should the pre-sapiens brain not expand with the effort of conceiving and implementing its concepts? But in their case, unlike Einstein’s, the skull was too small to contain the necessary expansion.
DAVID: In life the s/s/c does not think without using the brain.
I have no idea how dualism works. I only know that dualists including yourself believe that the s/s/c is the THINKING you, and yes indeed, it USES the brain, but the brain does not DO the thinking. You continually forget the division of function that is the whole point of dualism. But if you wish to argue that the immaterial self/soul cannot live a material life in the material world without its materials, then nobody is going to argue.
xxxxxxx
DAVID’s comment (under “Brain complexity”): The brain is compartmentalized into functional regions, but is fully interconnected. we recognize we are thirsty in the frontal cortex.
This ties in with the comment I made yesterday:
I have always been reluctant to accept the rigid pigeon-holing of brain areas, especially in relation to cognition. My own view is that the brain is a community of cells cooperating with one another and with the other cell communities of the body. Whether the material communities produce the personality/self/soul/consciousness (materialistic collective thinking) or there is an immaterial s/s/c that uses and directs the material communities is the core of the debate between materialists and dualists.
Big brain evolution: changes in sapiens skull shape;addendum
by David Turell , Thursday, March 15, 2018, 14:45 (2228 days ago) @ dhw
DAVID: We still differ: In life I cannot reach my s/s/c without using my brain. In life my s/s/c is not floating around separate from my brain as you constantly imply, but firmly interfaced with it. I cannot enter new concepts or change my immaterial personality without using my brain to think. That is not just external implementation but actual internal modification of my s/s/c by my own free will.
dhw: You continue to ignore your own dualistic belief that the s/s/c is the THINKING you. Of course it doesn’t “float around” separately in life. Dualists believe that it only floats around in NDEs and in death, and of course in material life it interfaces with the material you. But your thinking self does not use your brain in order to THINK. It uses your brain in order to gather information that it thinks about, and to give material expression/ implementation to its thoughts. They work together, but the whole point of dualism is that although they are interdependent, interactive, interwoven in life, the s/s/c is the THINKING part of the mechanism. Otherwise, in death, “you” would not and could not be you.
Because you choose to ignore my hardware/software analogy we keep discussing past each other. I do not ignore that the s/s/c is me, my developed personality from the blank slate at birth. But I also believe my consciousness is part of God's universal consciousness which is at the quantum level of reality, and is a quantum mechanism given to my material brain as it is developed in utero. I don't expect you to accept any of this, but as I mull over it, it makes sense to me.
DAVID: The changes in cabby and musician brains is in memory areas which are then used by the pre-frontal areas. No need for expansion as you have just pointed out. Your 'logical' explanation does not fit 200 cc sudden jumps in frontal size between advancing species.
dhw: But those areas of the brain HAVE expanded. We come back to Einstein. If memory and auditory sections of the brain expand with use, why can’t you accept the possibility that the genius Einstein’s thinking expanded the section of his brain connected with theoretical thinking? Immaterial concepts are also theoretical thinking until they are given material form. So why should the pre-sapiens brain not expand with the effort of conceiving and implementing its concepts? But in their case, unlike Einstein’s, the skull was too small to contain the necessary expansion.
You don't like the idea of compartmentalizing areas of the brain, but it is what science has found. The cabbies and musicians enlarged memory areas enlarging like a library would as it adds books. Einstein's area is frontal conceptual thinking region. I see you comparing apples and oranges.
DAVID: In life the s/s/c does not think without using the brain.dhw: I have no idea how dualism works. I only know that dualists including yourself believe that the s/s/c is the THINKING you, and yes indeed, it USES the brain, but the brain does not DO the thinking. You continually forget the division of function that is the whole point of dualism. But if you wish to argue that the immaterial self/soul cannot live a material life in the material world without its materials, then nobody is going to argue.
Please remember my hardware/software analogy. I don't continually forget!
xxxxxxx
DAVID’s comment (under “Brain complexity”): The brain is compartmentalized into functional regions, but is fully interconnected. we recognize we are thirsty in the frontal cortex.
dhw: This ties in with the comment I made yesterday:
I have always been reluctant to accept the rigid pigeon-holing of brain areas, especially in relation to cognition. My own view is that the brain is a community of cells cooperating with one another and with the other cell communities of the body. Whether the material communities produce the personality/self/soul/consciousness (materialistic collective thinking) or there is an immaterial s/s/c that uses and directs the material communities is the core of the debate between materialists and dualists.
The brain has parts, but they are fully coordinated and work completely together seamlessly.
Big brain evolution: changes in sapiens skull shape;addendum
dhw: You continue to ignore your own dualistic belief that the s/s/c is the THINKING you. Of course it doesn’t “float around” separately in life. Dualists believe that it only floats around in NDEs and in death, and of course in material life it interfaces with the material you. But your thinking self does not use your brain in order to THINK. It uses your brain in order to gather information that it thinks about, and to give material expression/ implementation to its thoughts. They work together, but the whole point of dualism is that although they are interdependent, interactive, interwoven in life, the s/s/c is the THINKING part of the mechanism. Otherwise, in death, “you” would not and could not be you.
DAVID: Because you choose to ignore my hardware/software analogy we keep discussing past each other.
I accept the analogy in so far as the software is the immaterial self/soul which does the thinking and which uses the hardware (the material brain) to do the implementing. It is you who refuse to accept the distinction.
DAVID: I do not ignore that the s/s/c is me, my developed personality from the blank slate at birth. But I also believe my consciousness is part of God's universal consciousness which is at the quantum level of reality, and is a quantum mechanism given to my material brain as it is developed in utero. I don't expect you to accept any of this, but as I mull over it, it makes sense to me.
Wearing my theist hat, I have no problem with any of that (apart from the unnecessary reiteration of “blank slate”). My problem is your continued insistence that the quantum mechanism, which is part of God’s universal consciousness given to your material brain, is incapable of thinking without that material brain, even though you believe that it is the SAME THINKING YOU which survives the death of the brain. Once more: You continue to ignore your own analogy: the immaterial soul (software) does the thinking, and the hardware (material brain) does the implementing. When life ends, the immaterial soul separates from the material self and enters a different world. You keep agreeing that this is your opinion, but then you withdraw your agreement because you want your God to expand the material brain of pre-sapiens before our ancestors can think their immaterial new thoughts.
DAVID: You don't like the idea of compartmentalizing areas of the brain, but it is what science has found. The cabbies and musicians enlarged memory areas enlarging like a library would as it adds books. Einstein's area is frontal conceptual thinking region. I see you comparing apples and oranges.
My reluctance to compartmentalize is that I simply don’t know the extent to which cognition is confined to the pfc. The point I am making is that if different activities CAUSE different areas of the brain to expand, I see no reason why you should assume that by contrast the pfc had to expand BEFORE Einstein and pre-sapiens were able to think their new thoughts. So long as you insist that the expansion of the brain had to PRECEDE new thoughts, you contradict your own dualistic belief that in life there is a thinking soul (software) and an implementing body (hardware).
xxxxxxx
dhw: I have always been reluctant to accept the rigid pigeon-holing of brain areas, especially in relation to cognition. My own view is that the brain is a community of cells cooperating with one another and with the other cell communities of the body. Whether the material communities produce the personality/self/soul/consciousness (materialistic collective thinking) or there is an immaterial s/s/c that uses and directs the material communities is the core of the debate between materialists and dualists.
DAVID: The brain has parts, but they are fully coordinated and work completely together seamlessly.
We agree.
Big brain evolution: changes in sapiens skull shape;addendum
by David Turell , Friday, March 16, 2018, 18:39 (2227 days ago) @ dhw
dhw: You continue to ignore your own dualistic belief that the s/s/c is the THINKING you. Of course it doesn’t “float around” separately in life. Dualists believe that it only floats around in NDEs and in death, and of course in material life it interfaces with the material you. But your thinking self does not use your brain in order to THINK. It uses your brain in order to gather information that it thinks about, and to give material expression/ implementation to its thoughts. They work together, but the whole point of dualism is that although they are interdependent, interactive, interwoven in life, the s/s/c is the THINKING part of the mechanism. Otherwise, in death, “you” would not and could not be you.
DAVID: Because you choose to ignore my hardware/software analogy we keep discussing past each other.
dhw: I accept the analogy in so far as the software is the immaterial self/soul which does the thinking and which uses the hardware (the material brain) to do the implementing. It is you who refuse to accept the distinction.
You refuse to see the difference in life and death. Again, I believe the s/s/c is changed in quantum mechanism in life and in death, but all it knows remains intact.
DAVID: I do not ignore that the s/s/c is me, my developed personality from the blank slate at birth. But I also believe my consciousness is part of God's universal consciousness which is at the quantum level of reality, and is a quantum mechanism given to my material brain as it is developed in utero. I don't expect you to accept any of this, but as I mull over it, it makes sense to me.dhw: Wearing my theist hat, I have no problem with any of that (apart from the unnecessary reiteration of “blank slate”). My problem is your continued insistence that the quantum mechanism, which is part of God’s universal consciousness given to your material brain, is incapable of thinking without that material brain, even though you believe that it is the SAME THINKING YOU which survives the death of the brain. Once more: You continue to ignore your own analogy: the immaterial soul (software) does the thinking, and the hardware (material brain) does the implementing. When life ends, the immaterial soul separates from the material self and enters a different world. You keep agreeing that this is your opinion, but then you withdraw your agreement because you want your God to expand the material brain of pre-sapiens before our ancestors can think their immaterial new thoughts.
Answered above.
DAVID: You don't like the idea of compartmentalizing areas of the brain, but it is what science has found. The cabbies and musicians enlarged memory areas enlarging like a library would as it adds books. Einstein's area is frontal conceptual thinking region. I see you comparing apples and oranges.dhw: My reluctance to compartmentalize is that I simply don’t know the extent to which cognition is confined to the pfc. The point I am making is that if different activities CAUSE different areas of the brain to expand, I see no reason why you should assume that by contrast the pfc had to expand BEFORE Einstein and pre-sapiens were able to think their new thoughts. So long as you insist that the expansion of the brain had to PRECEDE new thoughts, you contradict your own dualistic belief that in life there is a thinking soul (software) and an implementing body (hardware).
If you accept my theory about the s/s/c being slightly different in mechanism in life and death, there is no contradiction. You have refused to do that, for no good reason that I can see. The s/s/c may not have a monolithic unchanged design in the two realms. As far as complex thought is concerned, only more complex computer hardware can do more complex operations. In life the s/s/c MUST use the brain. I am my s/s/c in life but the connection must be through the brain.
Big brain evolution: changes in sapiens skull shape;addendum
dhw: I accept the analogy in so far as the software is the immaterial self/soul which does the thinking and which uses the hardware (the material brain) to do the implementing. It is you who refuse to accept the distinction.
DAVID: You refuse to see the difference in life and death. Again, I believe the s/s/c is changed in quantum mechanism in life and in death, but all it knows remains intact.
What is changed? Over and over again you have agreed that the s/s/c does the thinking in life as in death. Only the circumstances change. Do you want me to keep quoting your agreement?
dhw: So long as you insist that the expansion of the brain had to PRECEDE new thoughts, you contradict your own dualistic belief that in life there is a thinking soul (software) and an implementing body (hardware).
DAVID: If you accept my theory about the s/s/c being slightly different in mechanism in life and death, there is no contradiction. You have refused to do that, for no good reason that I can see. The s/s/c may not have a monolithic unchanged design in the two realms.
What is this “slight” difference? The importance of NDEs in this context is only the evidence they provide for dualism – namely, that the s/s/c is the THINKING you. The question we are debating is whether the s/s/c is or is not responsible for thought and whether the brain changes in implementing the thought (= dualism), or the brain changes before the s/s/c is able to come up with its new thoughts (materialism). Your insistence that your God had to enlarge the pre-sapiens brain before it could come up with new concepts puts you on the side of the materialists. Your nebulous new idea that the s/s/c is the same but may be “slightly different” in death does not alter the THINKING role of the s/s/c in life.
DAVID: As far as complex thought is concerned, only more complex computer hardware can do more complex operations. In life the s/s/c MUST use the brain. I am my s/s/c in life but the connection must be through the brain.
Yes, only a more complex brain can do more complex operations, and in dualism the software (s/s/c) provides the concept, and the hardware (brain) implements the concept. No disagreement. In life, yes the s/s/c MUST use the brain in order to live in the material world: it provides the thoughts, and uses the brain to provide information and material implementation. No disagreement. And yes, you are your s/s/c, and your s/s/c connects with the material world through the brain. No disagreement. The s/s/c does the thinking, and the brain does the material implementing. The immaterial thought of the s/s/c precedes the material implementation by the brain. You can hardly disagree. So the only disagreement is your insistence that the s/s/c can't do any new THINKING until it has been given a bigger brain, i.e. that the level of thought depends on the size of the brain. And that is your disagreement with yourself, not with me, as you say you are a dualist (which means that the s/s/c and not the brain does the thinking), whereas I remain neutral in the battle between materialism and dualism.
Big brain evolution: changes in sapiens skull shape;addendum
by David Turell , Saturday, March 17, 2018, 14:25 (2226 days ago) @ dhw
dhw: So long as you insist that the expansion of the brain had to PRECEDE new thoughts, you contradict your own dualistic belief that in life there is a thinking soul (software) and an implementing body (hardware).
DAVID: If you accept my theory about the s/s/c being slightly different in mechanism in life and death, there is no contradiction. You have refused to do that, for no good reason that I can see. The s/s/c may not have a monolithic unchanged design in the two realms.
dhw: What is this “slight” difference? The importance of NDEs in this context is only the evidence they provide for dualism – namely, that the s/s/c is the THINKING you. The question we are debating is whether the s/s/c is or is not responsible for thought and whether the brain changes in implementing the thought (= dualism), or the brain changes before the s/s/c is able to come up with its new thoughts (materialism). Your insistence that your God had to enlarge the pre-sapiens brain before it could come up with new concepts puts you on the side of the materialists. Your nebulous new idea that the s/s/c is the same but may be “slightly different” in death does not alter the THINKING role of the s/s/c in life.
For me dualism must be thought of in different ways in life and death. In life the s/s/c cannot think without using the brain. In death it can. A material brain is required.
DAVID: As far as complex thought is concerned, only more complex computer hardware can do more complex operations. In life the s/s/c MUST use the brain. I am my s/s/c in life but the connection must be through the brain.dhw: Yes, only a more complex brain can do more complex operations, and in dualism the software (s/s/c) provides the concept, and the hardware (brain) implements the concept. No disagreement. In life, yes the s/s/c MUST use the brain in order to live in the material world: it provides the thoughts, and uses the brain to provide information and material implementation. No disagreement. And yes, you are your s/s/c, and your s/s/c connects with the material world through the brain. No disagreement. The s/s/c does the thinking, and the brain does the material implementing. The immaterial thought of the s/s/c precedes the material implementation by the brain. You can hardly disagree. So the only disagreement is your insistence that the s/s/c can't do any new THINKING until it has been given a bigger brain, i.e. that the level of thought depends on the size of the brain. And that is your disagreement with yourself, not with me, as you say you are a dualist (which means that the s/s/c and not the brain does the thinking), whereas I remain neutral in the battle between materialism and dualism.
I see no disagreement with myself. Only the substrate of a complex brain can allow complex thought. In life the s/s/c must depend upon the type of brain that is present. Back to IQ as an example.
Big brain evolution: changes in sapiens skull shape;addendum
DAVID: For me dualism must be thought of in different ways in life and death. In life the s/s/c cannot think without using the brain. In death it can. A material brain is required.
That is not the point at issue. The question is whether in life thought precedes or follows the activities of the brain. You have provided us with ample evidence that thought causes complexification and even expansion within the modern brain. It is therefore reasonable to suppose that it did the same in the pre-sapiens brain. If you claim that expansion had to precede new thoughts, you are arguing that the s/s/c depends on the brain for its ability to think. And that is materialism, not dualism.
Dhw: So the only disagreement is your insistence that the s/s/c can't do any new THINKING until it has been given a bigger brain, i.e. that the level of thought depends on the size of the brain. And that is your disagreement with yourself, not with me, as you say you are a dualist (which means that the s/s/c and not the brain does the thinking), whereas I remain neutral in the battle between materialism and dualism.
DAVID: I see no disagreement with myself. Only the substrate of a complex brain can allow complex thought.
If, as you keep agreeing, the s/s/c is the THINKING half of your dualistic self, then only the substrate of a complex brain can allow the implementation of complex thought. The thought comes first, and we know that implementation of thought creates changes in the brain.
DAVID: In life the s/s/c must depend upon the type of brain that is present. Back to IQ as an example.
And back to materialism, which may well be correct, and which incidentally makes nonsense of your claim that the s/s/c is a blank slate at birth, since we are born with the “type of brain that is present”. If intelligence (part of the immaterial s/s/c) depends on the brain, then you are faced with the prospect of an afterlife without your intelligence. And yet you believe (sometimes) that the s/s/c is the same in death as in life.
Big brain evolution: changes in sapiens skull shape;addendum
by David Turell , Sunday, March 18, 2018, 18:39 (2225 days ago) @ dhw
DAVID: For me dualism must be thought of in different ways in life and death. In life the s/s/c cannot think without using the brain. In death it can. A material brain is required.
dhw: That is not the point at issue. The question is whether in life thought precedes or follows the activities of the brain. You have provided us with ample evidence that thought causes complexification and even expansion within the modern brain. It is therefore reasonable to suppose that it did the same in the pre-sapiens brain. If you claim that expansion had to precede new thoughts, you are arguing that the s/s/c depends on the brain for its ability to think. And that is materialism, not dualism.
Answered in the other thread. In life the s/s/c must use the brain to think and the thought appears simultaneously in s/s/c and brain. Actively causing implementation is by the s/s/c interfaced guiding the brain's activity functions.
DAVID: In life the s/s/c must depend upon the type of brain that is present. Back to IQ as an example.
dhw: And back to materialism, which may well be correct, and which incidentally makes nonsense of your claim that the s/s/c is a blank slate at birth, since we are born with the “type of brain that is present”. If intelligence (part of the immaterial s/s/c) depends on the brain, then you are faced with the prospect of an afterlife without your intelligence. And yet you believe (sometimes) that the s/s/c is the same in death as in life.
Strange stretch of logic. I am discussing the degree of intelligence, IQ, the brain allows not intelligence itself! The brain offers a basic substrate but I am fully aware that factors improve or reduce the IQ, but only a few can achieve genius status.. To repeat: the s/s/c has the same content in life and death but probably does not operate with entirely the same mechanism. As for blank slate, the fetus brain operates at a sensory and muscle level in the womb, but development of personality and therefore content of s/s/c starts at birth tightly interfaced with the brain, guided by genetics, nurturing controls and also other uncontrolled events.
Big brain evolution: changes in sapiens skull shape;addendum
I am combining the two big brain evolution threads, and am omitting those sections which repeat arguments.
dhw: …modern science has demonstrated that thought changes areas of the brain through complexification and limited expansion, which would seem to support the dualism you claim to believe in, i.e. the hypothesis that the self/soul/conscious mind is a separate immaterial entity which in life works with and controls the brain (the will being an integral part of the s/s/c) but in death remains itself. This clearly runs directly counter to the hypothesis that the immaterial s/s/c is incapable of THINKING without the material brain.
DAVID: You have just contradicted yourself. I am in full agreement with my bolded statement of yours. In life I believe the s/s/c must think WITH the brain during life. It is obligated to do so. But not the next statement of yours, which, therefore, doesn't follow.
You continually ignore the division which is the essence of dualism, as you like to illustrate with your analogy of software and hardware. They are TWO entities that work together. Do you or do you not agree that the software (s/s/c) does the thinking and the hardware (brain) does the implementing? If you agree, as you have already done umpteen times, and if the same thinking “you” is supposed to survive the death of the brain (even if it thinks about different things in death), how can you claim that the s/s/c cannot THINK without the brain?
DAVID: I do not believe the s/s/c thinks before the brain gets it. You are imagining a time sequence. They work together thinking simultaneously, because they are intimately interfaced in life . Brain implementation than follows under s/s/c direction. They never are separate in time.
Now you have the brain AND the s/s/c THINKING simultaneously! We are not discussing the time it takes, but the function of the two parts of your dualism: mind and body. In dualism, when the mind instructs, the brain may respond instantly but if, for instance, the learning process or the material implementation is slow, the changes to the brain may not be instantaneous. I don’t know how this line of argument is supposed to prove that the mind cannot think new thoughts unless the implementing brain has already changed before receiving the thoughts it is going to respond to (your God expanding the pre-sapiens brain before pre-sapiens is able to think of new concepts).
DAVID: I am disputing your concept that the s/s/c must be exactly the same in life and death in its mechanism. It is the same in memory, thought pattern, personality in life and death, but in life it must interface with the living brain. In death it doesn't and logically must work slightly differently. That is my point.
So you agree that it is exactly the same s/s/c in life and in death, but yes, the circumstances are different and of course it will work differently. The mechanism will no longer have materials to implements its thoughts. And as far as the thoughts themselves are concerned, even in life these “work differently” when I am writing to you, playing cricket, or taking a bar of chocolate out of the fridge. In death I shan't have a pen or a bat or - perish the thought! - a bar of chocolate. But that is not the point of disagreement between us. Once again: the argument concerns your insistence that the pre-sapiens s/s/c could not think of new thoughts until your God had expanded his brain, which means that thought depends on the brain and not on the s/s/c. And this is contradicted by your belief that the thinking s/s/c survives the death of the brain, when it will have different things to think about and no material means of implementing thoughts.
DAVID: In life the s/s/c must depend upon the type of brain that is present. Back to IQ as an example.
dhw: And back to materialism, which may well be correct, and which incidentally makes nonsense of your claim that the s/s/c is a blank slate at birth, since we are born with the “type of brain that is present”. If intelligence (part of the immaterial s/s/c) depends on the brain, then you are faced with the prospect of an afterlife without your intelligence. And yet you believe (sometimes) that the s/s/c is the same in death as in life.
DAVID: Strange stretch of logic. I am discussing the degree of intelligence, IQ, the brain allows not intelligence itself!
Badly phrased by me. You are faced with the prospect of an afterlife without your personal degree of intelligence, which apparently depends on the type of brain you have.
DAVID: The brain offers a basic substrate but I am fully aware that factors improve or reduce the IQ, but only a few can achieve genius status […] As for blank slate, the fetus brain operates at a sensory and muscle level in the womb, but development of personality and therefore content of s/s/c starts at birth tightly interfaced with the brain, guided by genetics, nurturing controls and also other uncontrolled events.
And according to you the s/s/c depends on (a) the type of brain you are born with, and (b) genetics – which you are also born with and which constitutes 40% of the s/s/c. Hardly a blank slate. But of course it takes time and experience for all the inborn characteristics of brain type and genetics to emerge, and nobody knows the extent to which the given 40% may be changed by nurturing controls and other uncontrolled events.
Big brain evolution: changes in sapiens skull shape;addendum
by David Turell , Monday, March 19, 2018, 16:23 (2224 days ago) @ dhw
DAVID: You have just contradicted yourself. I am in full agreement with my bolded statement of yours. In life I believe the s/s/c must think WITH the brain during life. It is obligated to do so. But not the next statement of yours, which, therefore, doesn't follow.
dhw: Do you or do you not agree that the software (s/s/c) does the thinking and the hardware (brain) does the implementing? If you agree, as you have already done umpteen times, and if the same thinking “you” is supposed to survive the death of the brain (even if it thinks about different things in death), how can you claim that the s/s/c cannot THINK without the brain?
You continually ignore my point that in life the s/s/c is intimately connected to the brain and must use it to think. Neither you nor I can think if our brain is not working properly. Think a drunken stupor, or schizophrenia as misrepresentations of a normal s/s/c. Death or NDE are different circumstances and my theory is that the s/s/c is free to think on its own with possibly a slightly different construction or mechanism.
DAVID: I do not believe the s/s/c thinks before the brain gets it. You are imagining a time sequence. They work together thinking simultaneously, because they are intimately interfaced in life . Brain implementation than follows under s/s/c direction. They never are separate in time.dhw: In dualism, when the mind instructs, the brain may respond instantly but if, for instance, the learning process or the material implementation is slow, the changes to the brain may not be instantaneous. I don’t know how this line of argument is supposed to prove that the mind cannot think new thoughts unless the implementing brain has already changed before receiving the thoughts it is going to respond to (your God expanding the pre-sapiens brain before pre-sapiens is able to think of new concepts).
You cannot deny that sapiens thought is markedly more complex than erectus, and that is due to our giant pre-frontal cortex. The size and complexity is required. We differ only in how we evolved the brain.
dhw: Once again: the argument concerns your insistence that the pre-sapiens s/s/c could not think of new thoughts until your God had expanded his brain, which means that thought depends on the brain and not on the s/s/c. And this is contradicted by your belief that the thinking s/s/c survives the death of the brain, when it will have different things to think about and no material means of implementing thoughts.
Once again you specifically ignore the reasonable concept that the brain is a form of hardware and the s/s/c is a form of software, probably at a quantum level, with the result that complex thought requires complex neuronal networks in the prefrontal cortex.
DAVID: Strange stretch of logic. I am discussing the degree of intelligence, IQ, the brain allows not intelligence itself!dhw: Badly phrased by me. You are faced with the prospect of an afterlife without your personal degree of intelligence, which apparently depends on the type of brain you have.
Whatever is contained in my s/s/c in life is also present in death totally unchanged. It is obvious that the living brain allows different levels of intelligence.
DAVID: The brain offers a basic substrate but I am fully aware that factors improve or reduce the IQ, but only a few can achieve genius status […] As for blank slate, the fetus brain operates at a sensory and muscle level in the womb, but development of personality and therefore content of s/s/c starts at birth tightly interfaced with the brain, guided by genetics, nurturing controls and also other uncontrolled events.dhw: And according to you the s/s/c depends on (a) the type of brain you are born with, and (b) genetics – which you are also born with and which constitutes 40% of the s/s/c. Hardly a blank slate. But of course it takes time and experience for all the inborn characteristics of brain type and genetics to emerge, and nobody knows the extent to which the given 40% may be changed by nurturing controls and other uncontrolled events.
We really don't differ much in the definition of blank slate. You look to genetic guidelines to say it isn't blank at birth, and I say it starts blank at birth and is molded by the guidlines from day one.
Big brain evolution: changes in sapiens skull shape;addendum
by David Turell , Monday, March 19, 2018, 17:06 (2224 days ago) @ David Turell
Here is a scientific study of decision making in humans and how the connections used differ in individual persons:
https://medicalxpress.com/news/2018-03-decision-making-individual-differences-functiona...
"Each day brings with it a host of decisions to be made, and each person approaches those decisions differently. A new study by University of Illinois researchers found that these individual differences are associated with variation in specific brain networks – particularly those related to executive, social and perceptual processes.
***
"Study participants were administered the Adult Decision-Making Competence test, a comprehensive psychological evaluation tool that measures six well-established facets of decision-making – for example, "resistance to framing" and "risk perception."
"'When making everyday decisions, we may be vulnerable to specific types of errors and biases in judgment. The Adult Decision-Making Competence test allows us to characterize the extent to which people are susceptible to specific types of biases that have been studied in the literature on human judgment and decision-making," Barbey said. "A person is thought to be competent in decision-making to the extent that they are able to resist these biases and to make accurate decisions."
"The researchers also administered resting-state functional MRI to assess functional brain connectivity within each study participant. They didn't focus merely on individual regions, but assessed the entire functional brain connectome – which represents how each region is functionally connected to every other region of the brain.
"'We conducted an analysis of the whole brain, examining the connections among all regions," Talukdar said. "We examined the functional brain connectome of each individual and then investigated how each individual's connectome differed from every other individual in the sample."
"Next, the researchers analyzed how the individual differences they saw in the brain were associated with performance on the Adult Decision-Making Competence test.
"They found that functional connectivity within specific brain regions was associated with individual differences in decision-making. As expected, brain regions within the frontal lobe were involved, which are known to support executive functions such as reasoning and problem-solving. In addition, regions within the temporal and parietal cortex, which support memory and attention, as well as brain structures within the occipital lobe, which process visual and spatial information, were engaged.
"The researchers then performed an analysis to further characterize the role of these regions by examining their contributions to specific intrinsic connectivity networks.
"'Research indicates that the brain is functionally organized according to intrinsic connectivity networks, which are known to play a central role in specific facets of intelligence. For example, the fronto-parietal network regulates executive functions, the ventral attention network supports attention, and the limbic network underlies emotional and social processing," Talukdar said.
"The researchers found that individual differences in functional brain connectivity reflected differences in how certain intrinsic connectivity networks were engaged. For example, the measure of "resistance to framing," which assesses whether individuals' choices are susceptible to irrelevant variations in a problem description, was associated with the ventral attention network. The researchers hypothesized that this network directs attention to essential aspects of the problem, which serves to attenuate the framing bias."
Comment: This study clearly shows how the s/s/c must be obligated to interface with the brain in personal thought, and that there are individual differences in how each person conducts thought in the brain, most like based on structural connection differences, showing how genetics plays a role.
Big brain evolution: changes in sapiens skull shape;addendum
DAVID's comment: This study clearly shows how the s/s/c must be obligated to interface with the brain in personal thought, and that there are individual differences in how each person conducts thought in the brain, most like based on structural connection differences, showing how genetics plays a role.
I’ll gladly accept a fat grant to demonstrate that the s/s/c interfaces with the brain, and that individuals are individual, and that genetics plays a role in how we think. As a bonus, I’ll even demonstrate that our decisions are the result of us being who we are.
Big brain evolution: changes in sapiens skull shape;addendum
by David Turell , Tuesday, March 20, 2018, 17:40 (2223 days ago) @ dhw
DAVID's comment: This study clearly shows how the s/s/c must be obligated to interface with the brain in personal thought, and that there are individual differences in how each person conducts thought in the brain, most like based on structural connection differences, showing how genetics plays a role.
dhw: I’ll gladly accept a fat grant to demonstrate that the s/s/c interfaces with the brain, and that individuals are individual, and that genetics plays a role in how we think. As a bonus, I’ll even demonstrate that our decisions are the result of us being who we are.
You are writing thoughts that are like mine. Wow!
Big brain evolution: brain size and intelligence
by David Turell , Tuesday, March 20, 2018, 23:28 (2222 days ago) @ David Turell
Current studies show that the level of intelligence depend on volume and complexity:
http://users.loni.usc.edu/~thompson/PDF/TT_ARN05.pdf :
If specific features of brain structure are under strong genetic control, investigators should determine whether any of these features are correlated with intelligence. If so, this correlation may not only reveal why IQ has repeatedly been found to be highly heritable, but also yield insight into possible neural mechanisms. To help understand this approach, we first review evidence that brain structure and intelligence are correlated before discussing evidence for the existence of genetic correlations between brain structure and intelligence (which means that the same sets of genes are implicated in determining both; Posthuma et al. 2002). A recent meta-analysis (including a total of 1375 subjects) found that total brain volume and IQ were correlated significantly in all but 1 of 28 MRI studies, with an estimated correlation of 0.33 (McDaniel & Nguyen 2002). This finding implies that ∼10% of the population variability in IQ can be predicted from brain volume measures alone. Some studies have quoted slightly higher figures for these correlations (e.g., 0.41; Andreasen et al. 1993), and the exact value obtained will depend on the measurement error of the technique because measurement errors will tend to diminish any observed correlation (relative to the true correlation). Linkages between brain structure and IQ also can be further localized by parcellating the brain into subregions or by creating maps of the correlations between gray matter and IQ. Recently, we found that intellectual function (g) was significantly linked with differences in frontal gray matter volumes, which were determined primarily by genetic factors (Thompson et al. 2001a). Posthuma et al. (2002) extended these findings using a cross-twin cross-trait (bivariate genetic) analysis to compute genetic correlations. They demonstrated that the linkage between gray matter volumes and gray matter volumes is mediated by a common set of genes. Haier et al. (2004) used voxel-based morphometry in two independent samples to identify substantial gray matter correlates of IQ. More gray matter was associated with higher IQ in all lobes, underscoring a distributed model of the neural basis of intelligence. Intriguingly, the strongest correlations are typically found between IQ and frontal gray matter volumes (Thompson et al. 2001a, Haier et al. 2004), the same brain regions that are under greatest genetic control. Frontal brain regions play a key role in working memory, executive function, and attentional processes, and their structure has rapidly expanded in recent primate evolution, consistent with their role in reasoning and intellectual function.
Comment: Copied intact. It is logical to assume that advanced intelligence will produce advanced planning and concepts. Erectus did not have the IQ of sapiens. Note that IQ depends upon volume as well as complexity. On this basis I find your theory of enlargement of the human brain to have no basis in fact or theory. There is no evidence that lesser IQ brain produces the more advanced concepts found in greater IQ brain. Our artifacts, produced from concepts which appeared 300,000 years after our brain appeared is consistent with that. Advanced concepts require the presence of more volume and advanced complexity, without question.
Big brain evolution: brain size and intelligence
DAVID: Current studies show that the level of intelligence depend on volume and complexity:
http://users.loni.usc.edu/~thompson/PDF/TT_ARN05.pdf :
DAVID's comment: Copied intact. It is logical to assume that advanced intelligence will produce advanced planning and concepts. Erectus did not have the IQ of sapiens. Note that IQ depends upon volume as well as complexity. On this basis I find your theory of enlargement of the human brain to have no basis in fact or theory. There is no evidence that lesser IQ brain produces the more advanced concepts found in greater IQ brain. Our artifacts, produced from concepts which appeared 300,000 years after our brain appeared is consistent with that. Advanced concepts require the presence of more volume and advanced complexity, without question.
Clearly, advanced intelligence will produce advance concepts, but if intelligence depends on the volume and complexity of the brain, it is equally clear that there is no independent self/soul/consciousness that thinks up the concepts. Dualism separates immaterial mind and material body, and not even you will deny that intelligence is a quality of the mind and not the body. I have no objections if you insist that the brain is the source of intelligence. My objection is when you contradict yourself by claiming that we have an immaterial s/s/c, of which our intelligence must be a part, and which does our thinking, feeling, decision-making etc. and can survive the death of the brain. As for current studies, they also show that areas of the brain can complexify and/or enlarge as a RESULT of the effort to implement concepts (illiterates, taxi-drivers, musicians). There is, however, no question that advanced concepts require more volume and complexity. The question hangs over whether implementing the concept CAUSED the complexity/enlargement, in keeping with the findings of current research and with the dualistic belief in a separate s/s/c, or the complexity/enlargement CAUSED the ability to come up with the concept, also in keeping with the findings of current research but contradicting the dualistic belief in a separate s/s/c. Your own position is caught between the two approaches (materialism versus dualism) but you refuse to acknowledge the dichotomy in your thinking. I too am caught between the two, and hope eventually to come up with a way of reconciling them.
Big brain evolution: brain size and intelligence
by David Turell , Wednesday, March 21, 2018, 13:29 (2222 days ago) @ dhw
DAVID: Current studies show that the level of intelligence depend on volume and complexity:
http://users.loni.usc.edu/~thompson/PDF/TT_ARN05.pdf :DAVID's comment: Copied intact. It is logical to assume that advanced intelligence will produce advanced planning and concepts. Erectus did not have the IQ of sapiens. Note that IQ depends upon volume as well as complexity. On this basis I find your theory of enlargement of the human brain to have no basis in fact or theory. There is no evidence that lesser IQ brain produces the more advanced concepts found in greater IQ brain. Our artifacts, produced from concepts which appeared 300,000 years after our brain appeared is consistent with that. Advanced concepts require the presence of more volume and advanced complexity, without question.
dhw: Clearly, advanced intelligence will produce advance concepts, but if intelligence depends on the volume and complexity of the brain, it is equally clear that there is no independent self/soul/consciousness that thinks up the concepts. Dualism separates immaterial mind and material body, and not even you will deny that intelligence is a quality of the mind and not the body. I have no objections if you insist that the brain is the source of intelligence. My objection is when you contradict yourself by claiming that we have an immaterial s/s/c, of which our intelligence must be a part, and which does our thinking, feeling, decision-making etc. and can survive the death of the brain. As for current studies, they also show that areas of the brain can complexify and/or enlarge as a RESULT of the effort to implement concepts (illiterates, taxi-drivers, musicians). There is, however, no question that advanced concepts require more volume and complexity. The question hangs over whether implementing the concept CAUSED the complexity/enlargement, in keeping with the findings of current research and with the dualistic belief in a separate s/s/c, or the complexity/enlargement CAUSED the ability to come up with the concept, also in keeping with the findings of current research but contradicting the dualistic belief in a separate s/s/c. Your own position is caught between the two approaches (materialism versus dualism) but you refuse to acknowledge the dichotomy in your thinking. I too am caught between the two, and hope eventually to come up with a way of reconciling them.
A very fair summary. But as I've noted my concept of dualism is not yours. My immaterial s/s/c has two parts, a software mechanism and a personality structure within the software, much like a file in your computer made by the software in your computer.
Big brain evolution: brain size and intelligence
DAVID: Current studies show that the level of intelligence depend on volume and complexity:
http://users.loni.usc.edu/~thompson/PDF/TT_ARN05.pdf :
DAVID's comment: Copied intact. It is logical to assume that advanced intelligence will produce advanced planning and concepts. Erectus did not have the IQ of sapiens. Note that IQ depends upon volume as well as complexity. On this basis I find your theory of enlargement of the human brain to have no basis in fact or theory. There is no evidence that lesser IQ brain produces the more advanced concepts found in greater IQ brain. Our artifacts, produced from concepts which appeared 300,000 years after our brain appeared is consistent with that. Advanced concepts require the presence of more volume and advanced complexity, without question.
dhw: Clearly, advanced intelligence will produce advance concepts, but if intelligence depends on the volume and complexity of the brain, it is equally clear that there is no independent self/soul/consciousness that thinks up the concepts. Dualism separates immaterial mind and material body, and not even you will deny that intelligence is a quality of the mind and not the body. I have no objections if you insist that the brain is the source of intelligence. My objection is when you contradict yourself by claiming that we have an immaterial s/s/c, of which our intelligence must be a part, and which does our thinking, feeling, decision-making etc. and can survive the death of the brain. As for current studies, they also show that areas of the brain can complexify and/or enlarge as a RESULT of the effort to implement concepts (illiterates, taxi-drivers, musicians). There is, however, no question that advanced concepts require more volume and complexity. The question hangs over whether implementing the concept CAUSED the complexity/enlargement, in keeping with the findings of current research and with the dualistic belief in a separate s/s/c, or the complexity/enlargement CAUSED the ability to come up with the concept, also in keeping with the findings of current research but contradicting the dualistic belief in a separate s/s/c. Your own position is caught between the two approaches (materialism versus dualism) but you refuse to acknowledge the dichotomy in your thinking. I too am caught between the two, and hope eventually to come up with a way of reconciling them.
DAVID: A very fair summary. But as I've noted my concept of dualism is not yours. My immaterial s/s/c has two parts, a software mechanism and a personality structure within the software, much like a file in your computer made by the software in your computer.
The s/s/c IS the personality. It is all the immaterial qualities that make up the thinking self in the soul/self/consciousness, which dualists believe to be a separate entity from the material self, although the two interact. Please don’t try to muddy the waters with some nebulous concept of “threealism”. But thank you for your acceptance of my summary. If you stick to that, and recognize the dichotomy I keep pointing out, we may be able to move on to a possible reconciliation between dualism and materialism. I will try to find time in the next few days to elaborate on the ideas I put forward earlier on this subject.
Big brain evolution: brain size and intelligence
by David Turell , Thursday, March 22, 2018, 17:56 (2221 days ago) @ dhw
DAVID: A very fair summary. But as I've noted my concept of dualism is not yours. My immaterial s/s/c has two parts, a software mechanism and a personality structure within the software, much like a file in your computer made by the software in your computer.
dhw: The s/s/c IS the personality. It is all the immaterial qualities that make up the thinking self in the soul/self/consciousness, which dualists believe to be a separate entity from the material self, although the two interact. Please don’t try to muddy the waters with some nebulous concept of “threealism”. But thank you for your acceptance of my summary. If you stick to that, and recognize the dichotomy I keep pointing out, we may be able to move on to a possible reconciliation between dualism and materialism. I will try to find time in the next few days to elaborate on the ideas I put forward earlier on this subject.
I am not going to leave my concept of how the s/s/c works with the brain or in the afterlife. They must be different mechanisms since the brain is present in only one of the two circumstances.
Big brain evolution: brain size and intelligence
DAVID: A very fair summary. But as I've noted my concept of dualism is not yours. My immaterial s/s/c has two parts, a software mechanism and a personality structure within the software, much like a file in your computer made by the software in your computer.
dhw: The s/s/c IS the personality. It is all the immaterial qualities that make up the thinking self in the soul/self/consciousness, which dualists believe to be a separate entity from the material self, although the two interact. Please don’t try to muddy the waters with some nebulous concept of “threealism”. But thank you for your acceptance of my summary. If you stick to that, and recognize the dichotomy I keep pointing out, we may be able to move on to a possible reconciliation between dualism and materialism. I will try to find time in the next few days to elaborate on the ideas I put forward earlier on this subject.
DAVID: I am not going to leave my concept of how the s/s/c works with the brain or in the afterlife. They must be different mechanisms since the brain is present in only one of the two circumstances.
There is no disagreement here! As a self-proclaimed dualist, you believe that IN LIFE there is an immaterial self/soul that does the thinking and interacts with the material brain, which provides information and implements thoughts. If the self/soul lives on IN DEATH, as you believe, then of course its thoughts will not require material expression or implementation, and so the mechanism will be different (I mentioned telepathy as a possible means of communication). You said my summary was very fair, and it concluded with the dichotomy that exists between belief in a soul that does the thinking (dualism) and belief that the thinking is done by the brain and is impossible without the brain (materialism). For some reason you are trying to dodge the issue of this dichotomy, which is not confined to your own arguments but lies at the very heart of the debate between the two approaches, both of which can call on different forms of evidence. Why can't we move on?
Big brain evolution: brain size and intelligence
by David Turell , Friday, March 23, 2018, 14:25 (2220 days ago) @ dhw
DAVID: A very fair summary. But as I've noted my concept of dualism is not yours. My immaterial s/s/c has two parts, a software mechanism and a personality structure within the software, much like a file in your computer made by the software in your computer.
dhw: The s/s/c IS the personality. It is all the immaterial qualities that make up the thinking self in the soul/self/consciousness, which dualists believe to be a separate entity from the material self, although the two interact. Please don’t try to muddy the waters with some nebulous concept of “threealism”. But thank you for your acceptance of my summary. If you stick to that, and recognize the dichotomy I keep pointing out, we may be able to move on to a possible reconciliation between dualism and materialism. I will try to find time in the next few days to elaborate on the ideas I put forward earlier on this subject.
DAVID: I am not going to leave my concept of how the s/s/c works with the brain or in the afterlife. They must be different mechanisms since the brain is present in only one of the two circumstances.
dhw: There is no disagreement here! As a self-proclaimed dualist, you believe that IN LIFE there is an immaterial self/soul that does the thinking and interacts with the material brain, which provides information and implements thoughts. If the self/soul lives on IN DEATH, as you believe, then of course its thoughts will not require material expression or implementation, and so the mechanism will be different (I mentioned telepathy as a possible means of communication). You said my summary was very fair, and it concluded with the dichotomy that exists between belief in a soul that does the thinking (dualism) and belief that the thinking is done by the brain and is impossible without the brain (materialism). For some reason you are trying to dodge the issue of this dichotomy, which is not confined to your own arguments but lies at the very heart of the debate between the two approaches, both of which can call on different forms of evidence. Why can't we move on?
If we can agree that in life the s/s/c and brain must interface and work together for new thought to appear, we can move on. I cannot leave behind my living impression that I am material but my thoughts are not and I am in control of my thoughts.
Big brain evolution: brain size and intelligence
dhw: You said my summary was very fair, and it concluded with the dichotomy that exists between belief in a soul that does the thinking (dualism) and belief that the thinking is done by the brain and is impossible without the brain (materialism). For some reason you are trying to dodge the issue of this dichotomy, which is not confined to your own arguments but lies at the very heart of the debate between the two approaches, both of which can call on different forms of evidence. Why can't we move on?
DAVID: If we can agree that in life the s/s/c and brain must interface and work together for new thought to appear, we can move on. I cannot leave behind my living impression that I am material but my thoughts are not and I am in control of my thoughts.
I have the same “living impression” as you, but I don’t know whether my immaterial self (which IS the controlling "I") is the product of materials or not. That is the great debate between the materialists and the dualists. Your materialistic insistence that new thought would have been impossible for pre-sapiens until the brain had been enlarged was the starting point of this particular discussion, and it remains hidden in the words “for new thought to appear”. If you had said “to be implemented”, I wouldn’t have had a problem, as we can shake hands on the rest of your statement. But you obviously cannot see that if immaterial new thought depends on the material enlargement of the brain, you are espousing materialism, whereas you claim to be a dualist. However, we have been stuck in this groove long enough, and maybe we’ll make some progress if we look deeper into possible ways of reconciling the two approaches.
Xxxx
DAVID (under “Learning new tasks”): New research moves the memory development from synapse changes to dendrite controls:
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/03/180323084818.htm
QUOTE: The newly discovered process of learning in the dendrites occurs at a much faster rate than in the old scenario suggesting that learning occurs solely in the synapses.
DAVID’s comment: This adds another level of complexity and precise control to the brain as it develops new knowledge. We must continue to recognize the material side of the equation in the relationship between brain and s/s/c. It shows how the s/s/c is obligated to specific interfaces.
There is no disagreement over the importance of interaction between s/s/c and brain. However, the article simply discusses WHERE learning takes place. Instead of synapses the focus is on dendrites. It sheds no light – and is not meant to – on the question of whether the s/s/c exists as a separate entity (dualism) or is the product of the material self (materialism). Nor does it explain – and it is not meant to – what learning actually consists of. What we do know is that the process of learning is accompanied by changes in the brain (illiterates, taxi drivers, musicians). So what happens? Has the brain recorded/memorized the thoughts of the s/s/c? If so, although confined here to memory, it’s still a major blow to your hypothesis that new thoughts cannot arise until the brain “allows” them. All memories are the result of what were once new thoughts/experiences. The thoughts have to precede the brain change - which is one up for your dualistic belief that the brain is a receiver, not a generator, although you the dualist don’t agree!
Big brain evolution: brain size and intelligence
by David Turell , Saturday, March 24, 2018, 13:44 (2219 days ago) @ dhw
DAVID: If we can agree that in life the s/s/c and brain must interface and work together for new thought to appear, we can move on. I cannot leave behind my living impression that I am material but my thoughts are not and I am in control of my thoughts.dhw: I have the same “living impression” as you, but I don’t know whether my immaterial self (which IS the controlling "I") is the product of materials or not. That is the great debate between the materialists and the dualists. Your materialistic insistence that new thought would have been impossible for pre-sapiens until the brain had been enlarged was the starting point of this particular discussion, and it remains hidden in the words “for new thought to appear”. If you had said “to be implemented”, I wouldn’t have had a problem, as we can shake hands on the rest of your statement. But you obviously cannot see that if immaterial new thought depends on the material enlargement of the brain, you are espousing materialism, whereas you claim to be a dualist. However, we have been stuck in this groove long enough, and maybe we’ll make some progress if we look deeper into possible ways of reconciling the two approaches.
Of course the brain, by reacting with the mechanisms of the s/s/c implements the appearance of thought to the thinking person with a living material brain. Your view does not solve the problem.
XxxxDAVID (under “Learning new tasks”): New research moves the memory development from synapse changes to dendrite controls:
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/03/180323084818.htm
QUOTE: The newly discovered process of learning in the dendrites occurs at a much faster rate than in the old scenario suggesting that learning occurs solely in the synapses.DAVID’s comment: This adds another level of complexity and precise control to the brain as it develops new knowledge. We must continue to recognize the material side of the equation in the relationship between brain and s/s/c. It shows how the s/s/c is obligated to specific interfaces.
dhw: There is no disagreement over the importance of interaction between s/s/c and brain. However, the article simply discusses WHERE learning takes place. Instead of synapses the focus is on dendrites. It sheds no light – and is not meant to – on the question of whether the s/s/c exists as a separate entity (dualism) or is the product of the material self (materialism). Nor does it explain – and it is not meant to – what learning actually consists of. What we do know is that the process of learning is accompanied by changes in the brain (illiterates, taxi drivers, musicians). So what happens? Has the brain recorded/memorized the thoughts of the s/s/c? If so, although confined here to memory, it’s still a major blow to your hypothesis that new thoughts cannot arise until the brain “allows” them. All memories are the result of what were once new thoughts/experiences. The thoughts have to precede the brain change - which is one up for your dualistic belief that the brain is a receiver, not a generator, although you the dualist don’t agree!
Our brain is built (designed) to respond to the needs of the s/s/c as it manages thought. What the brain 'receives' is the mechanism of the s/s/c which I think is at the level of quantum reality. Thought is then achieved by the two of them working together as hardware and software. You give lip service to this view and then ignore it in your analysis.
Big brain evolution: brain size and intelligence
dhw: […] you obviously cannot see that if immaterial new thought depends on the material enlargement of the brain, you are espousing materialism, whereas you claim to be a dualist.
DAVID: Of course the brain, by reacting with the mechanisms of the s/s/c implements the appearance of thought to the thinking person with a living material brain. Your view does not solve the problem.
I’m not sure what view or what problem you’re referring to. The problem I am having with your posts is the dichotomy between your dualism (which divides the self into mind and body) and your insistence that the mind can’t think without the body, although it continues to think when there is no body.
DAVID: Our brain is built (designed) to respond to the needs of the s/s/c as it manages thought. What the brain 'receives' is the mechanism of the s/s/c which I think is at the level of quantum reality. Thought is then achieved by the two of them working together as hardware and software. You give lip service to this view and then ignore it in your analysis.
What do you mean by thought is “achieved”? Thought is implemented by the two of them working together. It is you who have plugged the hardware/software analogy to illustrate that the two parts of dualism are the immaterial mind (the software that supplies the thoughts) and the material brain (the hardware which gives the thoughts material implementation). And you then ignore it when you say that the THINKING mind can’t think without the IMPLEMENTING brain (= software can’t supply any programmes until you have hardware), even though in death you believe the mind remains its thinking self when there is no implementing brain. In life the software’s programmes cannot be IMPLEMENTED until you have the hardware.The hardware does not supply the thought. Do you agree or disagree?
Big brain evolution: brain size and intelligence
by David Turell , Sunday, March 25, 2018, 15:02 (2218 days ago) @ dhw
dhw: […] you obviously cannot see that if immaterial new thought depends on the material enlargement of the brain, you are espousing materialism, whereas you claim to be a dualist.
DAVID: Of course the brain, by reacting with the mechanisms of the s/s/c implements the appearance of thought to the thinking person with a living material brain. Your view does not solve the problem.
dhw: I’m not sure what view or what problem you’re referring to. The problem I am having with your posts is the dichotomy between your dualism (which divides the self into mind and body) and your insistence that the mind can’t think without the body, although it continues to think when there is no body.
DAVID: Our brain is built (designed) to respond to the needs of the s/s/c as it manages thought. What the brain 'receives' is the mechanism of the s/s/c which I think is at the level of quantum reality. Thought is then achieved by the two of them working together as hardware and software. You give lip service to this view and then ignore it in your analysis.
dhw: What do you mean by thought is “achieved”? Thought is implemented by the two of them working together. It is you who have plugged the hardware/software analogy to illustrate that the two parts of dualism are the immaterial mind (the software that supplies the thoughts) and the material brain (the hardware which gives the thoughts material implementation). And you then ignore it when you say that the THINKING mind can’t think without the IMPLEMENTING brain (= software can’t supply any programmes until you have hardware), even though in death you believe the mind remains its thinking self when there is no implementing brain. In life the software’s programmes cannot be IMPLEMENTED until you have the hardware.The hardware does not supply the thought. Do you agree or disagree?
Your complaint about my theory has a problem. You assume the s/s/c is one monolithic unchanging form, the same in life and in death or when the brain is non-functional for a period (NDE) I look at the evidence and make the conclusion that the s/s/c has two different forms and/or mechanisms to explain the way the s/s/c seems to function in two different realities, life and death. In life it must work with the brain to produce new thought or resurrect memory. The brain alone without the s/s/c cannot produce thought, but by the same token, in life the s/s/c cannot produce thought without the brain. I don't know why this is not clear to you. I've stated this before: the dualism I see has more than one dualism: brain soul duality, and soul in life and soul in death dual forms. In death the s/s/c has a way of supplying its own hardware by some sort of quantum mechanics, perhaps transferred from the brain as death occurs.
Big brain evolution: brain size and intelligence
dhw: What do you mean by thought is “achieved”? Thought is implemented by the two of them working together. It is you who have plugged the hardware/software analogy to illustrate that the two parts of dualism are the immaterial mind (the software that supplies the thoughts) and the material brain (the hardware which gives the thoughts material implementation). And you then ignore it when you say that the THINKING mind can’t think without the IMPLEMENTING brain (= software can’t supply any programmes until you have hardware), even though in death you believe the mind remains its thinking self when there is no implementing brain. In life the software’s programmes cannot be IMPLEMENTED until you have the hardware.The hardware does not supply the thought. Do you agree or disagree?
DAVID: Your complaint about my theory has a problem. You assume the s/s/c is one monolithic unchanging form, the same in life and in death or when the brain is non-functional for a period (NDE) I look at the evidence and make the conclusion that the s/s/c has two different forms and/or mechanisms to explain the way the s/s/c seems to function in two different realities, life and death. In life it must work with the brain to produce new thought or resurrect memory. The brain alone without the s/s/c cannot produce thought, but by the same token, in life the s/s/c cannot produce thought without the brain. I don't know why this is not clear to you. I've stated this before: the dualism I see has more than one dualism: brain soul duality, and soul in life and soul in death dual forms. In death the s/s/c has a way of supplying its own hardware by some sort of quantum mechanics, perhaps transferred from the brain as death occurs.
I have already agreed that a brainless self will function differently from a self with a brain, and material life must be different from immaterial life. But that is not what we are discussing! You claim that your God had to expand the pre-sapiens brain before it was able to come up with new thoughts. Our discussion therefore concerns the relationship between s/s/c and brain during life, not possible differences between soul in life and soul in death. NDEs are only relevant insofar as they appear to provide evidence for dualism – namely, that the mind and body are separate entities. IF they are (please note the block capitals), the immaterial mind does the thinking and the material body/brain provides information and implements the thoughts. Information: “Me hungry, me see living meat, me often get hurt when get too close.” New thought: “Maybe make sharp weapon to throw from distance.” Makes sharp weapon, which requires new skills and therefore causes new changes to brain (pre-sapiens: probable complexification plus major expansion; whereas sapiens: complexification, limited minor expansion, but also shrinkage as some cells/connections no longer required). Concept first, brain change as a consequence. This dualistic hypothesis contradicts the materialistic hypothesis that the material brain is responsible for thought, and conforms to modern scientific research on how we change our brains (illiterates, taxi-drivers, musicians). As a dualist, why do you object?
Big brain evolution: brain size and intelligence
by David Turell , Monday, March 26, 2018, 18:25 (2217 days ago) @ dhw
DAVID: Your complaint about my theory has a problem. You assume the s/s/c is one monolithic unchanging form, the same in life and in death or when the brain is non-functional for a period (NDE) I look at the evidence and make the conclusion that the s/s/c has two different forms and/or mechanisms to explain the way the s/s/c seems to function in two different realities, life and death. In life it must work with the brain to produce new thought or resurrect memory. The brain alone without the s/s/c cannot produce thought, but by the same token, in life the s/s/c cannot produce thought without the brain. I don't know why this is not clear to you. I've stated this before: the dualism I see has more than one dualism: brain soul duality, and soul in life and soul in death dual forms. In death the s/s/c has a way of supplying its own hardware by some sort of quantum mechanics, perhaps transferred from the brain as death occurs.dhw: I have already agreed that a brainless self will function differently from a self with a brain, and material life must be different from immaterial life. But that is not what we are discussing! You claim that your God had to expand the pre-sapiens brain before it was able to come up with new thoughts. Our discussion therefore concerns the relationship between s/s/c and brain during life, not possible differences between soul in life and soul in death. NDEs are only relevant insofar as they appear to provide evidence for dualism – namely, that the mind and body are separate entities. IF they are (please note the block capitals), the immaterial mind does the thinking and the material body/brain provides information and implements the thoughts. Information: “Me hungry, me see living meat, me often get hurt when get too close.” New thought: “Maybe make sharp weapon to throw from distance.” Makes sharp weapon, which requires new skills and therefore causes new changes to brain (pre-sapiens: probable complexification plus major expansion; whereas sapiens: complexification, limited minor expansion, but also shrinkage as some cells/connections no longer required). Concept first, brain change as a consequence. This dualistic hypothesis contradicts the materialistic hypothesis that the material brain is responsible for thought, and conforms to modern scientific research on how we change our brains (illiterates, taxi-drivers, musicians). As a dualist, why do you object?
Your cute caveman dialogue befits your ability as an author of plays and Children's books but in no way offers an explanation of how pre-sapiens brains suddenly grew by 200 cc with each jump in the fossils. The only evidence we have is advanced artifacts related to larger fossil brains, indicating a larger brain has better conceptualization, nothing more. Since methods of operation in evolution uses previously developed operations, the only thing we can assume is that brain plasticity existed in the pre-sapiens and their brains responded like ours does so there is plasticity and specific brain area growth, but no change in brain/skull size. All we show is shrinkage since we arrived on the scene. I'll stick with God creating the growth.
Big brain evolution: brain size and intelligence
dhw: I have already agreed that a brainless self will function differently from a self with a brain, and material life must be different from immaterial life. But that is not what we are discussing! You claim that your God had to expand the pre-sapiens brain before it was able to come up with new thoughts. Our discussion therefore concerns the relationship between s/s/c and brain during life, not possible differences between soul in life and soul in death. NDEs are only relevant insofar as they appear to provide evidence for dualism – namely, that the mind and body are separate entities. IF they are (please note the block capitals), the immaterial mind does the thinking and the material body/brain provides information and implements the thoughts. Information: “Me hungry, me see living meat, me often get hurt when get too close.” New thought: “Maybe make sharp weapon to throw from distance.” Makes sharp weapon, which requires new skills and therefore causes new changes to brain (pre-sapiens: probable complexification plus major expansion; whereas sapiens: complexification, limited minor expansion, but also shrinkage as some cells/connections no longer required). Concept first, brain change as a consequence. This dualistic hypothesis contradicts the materialistic hypothesis that the material brain is responsible for thought, and conforms to modern scientific research on how we change our brains (illiterates, taxi-drivers, musicians). As a dualist, why do you object?
DAVID: Your cute caveman dialogue befits your ability as an author of plays and Children's books but in no way offers an explanation of how pre-sapiens brains suddenly grew by 200 cc with each jump in the fossils. The only evidence we have is advanced artifacts related to larger fossil brains, indicating a larger brain has better conceptualization, nothing more. Since methods of operation in evolution uses previously developed operations, the only thing we can assume is that brain plasticity existed in the pre-sapiens and their brains responded like ours does so there is plasticity and specific brain area growth, but no change in brain/skull size. All we show is shrinkage since we arrived on the scene. I'll stick with God creating the growth.
Apparently we also show complexification and enlargement of specific areas, and if specific areas can expand now, clearly we cannot rule out expansion then – but simply on a greater scale, which required skull expansion as well. But nobody knows why pre-sapiens brains expanded.That’s why we have different hypotheses. “God did it” is yours, but if God had to do it before pre-sapiens could think up new concepts, that means the brain is the source of thought (conceptualization being a mental process). Welcome to materialism. The appearance of artefacts alongside expanded brains fits in with BOTH hypotheses: 1) they could not have appeared until the brain had expanded sufficiently to implement the concept (mine, which fits in with dualism and materialism, as I hope eventually to explain); 2) they could not have appeared until the brain had expanded sufficiently to think up the concept (yours, which = pure materialism). That is not to say that materialism is wrong. It simply contradicts your claim to be a dualist.
Big brain evolution: brain size and intelligence
by David Turell , Tuesday, March 27, 2018, 15:01 (2216 days ago) @ dhw
DAVID: Your cute caveman dialogue befits your ability as an author of plays and Children's books but in no way offers an explanation of how pre-sapiens brains suddenly grew by 200 cc with each jump in the fossils. The only evidence we have is advanced artifacts related to larger fossil brains, indicating a larger brain has better conceptualization, nothing more. Since methods of operation in evolution uses previously developed operations, the only thing we can assume is that brain plasticity existed in the pre-sapiens and their brains responded like ours does so there is plasticity and specific brain area growth, but no change in brain/skull size. All we show is shrinkage since we arrived on the scene. I'll stick with God creating the growth.dhw: Apparently we also show complexification and enlargement of specific areas, and if specific areas can expand now, clearly we cannot rule out expansion then – but simply on a greater scale, which required skull expansion as well. But nobody knows why pre-sapiens brains expanded.That’s why we have different hypotheses. “God did it” is yours, but if God had to do it before pre-sapiens could think up new concepts, that means the brain is the source of thought (conceptualization being a mental process). Welcome to materialism. The appearance of artefacts alongside expanded brains fits in with BOTH hypotheses: 1) they could not have appeared until the brain had expanded sufficiently to implement the concept (mine, which fits in with dualism and materialism, as I hope eventually to explain); 2) they could not have appeared until the brain had expanded sufficiently to think up the concept (yours, which = pure materialism). That is not to say that materialism is wrong. (my bold) It simply contradicts your claim to be a dualist.
You refuse to accept a different concept about the brain s/s/c interface. My point is the s/s/c in life cannot develop new concepts independent of the neural mechanisms in the brain. It is still the idea presented by our computers that complex hardware allows for more complex software development of concepts. To restate your comment, 'the brain is the source of living thought'. In life there is always a material brain role in the production of immaterial thought. And amazingly the brain also understands its equal role to the s/s/c by its plasticity, by enlarging regions and also shrinking areas. Your bolded comment is a total misstatement of my theory. In life the s/s/c doesn't float around, but is completely attached to the brain with which it must work. In death the s/s/c doesn't have to create new concepts and operates in a somewhat different way.
Big brain evolution: brain size and intelligence
DAVID: I'll stick with God creating the growth.
dhw: Apparently we also show complexification and enlargement of specific areas, and if specific areas can expand now, clearly we cannot rule out expansion then – but simply on a greater scale, which required skull expansion as well. But nobody knows why pre-sapiens brains expanded.That’s why we have different hypotheses. “God did it” is yours, but if God had to do it before pre-sapiens could think up new concepts, that means the brain is the source of thought (conceptualization being a mental process). Welcome to materialism. The appearance of artefacts alongside expanded brains fits in with BOTH hypotheses: 1) they could not have appeared until the brain had expanded sufficiently to implement the concept (mine, which fits in with dualism and materialism, as I hope eventually to explain); 2) they could not have appeared until the brain had expanded sufficiently to think up the concept (yours, which = pure materialism). That is not to say that materialism is wrong. (my bold) It simply contradicts your claim to be a dualist.
DAVID: You refuse to accept a different concept about the brain s/s/c interface. My point is the s/s/c in life cannot develop new concepts independent of the neural mechanisms in the brain. It is still the idea presented by our computers that complex hardware allows for more complex software development of concepts. To restate your comment, 'the brain is the source of living thought'.
You could scarcely find a statement more supportive of materialism. Once more: dualism is the theory that in living beings the mind/soul and the body are separate entities that work together. That is the meaning of “dual” – two, not one. The mind/soul as the source of thought encompasses all the immaterial elements of our personality – that part of us which some people believe survives the death of the body. And so if the brain is the source of thought in living beings, there can be no such thing as a separate mind/soul, because without the source of thought, there can be no thought.
DAVID: In life there is always a material brain role in the production of immaterial thought. And amazingly the brain also understands its equal role to the s/s/c by its plasticity, by enlarging regions and also shrinking areas. Your bolded comment is a total misstatement of my theory. In life the s/s/c doesn't float around, but is completely attached to the brain with which it must work. In death the s/s/c doesn't have to create new concepts and operates in a somewhat different way.
The idea that the soul somehow lives within the brain does not mean that the brain is the source of living thought. According to you it is the receiver of living thought. Suddenly now you are talking of “equal role”. What does that mean? Certainly not that the brain is just as much the SOURCE of thought as the soul. The latter is supposed to be the source of living thought, and the brain is supposed to be the receiver, which supplies information and implements thought by expanding and complexifying. Equally important, yes. We could not function as living beings in a material world without our material self. Your post simply confirms what I wrote in the statement you have bolded: that according to you new concepts could not appear until the pre-sapiens brain had expanded, and in life the brain is the source of thought! But as I keep repeating, I am not rejecting your materialism. I am trying to point out the contradictions in your arguments.
Big brain evolution: brain size and intelligence
by David Turell , Wednesday, March 28, 2018, 18:13 (2215 days ago) @ dhw
DAVID: You refuse to accept a different concept about the brain s/s/c interface. My point is the s/s/c in life cannot develop new concepts independent of the neural mechanisms in the brain. It is still the idea presented by our computers that complex hardware allows for more complex software development of concepts. To restate your comment, 'the brain is the source of living thought'.
dhw: You could scarcely find a statement more supportive of materialism. Once more: dualism is the theory that in living beings the mind/soul and the body are separate entities that work together. That is the meaning of “dual” – two, not one. The mind/soul as the source of thought encompasses all the immaterial elements of our personality – that part of us which some people believe survives the death of the body. And so if the brain is the source of thought in living beings, there can be no such thing as a separate mind/soul, because without the source of thought, there can be no thought.
The brain is not the lone source of thought in life. I've been very clear. The s/s/c must use the brain to produce thought in life. If the s/s/c has a thought it must produce it through the brain which then becomes the direct source as it implements living thought, wbhich I distinguish from thought after death.
DAVID: In life there is always a material brain role in the production of immaterial thought. And amazingly the brain also understands its equal role to the s/s/c by its plasticity, by enlarging regions and also shrinking areas. Your bolded comment is a total misstatement of my theory. In life the s/s/c doesn't float around, but is completely attached to the brain with which it must work. In death the s/s/c doesn't have to create new concepts and operates in a somewhat different way.dhw: The idea that the soul somehow lives within the brain does not mean that the brain is the source of living thought. According to you it is the receiver of living thought. Suddenly now you are talking of “equal role”. What does that mean? Certainly not that the brain is just as much the SOURCE of thought as the soul. The latter is supposed to be the source of living thought, and the brain is supposed to be the receiver, which supplies information and implements thought by expanding and complexifying. Equally important, yes. We could not function as living beings in a material world without our material self. Your post simply confirms what I wrote in the statement you have bolded: that according to you new concepts could not appear until the pre-sapiens brain had expanded, and in life the brain is the source of thought! But as I keep repeating, I am not rejecting your materialism. I am trying to point out the contradictions in your arguments.
I am not contradicting myself. As a receiver the brain is a broadcaster (implementer) of the s/s/c thoughts. Does that help you understand my point of view? Of course the brain is material, but entirely necessary in the process.
Big brain evolution: brain size and intelligence
DAVID: You refuse to accept a different concept about the brain s/s/c interface. My point is the s/s/c in life cannot develop new concepts independent of the neural mechanisms in the brain. It is still the idea presented by our computers that complex hardware allows for more complex software development of concepts. To restate your comment, 'the brain is the source of living thought'.
dhw: You could scarcely find a statement more supportive of materialism. Once more: dualism is the theory that in living beings the mind/soul and the body are separate entities that work together. That is the meaning of “dual” – two, not one. The mind/soul as the source of thought encompasses all the immaterial elements of our personality – that part of us which some people believe survives the death of the body. And so if the brain is the source of thought in living beings, there can be no such thing as a separate mind/soul, because without the source of thought, there can be no thought.
DAVID: The brain is not the lone source of thought in life. I've been very clear. The s/s/c must use the brain to produce thought in life. If the s/s/c has a thought it must produce it through the brain which then becomes the direct source as it implements living thought, which I distinguish from thought after death.
And later:
I am not contradicting myself. As a receiver the brain is a broadcaster (implementer) of the s/s/c thoughts. Does that help you understand my point of view? Of course the brain is material, but entirely necessary in the process.
At last a glimmer of light. You have now repeated precisely the point that I keep making to you. In dualism the s/s/c provides the thought and the brain IMPLEMENTS it. Of course the two are entirely necessary in life, but the brain is not the SOURCE of living thought. The s/s/c is the SOURCE, and the brain is the receiver that IMPLEMENTS the thought. Consequently it is a contradiction for a dualist to claim that the s/s/c cannot THINK without the brain. Its thoughts cannot be IMPLEMENTED without the brain. And therefore it is a contradiction for a dualist to claim that pre-sapiens’ s/s/c could not have THOUGHT of new concepts if his brain had not already expanded. He could not have IMPLEMENTED his new thoughts until his brain had expanded.
Big brain evolution: brain size and intelligence
by David Turell , Thursday, March 29, 2018, 16:03 (2214 days ago) @ dhw
DAVID: You refuse to accept a different concept about the brain s/s/c interface. My point is the s/s/c in life cannot develop new concepts independent of the neural mechanisms in the brain. It is still the idea presented by our computers that complex hardware allows for more complex software development of concepts. To restate your comment, 'the brain is the source of living thought'.
dhw: You could scarcely find a statement more supportive of materialism. Once more: dualism is the theory that in living beings the mind/soul and the body are separate entities that work together. That is the meaning of “dual” – two, not one. The mind/soul as the source of thought encompasses all the immaterial elements of our personality – that part of us which some people believe survives the death of the body. And so if the brain is the source of thought in living beings, there can be no such thing as a separate mind/soul, because without the source of thought, there can be no thought.
DAVID: The brain is not the lone source of thought in life. I've been very clear. The s/s/c must use the brain to produce thought in life. If the s/s/c has a thought it must produce it through the brain which then becomes the direct source as it implements living thought, which I distinguish from thought after death.
And later:
I am not contradicting myself. As a receiver the brain is a broadcaster (implementer) of the s/s/c thoughts. Does that help you understand my point of view? Of course the brain is material, but entirely necessary in the process.dhw: At last a glimmer of light. You have now repeated precisely the point that I keep making to you. In dualism the s/s/c provides the thought and the brain IMPLEMENTS it. Of course the two are entirely necessary in life, but the brain is not the SOURCE of living thought. The s/s/c is the SOURCE, and the brain is the receiver that IMPLEMENTS the thought. Consequently it is a contradiction for a dualist to claim that the s/s/c cannot THINK without the brain. Its thoughts cannot be IMPLEMENTED without the brain. And therefore it is a contradiction for a dualist to claim that pre-sapiens’ s/s/c could not have THOUGHT of new concepts if his brain had not already expanded. He could not have IMPLEMENTED his new thoughts until his brain had expanded.
No glimmer of light. You accept my point of view that the the s/s/c is required in life to use the brain to create and express thought. But the s/s/c is also the living me and is not separate from me. I am a material me managing to create an immaterial structure of my personality starting at birth. In life the s/s/c cannot think without the functional brain to use. The s/s/c can only think without a brain when it changes form in NDE's or death, two different realities. This view is not inconsistent with my position that bigger brains have better thoughts, when used by the s/s/c to create them controlled by living personalities of earlier forms.
Big brain evolution: brain size and intelligence
DAVID: The brain is not the lone source of thought in life. I've been very clear. The s/s/c must use the brain to produce thought in life. If the s/s/c has a thought it must produce it through the brain which then becomes the direct source as it implements living thought, which I distinguish from thought after death.
And later:
I am not contradicting myself. As a receiver the brain is a broadcaster (implementer) of the s/s/c thoughts. Does that help you understand my point of view? Of course the brain is material, but entirely necessary in the process.
dhw: At last a glimmer of light. You have now repeated precisely the point that I keep making to you. In dualism the s/s/c provides the thought and the brain IMPLEMENTS it. Of course the two are entirely necessary in life, but the brain is not the SOURCE of living thought. The s/s/c is the SOURCE, and the brain is the receiver that IMPLEMENTS the thought. Consequently it is a contradiction for a dualist to claim that the s/s/c cannot THINK without the brain. Its thoughts cannot be IMPLEMENTED without the brain. And therefore it is a contradiction for a dualist to claim that pre-sapiens’ s/s/c could not have THOUGHT of new concepts if his brain had not already expanded. He could not have IMPLEMENTED his new thoughts until his brain had expanded.
DAVID: No glimmer of light. You accept my point of view that the the s/s/c is required in life to use the brain to create and express thought. But the s/s/c is also the living me and is not separate from me.
No, I do not accept the view in your second sentence. Dualism means that the s/s/c CREATES thought, and uses the receiver brain to express/implement it. Yes, the living “me” is the thinking s/s/c, and you believe that it survives the death of the brain. Therefore the brain cannot be the creator of thought.
DAVID: I am a material me managing to create an immaterial structure of my personality starting at birth.
If you believe that the material you creates your immaterial personality, you are a materialist. In your dualistic guise, you even tell us that the consciousness of the s/s/c is part of your immaterial God’s immaterial consciousness, i.e. it is not a product of the material self.
DAVID: In life the s/s/c cannot think without the functional brain to use. The s/s/c can only think without a brain when it changes form in NDE's or death, two different realities. This view is not inconsistent with my position that bigger brains have better thoughts, when used by the s/s/c to create them controlled by living personalities of earlier forms.
NDEs and the belief in a soul that lives on after death are integral to the concept of dualism, i.e. that IN LIFE there are two separate elements that work together: the soul and the body; the mind and the brain. There is no dualism in death (indeed there may be nothing at all in death), and if bigger brains have better thoughts, then there is no dualism in life. Yes, the s/s/c uses the brain. As you acknowledged in the two quotes above, it uses the brain to IMPLEMENT its thoughts, not to create them. And yes, the s/s/c IS the living personality, which dualists believe is the immaterial living, conscious, THINKING “me” which survives death.
Big brain evolution: brain size and intelligence
by David Turell , Friday, March 30, 2018, 15:00 (2213 days ago) @ dhw
DAVID: No glimmer of light. You accept my point of view that the the s/s/c is required in life to use the brain to create and express thought. But the s/s/c is also the living me and is not separate from me.
dhw: No, I do not accept the view in your second sentence. Dualism means that the s/s/c CREATES thought, and uses the receiver brain to express/implement it. Yes, the living “me” is the thinking s/s/c, and you believe that it survives the death of the brain. Therefore the brain cannot be the creator of thought.
Yes, but thought is created by use of the material brain, and in life cannot be done without it. I don't think we differ.
DAVID: I am a material me managing to create an immaterial structure of my personality starting at birth.dhw: If you believe that the material you creates your immaterial personality, you are a materialist. In your dualistic guise, you even tell us that the consciousness of the s/s/c is part of your immaterial God’s immaterial consciousness, i.e. it is not a product of the material self.
My theory of dualism is not yours. I must use my brain to think, using my consciousness as a gift from God which allows thought.
DAVID: In life the s/s/c cannot think without the functional brain to use. The s/s/c can only think without a brain when it changes form in NDE's or death, two different realities. This view is not inconsistent with my position that bigger brains have better thoughts, when used by the s/s/c to create them controlled by living personalities of earlier forms.dhw; NDEs and the belief in a soul that lives on after death are integral to the concept of dualism, i.e. that IN LIFE there are two separate elements that work together: the soul and the body; the mind and the brain. There is no dualism in death (indeed there may be nothing at all in death), and if bigger brains have better thoughts, then there is no dualism in life. Yes, the s/s/c uses the brain. As you acknowledged in the two quotes above, it uses the brain to IMPLEMENT its thoughts, not to create them. And yes, the s/s/c IS the living personality, which dualists believe is the immaterial living, conscious, THINKING “me” which survives death.
Here we seem to agree.
Big brain evolution: brain size and intelligence
I have juxtaposed parts of David's post in attempt to make the arguments clearer.
dhw: NDEs and the belief in a soul that lives on after death are integral to the concept of dualism, i.e. that IN LIFE there are two separate elements that work together: the soul and the body; the mind and the brain. There is no dualism in death (indeed there may be nothing at all in death), and if bigger brains have better thoughts, then there is no dualism in life. Yes, the s/s/c uses the brain. As you acknowledged in the two quotes above, it uses the brain to IMPLEMENT its thoughts, not to create them. And yes, the s/s/c IS the living personality, which dualists believe is the immaterial living, conscious, THINKING “me” which survives death.
DAVID: Here we seem to agree.
If you agree that the s/s/c uses the brain to IMPLEMENT its thoughts, not to create them, how can you possibly justify the following statement?
DAVID: Yes, but thought is created by use of the material brain, and in life cannot be done without it. I don't think we differ.
As a dualist you agree that thought is not CREATED by use of the brain; it is CREATED by the s/s/c and IMPLEMENTED by use of the brain. We differ only when you keep differing with yourself.
DAVID: I am a material me managing to create an immaterial structure of my personality starting at birth.
dhw: If you believe that the material you creates your immaterial personality, you are a materialist. In your dualistic guise, you even tell us that the consciousness of the s/s/c is part of your immaterial God’s immaterial consciousness, i.e. it is not a product of the material self.
DAVID: My theory of dualism is not yours. I must use my brain to think, using my consciousness as a gift from God which allows thought.
Your theory of dualism – as you have agreed above – is precisely the same as mine. Your self/soul/consciousness does not “ALLOW” thought. It thinks. And – as you have agreed above – your brain “allows” you, your self/soul/consciousness, to implement its thoughts.
Big brain evolution: brain size and intelligence
by David Turell , Saturday, March 31, 2018, 14:58 (2212 days ago) @ dhw
I have juxtaposed parts of David's post in attempt to make the arguments clearer.
dhw: NDEs and the belief in a soul that lives on after death are integral to the concept of dualism, i.e. that IN LIFE there are two separate elements that work together: the soul and the body; the mind and the brain. There is no dualism in death (indeed there may be nothing at all in death), and if bigger brains have better thoughts, then there is no dualism in life. Yes, the s/s/c uses the brain. As you acknowledged in the two quotes above, it uses the brain to IMPLEMENT its thoughts, not to create them. And yes, the s/s/c IS the living personality, which dualists believe is the immaterial living, conscious, THINKING “me” which survives death.
DAVID: Here we seem to agree.
If you agree that the s/s/c uses the brain to IMPLEMENT its thoughts, not to create them, how can you possibly justify the following statement?
DAVID: Yes, but thought is created by use of the material brain, and in life cannot be done without it. I don't think we differ.dhw: As a dualist you agree that thought is not CREATED by use of the brain; it is CREATED by the s/s/c and IMPLEMENTED by use of the brain. We differ only when you keep differing with yourself.
DAVID: I am a material me managing to create an immaterial structure of my personality starting at birth.
dhw: If you believe that the material you creates your immaterial personality, you are a materialist. In your dualistic guise, you even tell us that the consciousness of the s/s/c is part of your immaterial God’s immaterial consciousness, i.e. it is not a product of the material self.
DAVID: My theory of dualism is not yours. I must use my brain to think, using my consciousness as a gift from God which allows thought.
dhw: Your theory of dualism – as you have agreed above – is precisely the same as mine. Your self/soul/consciousness does not “ALLOW” thought. It thinks. And – as you have agreed above – your brain “allows” you, your self/soul/consciousness, to implement its thoughts.
We seem to agree. I just use words differently than you do.
Big brain evolution: brain size and intelligence
dhw: NDEs and the belief in a soul that lives on after death are integral to the concept of dualism, i.e. that IN LIFE there are two separate elements that work together: the soul and the body; the mind and the brain. There is no dualism in death (indeed there may be nothing at all in death), and if bigger brains have better thoughts, then there is no dualism in life. Yes, the s/s/c uses the brain. As you acknowledged in the two quotes above, it uses the brain to IMPLEMENT its thoughts, not to create them. And yes, the s/s/c IS the living personality, which dualists believe is the immaterial living, conscious, THINKING “me” which survives death.
DAVID: Here we seem to agree.
dhw: If you agree that the s/s/c uses the brain to IMPLEMENT its thoughts, not to create them, how can you possibly justify the following statement?
DAVID: Yes, but thought is created by use of the material brain, and in life cannot be done without it. I don't think we differ.
dhw: As a dualist you agree that thought is not CREATED by use of the brain; it is CREATED by the s/s/c and IMPLEMENTED by use of the brain. We differ only when you keep differing with yourself.
DAVID: I am a material me managing to create an immaterial structure of my personality starting at birth.
dhw: If you believe that the material you creates your immaterial personality, you are a materialist. In your dualistic guise, you even tell us that the consciousness of the s/s/c is part of your immaterial God’s immaterial consciousness, i.e. it is not a product of the material self.
DAVID: My theory of dualism is not yours. I must use my brain to think, using my consciousness as a gift from God which allows thought.
dhw: Your theory of dualism – as you have agreed above – is precisely the same as mine. Your self/soul/consciousness does not “ALLOW” thought. It thinks. And – as you have agreed above – your brain “allows” you, your self/soul/consciousness, to implement its thoughts.
DAVID: We seem to agree. I just use words differently than you do.
Since you now agree that according to your dualistic beliefs the s/s/c does the thinking and the brain does the implementing, it must be clear to you that the pre-sapiens brain would not have needed to expand before the s/s/c could come up with new immaterial concepts (which are thoughts). The expansion was required for the material implementation of the new concepts. With this in mind, I will try in the next few days to formulate an explanation that might eliminate the dichotomy between this dualistic view of the thinking self and the materialistic view that the material brain is the source of immaterial thought.
Big brain evolution: brain size and intelligence
by David Turell , Sunday, April 01, 2018, 15:24 (2211 days ago) @ dhw
DAVID: My theory of dualism is not yours. I must use my brain to think, using my consciousness as a gift from God which allows thought.
dhw: Your theory of dualism – as you have agreed above – is precisely the same as mine. Your self/soul/consciousness does not “ALLOW” thought. It thinks. And – as you have agreed above – your brain “allows” you, your self/soul/consciousness, to implement its thoughts.
DAVID: We seem to agree. I just use words differently than you do.
dhw: Since you now agree that according to your dualistic beliefs the s/s/c does the thinking and the brain does the implementing, it must be clear to you that the pre-sapiens brain would not have needed to expand before the s/s/c could come up with new immaterial concepts (which are thoughts). The expansion was required for the material implementation of the new concepts. With this in mind, I will try in the next few days to formulate an explanation that might eliminate the dichotomy between this dualistic view of the thinking self and the materialistic view that the material brain is the source of immaterial thought.
Yes it would need to expand. Using my analogy of software/hardware, hominin advances required a larger brain be present to support more complex concepts. In life the s/s/c uses the brain to think. You imply the s/s/c is somehow independent in life but impart thoughts to the brain for implementation from a distance. Not so. They are completely interlocked, and we even have a good idea of where the different parts of the s/s/c and the brain perform differing functions together.
Big brain evolution: brain size and intelligence
DAVID: My theory of dualism is not yours. I must use my brain to think, using my consciousness as a gift from God which allows thought.
dhw: Your theory of dualism – as you have agreed above – is precisely the same as mine. Your self/soul/consciousness does not “ALLOW” thought. It thinks. And – as you have agreed above – your brain “allows” you, your self/soul/consciousness, to implement its thoughts.
DAVID: We seem to agree. I just use words differently than you do.
dhw: Since you now agree that according to your dualistic beliefs the s/s/c does the thinking and the brain does the implementing, it must be clear to you that the pre-sapiens brain would not have needed to expand before the s/s/c could come up with new immaterial concepts (which are thoughts). The expansion was required for the material implementation of the new concepts. With this in mind, I will try in the next few days to formulate an explanation that might eliminate the dichotomy between this dualistic view of the thinking self and the materialistic view that the material brain is the source of immaterial thought.
DAVID: Yes it would need to expand. Using my analogy of software/hardware, hominin advances required a larger brain be present to support more complex concepts. In life the s/s/c uses the brain to think. You imply the s/s/c is somehow independent in life but impart thoughts to the brain for implementation from a distance. Not so. They are completely interlocked, and we even have a good idea of where the different parts of the s/s/c and the brain perform differing functions together.
You repeatedly agree with my interpretation of dualism, and then you repeatedly try to disagree by messing around with the vocabulary. You have agreed repeatedly that in life the s/s/c (software) does the thinking and uses the brain (hardware) to IMPLEMENT its thoughts (or to use the information provided by the brain). But back you go to “the s/s/c uses the brain to think”. And now suddenly you manufacture a brand new objection: “from a distance”. Where have you conjured that from? Of course in life the dualist’s immaterial self acts inside the material self. They would only separate at death or during NDEs. That is why NDEs are regarded as evidence that during life we consist of a material and an immaterial self. Please stop agreeing and then manufacturing reasons to disagree.
Big brain evolution: brain size and intelligence
by David Turell , Monday, April 02, 2018, 14:48 (2210 days ago) @ dhw
dhw: Since you now agree that according to your dualistic beliefs the s/s/c does the thinking and the brain does the implementing, it must be clear to you that the pre-sapiens brain would not have needed to expand before the s/s/c could come up with new immaterial concepts (which are thoughts). The expansion was required for the material implementation of the new concepts. With this in mind, I will try in the next few days to formulate an explanation that might eliminate the dichotomy between this dualistic view of the thinking self and the materialistic view that the material brain is the source of immaterial thought.
DAVID: Yes it would need to expand. Using my analogy of software/hardware, hominin advances required a larger brain be present to support more complex concepts. In life the s/s/c uses the brain to think. You imply the s/s/c is somehow independent in life but impart thoughts to the brain for implementation from a distance. Not so. They are completely interlocked, and we even have a good idea of where the different parts of the s/s/c and the brain perform differing functions together.
dhw: You repeatedly agree with my interpretation of dualism, and then you repeatedly try to disagree by messing around with the vocabulary. You have agreed repeatedly that in life the s/s/c (software) does the thinking and uses the brain (hardware) to IMPLEMENT its thoughts (or to use the information provided by the brain). But back you go to “the s/s/c uses the brain to think”. And now suddenly you manufacture a brand new objection: “from a distance”. Where have you conjured that from? Of course in life the dualist’s immaterial self acts inside the material self. They would only separate at death or during NDEs. That is why NDEs are regarded as evidence that during life we consist of a material and an immaterial self. Please stop agreeing and then manufacturing reasons to disagree.
The disagreement in my statement has to do only with the other issue between us: expansion of the brain. Only a more complex computer can handle more complex software. Only a larger brain can allow a more complex s/s/c to function in life. Your theory that the need for conceptualization forces the appearance of a larger brain has no basis in the facts we have before us. The "hot spots" in the genome that drove brain expansion are purposeful actions by God in my view.
Big brain evolution: brain size and intelligence
dhw: You repeatedly agree with my interpretation of dualism, and then you repeatedly try to disagree by messing around with the vocabulary. You have agreed repeatedly that in life the s/s/c (software) does the thinking and uses the brain (hardware) to IMPLEMENT its thoughts (or to use the information provided by the brain). But back you go to “the s/s/c uses the brain to think”. And now suddenly you manufacture a brand new objection: “from a distance”. Where have you conjured that from? Of course in life the dualist’s immaterial self acts inside the material self. They would only separate at death or during NDEs. That is why NDEs are regarded as evidence that during life we consist of a material and an immaterial self. Please stop agreeing and then manufacturing reasons to disagree.
DAVID: The disagreement in my statement has to do only with the other issue between us: expansion of the brain. Only a more complex computer can handle more complex software. Only a larger brain can allow a more complex s/s/c to function in life.
This is where you muddy the waters with obfuscation. You agree that the s/s/c (software) does the thinking, and the brain (hardware) does the implementing. In dualism the s/s/c does not need the larger brain to “function”, i.e. to think its more complex thoughts. That would make the brain the source of thought. Only a larger brain can allow the IMPLEMENTATION of the more complex thoughts of the s/s/c in life.
DAVID: Your theory that the need for conceptualization forces the appearance of a larger brain has no basis in the facts we have before us. The "hot spots" in the genome that drove brain expansion are purposeful actions by God in my view.
It is not the need for conceptualization! You constantly try to change the terms you have agreed to. Conceptualization means thinking up ideas. My hypothesis is that the need to IMPLEMENT concepts forces changes in the brain. The facts we have before us are that the material implementation of immaterial concepts (e.g. by illiterate women, taxi-drivers, musicians) forces such changes as complexification, shrinkage, expansion in the modern brain. There is no evidence that brain changes precede the attempt to implement concepts. Why, then, should we believe that the pre-sapiens s/s/c and brain functioned differently, and brains had to change (in this case expand) before pre-sapiens could come up with the concepts that required implementation?
Big brain evolution: brain size and intelligence
by David Turell , Tuesday, April 03, 2018, 20:36 (2208 days ago) @ dhw
dhw: You repeatedly agree with my interpretation of dualism, and then you repeatedly try to disagree by messing around with the vocabulary. You have agreed repeatedly that in life the s/s/c (software) does the thinking and uses the brain (hardware) to IMPLEMENT its thoughts (or to use the information provided by the brain). But back you go to “the s/s/c uses the brain to think”. And now suddenly you manufacture a brand new objection: “from a distance”. Where have you conjured that from? Of course in life the dualist’s immaterial self acts inside the material self. They would only separate at death or during NDEs. That is why NDEs are regarded as evidence that during life we consist of a material and an immaterial self. Please stop agreeing and then manufacturing reasons to disagree.
DAVID: The disagreement in my statement has to do only with the other issue between us: expansion of the brain. Only a more complex computer can handle more complex software. Only a larger brain can allow a more complex s/s/c to function in life.
dhw: This is where you muddy the waters with obfuscation. You agree that the s/s/c (software) does the thinking, and the brain (hardware) does the implementing. In dualism the s/s/c does not need the larger brain to “function”, i.e. to think its more complex thoughts. That would make the brain the source of thought. Only a larger brain can allow the IMPLEMENTATION of the more complex thoughts of the s/s/c in life.
The problem is your refusal to accept my concept of software/hardware. As IQ shows brains differ in their thought capacity which means the s/s/c can only go so far in intelligence based on the brain it is attached to.
DAVID: Your theory that the need for conceptualization forces the appearance of a larger brain has no basis in the facts we have before us. The "hot spots" in the genome that drove brain expansion are purposeful actions by God in my view.dhw: It is not the need for conceptualization! You constantly try to change the terms you have agreed to. Conceptualization means thinking up ideas. My hypothesis is that the need to IMPLEMENT concepts forces changes in the brain. The facts we have before us are that the material implementation of immaterial concepts (e.g. by illiterate women, taxi-drivers, musicians) forces such changes as complexification, shrinkage, expansion in the modern brain. There is no evidence that brain changes precede the attempt to implement concepts. Why, then, should we believe that the pre-sapiens s/s/c and brain functioned differently, and brains had to change (in this case expand) before pre-sapiens could come up with the concepts that required implementation?
Because each change in size involved the prefrontal cortex with each increase in size and capacity producing more advanced artifacts. We have no evidence that Einstein's hat size was extraordinarily large. You want a natural cause for enlargement. I chose God as the agent of change.
Big brain evolution: brain size and intelligence
DAVID: The disagreement in my statement has to do only with the other issue between us: expansion of the brain. Only a more complex computer can handle more complex software. Only a larger brain can allow a more complex s/s/c to function in life.
dhw: This is where you muddy the waters with obfuscation. You agree that the s/s/c (software) does the thinking, and the brain (hardware) does the implementing. In dualism the s/s/c does not need the larger brain to “function”, i.e. to think its more complex thoughts. That would make the brain the source of thought. Only a larger brain can allow the IMPLEMENTATION of the more complex thoughts of the s/s/c in life.
DAVID: The problem is your refusal to accept my concept of software/hardware. As IQ shows brains differ in their thought capacity which means the s/s/c can only go so far in intelligence based on the brain it is attached to.
The problem is your refusal to accept your own concept of software as the producer of thought and hardware as the implementer of thought. What do you mean by “brains differ in their thought capacity”? If you think intelligence depends on the brain (and it may well do so), you are a materialist, so yet again: do you or do you not believe that your s/s/c does the thinking and your brain does the implementing? Yes or no?
dhw: My hypothesis is that the need to IMPLEMENT concepts forces changes in the brain. The facts we have before us are that the material implementation of immaterial concepts (e.g. by illiterate women, taxi-drivers, musicians) forces such changes as complexification, shrinkage, expansion in the modern brain. There is no evidence that brain changes precede the attempt to implement concepts. Why, then, should we believe that the pre-sapiens s/s/c and brain functioned differently, and brains had to change (in this case expand) before pre-sapiens could come up with the concepts that required implementation?
DAVID: Because each change in size involved the prefrontal cortex with each increase in size and capacity producing more advanced artifacts. We have no evidence that Einstein's hat size was extraordinarily large. You want a natural cause for enlargement. I chose God as the agent of change.
Yes, in your dualistic life the increase in size and capacity of the brain gave material form to the more advanced artefacts which had been thought up by the s/s/c: Conceptualization by the s/s/c followed by implementation, which changes the brain. Einstein’s hat was not extraordinarily large because, although you tell us his pfc was extra large, the brain itself remains within the confines of the skull, which has stopped expanding. You choose to believe that the brain changes in advance of new concepts, which in pre-sapiens were not possible until enlargement had taken place. New concepts as a consequence of brain changes runs counter to the evidence noted above, as well as to your dualistic belief that we have a thinking soul (software) and an implementing brain (hardware). But you refuse to recognize the dichotomy in your beliefs.
Big brain evolution: brain size and intelligence
by David Turell , Wednesday, April 04, 2018, 15:22 (2208 days ago) @ dhw
DAVID: The problem is your refusal to accept my concept of software/hardware. As IQ shows brains differ in their thought capacity which means the s/s/c can only go so far in intelligence based on the brain it is attached to.dhw: The problem is your refusal to accept your own concept of software as the producer of thought and hardware as the implementer of thought. What do you mean by “brains differ in their thought capacity”? If you think intelligence depends on the brain (and it may well do so), you are a materialist, so yet again: do you or do you not believe that your s/s/c does the thinking and your brain does the implementing? Yes or no?
In life my s/s/c must use my brain to create my thought. It will not create thought if the brain in non-functional. That is my view of brain implementation at the level of thought.
dhw: My hypothesis is that the need to IMPLEMENT concepts forces changes in the brain. The facts we have before us are that the material implementation of immaterial concepts (e.g. by illiterate women, taxi-drivers, musicians) forces such changes as complexification, shrinkage, expansion in the modern brain. There is no evidence that brain changes precede the attempt to implement concepts. Why, then, should we believe that the pre-sapiens s/s/c and brain functioned differently, and brains had to change (in this case expand) before pre-sapiens could come up with the concepts that required implementation?
DAVID: Because each change in size involved the prefrontal cortex with each increase in size and capacity producing more advanced artifacts. We have no evidence that Einstein's hat size was extraordinarily large. You want a natural cause for enlargement. I chose God as the agent of change.
dhw: Yes, in your dualistic life the increase in size and capacity of the brain gave material form to the more advanced artefacts which had been thought up by the s/s/c: Conceptualization by the s/s/c followed by implementation, which changes the brain. Einstein’s hat was not extraordinarily large because, although you tell us his pfc was extra large, the brain itself remains within the confines of the skull, which has stopped expanding. You choose to believe that the brain changes in advance of new concepts, which in pre-sapiens were not possible until enlargement had taken place. New concepts as a consequence of brain changes runs counter to the evidence noted above, as well as to your dualistic belief that we have a thinking soul (software) and an implementing brain (hardware). But you refuse to recognize the dichotomy in your beliefs.
Just my point that IQ varies from below 70 to 200+ proves that the s/s/c has to use the mental machinery available to it.
Big brain evolution: brain size and intelligence
DAVID: The problem is your refusal to accept my concept of software/hardware. As IQ shows brains differ in their thought capacity which means the s/s/c can only go so far in intelligence based on the brain it is attached to.
dhw: The problem is your refusal to accept your own concept of software as the producer of thought and hardware as the implementer of thought. What do you mean by “brains differ in their thought capacity”? If you think intelligence depends on the brain (and it may well do so), you are a materialist, so yet again: do you or do you not believe that your s/s/c does the thinking and your brain does the implementing? Yes or no?
DAVID: In life my s/s/c must use my brain to create my thought. It will not create thought if the brain in non-functional. That is my view of brain implementation at the level of thought.
My question above could hardly have been more straightforward, and again and again you have answered yes. But again and again you return to your obfuscations. What is “brain implementation” if it is not your dualist’s s/s/c “using your brain” to implement its thought? If the s/s/c doesn’t do the thinking and the brain the implementing, there is no duality! And as evidence for their belief in this duality, dualists point out that in NDEs, when the brain is non-functional, the s/s/c still creates thought. What do you disagree with in these statements?
dhw: You choose to believe that the brain changes in advance of new concepts, which in pre-sapiens were not possible until enlargement had taken place. New concepts as a consequence of brain changes runs counter to the evidence noted above, as well as to your dualistic belief that we have a thinking soul (software) and an implementing brain (hardware). But you refuse to recognize the dichotomy in your beliefs.
DAVID: Just my point that IQ varies from below 70 to 200+ proves that the s/s/c has to use the mental machinery available to it.
The s/s/c IS the mental machinery! The brain is the physical machinery. If you think intelligence depends on the physical machinery, you are a materialist, and you may well be right. If you think it depends on the mental machinery, then please stop arguing that new concepts can only be thought of once the brain has enlarged.
DAVID: (commenting on mice): Once again we see the material side of conscious activity depends on chemicals in the brain, and it must be accepted that human instinctual reactions can have the same basis even though we have a higher level of consciousness. Our immaterial consciousness is based in a material brain, no way around it.
Yes, this is precisely how your dualism works: in life the s/s/c interacts with the brain: conscious activity is the work of the s/s/c, and precedes its material implementation, which depends on the brain. There is no way round it if you claim to be a dualist, so (again) please stop arguing that the brain has to change (in pre-sapiens, enlarge) before the s/s/c can come up with new thoughts.
Big brain evolution: brain size and intelligence
by David Turell , Thursday, April 05, 2018, 15:27 (2207 days ago) @ dhw
DAVID: In life my s/s/c must use my brain to create my thought. It will not create thought if the brain in non-functional. That is my view of brain implementation at the level of thought.
dhw: My question above could hardly have been more straightforward, and again and again you have answered yes. But again and again you return to your obfuscations. What is “brain implementation” if it is not your dualist’s s/s/c “using your brain” to implement its thought? If the s/s/c doesn’t do the thinking and the brain the implementing, there is no duality! And as evidence for their belief in this duality, dualists point out that in NDEs, when the brain is non-functional, the s/s/c still creates thought. What do you disagree with in these statements?
I don't disagree except you always blur the distinct difference in living brain and dead brain and how the s/s/c functions. They are completely different. In life the s/s/c can only act through using the brain and is bound to it.
DAVID: Just my point that IQ varies from below 70 to 200+ proves that the s/s/c has to use the mental machinery available to it.
dhw: The s/s/c IS the mental machinery! The brain is the physical machinery. If you think intelligence depends on the physical machinery, you are a materialist, and you may well be right. If you think it depends on the mental machinery, then please stop arguing that new concepts can only be thought of once the brain has enlarged.
See my point above. The s/s/c can only be as intelligent as the complexity of the brain it is attached to allows.
DAVID: (commenting on mice): Once again we see the material side of conscious activity depends on chemicals in the brain, and it must be accepted that human instinctual reactions can have the same basis even though we have a higher level of consciousness. Our immaterial consciousness is based in a material brain, no way around it.dhw; Yes, this is precisely how your dualism works: in life the s/s/c interacts with the brain: conscious activity is the work of the s/s/c, and precedes its material implementation, which depends on the brain. There is no way round it if you claim to be a dualist, so (again) please stop arguing that the brain has to change (in pre-sapiens, enlarge) before the s/s/c can come up with new thoughts.
My IQ analogy refutes your point.
Big brain evolution: brain size and intelligence
dhw: If the s/s/c doesn’t do the thinking and the brain the implementing, there is no duality! And as evidence for their belief in this duality, dualists point out that in NDEs, when the brain is non-functional, the s/s/c still creates thought. What do you disagree with in these statements?
DAVID: I don't disagree except you always blur the distinct difference in living brain and dead brain and how the s/s/c functions. They are completely different. In life the s/s/c can only act through using the brain and is bound to it.
No disagreement at all. The crucial point for our discussion is that in life the thinking s/s/c acts by using the implementing brain.
DAVID: Just my point that IQ varies from below 70 to 200+ proves that the s/s/c has to use the mental machinery available to it.
dhw: The s/s/c IS the mental machinery! The brain is the physical machinery. If you think intelligence depends on the physical machinery, you are a materialist, and you may well be right. If you think it depends on the mental machinery, then please stop arguing that new concepts can only be thought of once the brain has enlarged.
DAVID: See my point above. The s/s/c can only be as intelligent as the complexity of the brain it is attached to allows.
In life the dualist’s s/s/c can only “act through using its brain”, and of course it is restricted by the limitations of the brain/body, but it is not the brain/body that limits the intelligence of the s/s/c. I can imagine flapping my arms and flying, but I can’t do it. However, my dualist’s s/s/c can work out different ways in which I can use materials and enable myself to fly, and then the s/s/c uses the brain and body to give the concept material expression and form.
Dhw:[…] in life the s/s/c interacts with the brain: conscious activity is the work of the s/s/c, and precedes its material implementation, which depends on the brain. There is no way round it if you claim to be a dualist, so (again) please stop arguing that the brain has to change (in pre-sapiens, enlarge) before the s/s/c can come up with new thoughts.
DAVID: My IQ analogy refutes your point.
Once again: your IQ analogy can only refute my point if you insist that the source of intelligence is the brain and not the s/s/c, which it may well be. But that is the materialism which you claim to reject.
DAVID’s comment on Gazzaniga’s new book: If a brilliant scientist throws up his hands in surrender, who are we to try? Note my bold. Sleep walking is a great example of consciousness being present only if the brain allows it. In life the s/s/c doesn't work unless tied to the neuromechanics of the brain.
Thank you for this superb article. Sleep is yet another complex aspect of the insoluble mystery, but if you insist that the s/s/c cannot think unless the brain is “awake” and functioning, you are providing evidence for materialism. That is why NDEs are so important for dualists, since they run counter to the idea that thought depends on the functioning brain.I find it reassuring that this brilliant scientist is just as torn between materialism and dualism as I am, and I do wish you would acknowledge the same dichotomy in your own thinking!
Big brain evolution: brain size and intelligence
by David Turell , Friday, April 06, 2018, 15:42 (2206 days ago) @ dhw
DAVID: See my point above. The s/s/c can only be as intelligent as the complexity of the brain it is attached to allows.
dhw: In life the dualist’s s/s/c can only “act through using its brain”, and of course it is restricted by the limitations of the brain/body, but it is not the brain/body that limits the intelligence of the s/s/c. I can imagine flapping my arms and flying, but I can’t do it. However, my dualist’s s/s/c can work out different ways in which I can use materials and enable myself to fly, and then the s/s/c uses the brain and body to give the concept material expression and form.
Your concept leads to this preposterous idea: a person with an IQ of 70 is at that level because his s/s/c can do no better, even though his brain is really constructed just like yours and mine! But it isn't constructed the same way.
dhw: Once again: your IQ analogy can only refute my point if you insist that the source of intelligence is the brain and not the s/s/c, which it may well be. But that is the materialism which you claim to reject.
The s/s/c must use the brain it is given and the functional level of that brain will dictate the IQ. Granted other factors in life can improve the IQ to some degree as the brain is plastic.
DAVID’s comment on Gazzaniga’s new book: If a brilliant scientist throws up his hands in surrender, who are we to try? Note my bold. Sleep walking is a great example of consciousness being present only if the brain allows it. In life the s/s/c doesn't work unless tied to the neuromechanics of the brain.dhw: Thank you for this superb article. Sleep is yet another complex aspect of the insoluble mystery, but if you insist that the s/s/c cannot think unless the brain is “awake” and functioning, you are providing evidence for materialism. That is why NDEs are so important for dualists, since they run counter to the idea that thought depends on the functioning brain.I find it reassuring that this brilliant scientist is just as torn between materialism and dualism as I am, and I do wish you would acknowledge the same dichotomy in your own thinking!
I'm happy to show we are all stumped. And please recognize living brain and NDE are two different circumstances, and the s/s/c may function differently in both.
Big brain evolution: brain size and intelligence
dhw: In life the dualist’s s/s/c can only “act through using its brain”, and of course it is restricted by the limitations of the brain/body, but it is not the brain/body that limits the intelligence of the s/s/c. I can imagine flapping my arms and flying, but I can’t do it. However, my dualist’s s/s/c can work out different ways in which I can use materials and enable myself to fly, and then the s/s/c uses the brain and body to give the concept material expression and form.
DAVID: Your concept leads to this preposterous idea: a person with an IQ of 70 is at that level because his s/s/c can do no better, even though his brain is really constructed just like yours and mine! But it isn't constructed the same way.
Why have you switched to the IQ? I have given you an example of how dualism works. Now you are offering me the materialist view that different brains give rise to different levels of intelligence, as if that invalidates the dualistic example. If you think my example is preposterous, and the brain is the source of intelligence, then please stop presenting yourself as a dualist. (See below.)
DAVID’s comment on Gazzaniga’s new book: If a brilliant scientist throws up his hands in surrender, who are we to try? Note my bold. Sleep walking is a great example of consciousness being present only if the brain allows it. In life the s/s/c doesn't work unless tied to the neuromechanics of the brain.
dhw: Thank you for this superb article. Sleep is yet another complex aspect of the insoluble mystery, but if you insist that the s/s/c cannot think unless the brain is “awake” and functioning, you are providing evidence for materialism. That is why NDEs are so important for dualists, since they run counter to the idea that thought depends on the functioning brain.I find it reassuring that this brilliant scientist is just as torn between materialism and dualism as I am, and I do wish you would acknowledge the same dichotomy in your own thinking!
DAVID: I'm happy to show we are all stumped. And please recognize living brain and NDE are two different circumstances, and the s/s/c may function differently in both.
Recognized. NDEs are only relevant to our discussion as evidence for dualism. Our discussion concerns the respective roles of the s/s/c and the brain in life. And you have missed the point: we are stumped because there is evidence both for dualism and for materialism, and nobody knows which is correct. When I present the case for dualism, you counter with evidence for materialism, but you refuse to recognize that IQ as a product of the brain, and new concepts as a product of the enlarged brain, both run counter to dualism. You say you are stumped. So am I, and so is Gazzaniga. He and I are stumped because we recognize the dichotomy created by the evidence. Now please explain WHY you are stumped, although you claim to be a dualist.
Big brain evolution: brain size and intelligence
by David Turell , Saturday, April 07, 2018, 16:18 (2205 days ago) @ dhw
dhw: In life the dualist’s s/s/c can only “act through using its brain”, and of course it is restricted by the limitations of the brain/body, but it is not the brain/body that limits the intelligence of the s/s/c. I can imagine flapping my arms and flying, but I can’t do it. However, my dualist’s s/s/c can work out different ways in which I can use materials and enable myself to fly, and then the s/s/c uses the brain and body to give the concept material expression and form.
DAVID: Your concept leads to this preposterous idea: a person with an IQ of 70 is at that level because his s/s/c can do no better, even though his brain is really constructed just like yours and mine! But it isn't constructed the same way.
dhw: Why have you switched to the IQ? I have given you an example of how dualism works. Now you are offering me the materialist view that different brains give rise to different levels of intelligence, as if that invalidates the dualistic example. If you think my example is preposterous, and the brain is the source of intelligence, then please stop presenting yourself as a dualist. (See below.)
You don't understand my view because you refuse to recognize that in life the s/s/c is bound to work with the quality of the brain it is given. That is the point of IQ. Arthropithicus did not have the IQ of Erectus.
DAVID’s comment on Gazzaniga’s new book: If a brilliant scientist throws up his hands in surrender, who are we to try? Note my bold. Sleep walking is a great example of consciousness being present only if the brain allows it. In life the s/s/c doesn't work unless tied to the neuromechanics of the brain.dhw: Thank you for this superb article. Sleep is yet another complex aspect of the insoluble mystery, but if you insist that the s/s/c cannot think unless the brain is “awake” and functioning, you are providing evidence for materialism. That is why NDEs are so important for dualists, since they run counter to the idea that thought depends on the functioning brain.I find it reassuring that this brilliant scientist is just as torn between materialism and dualism as I am, and I do wish you would acknowledge the same dichotomy in your own thinking!
DAVID: I'm happy to show we are all stumped. And please recognize living brain and NDE are two different circumstances, and the s/s/c may function differently in both.
dhw: Recognized. NDEs are only relevant to our discussion as evidence for dualism. Our discussion concerns the respective roles of the s/s/c and the brain in life. And you have missed the point: we are stumped because there is evidence both for dualism and for materialism, and nobody knows which is correct. When I present the case for dualism, you counter with evidence for materialism, but you refuse to recognize that IQ as a product of the brain, and new concepts as a product of the enlarged brain, both run counter to dualism. You say you are stumped. So am I, and so is Gazzaniga. He and I are stumped because we recognize the dichotomy created by the evidence. Now please explain WHY you are stumped, although you claim to be a dualist.
I am not stumped. I have a very specific dualistic theory: the s/s/c functions differently in life and in death/nonfunction. In life it must use the brain it attaches to and use it with the ability the brain has to handle whatever level of complex thought it is built to handle/allow. Thus my statement above. In death the s/s/c acts as an independent entity by a different quantum mechanism.
Big brain evolution: brain size and intelligence
DAVID: I'm happy to show we are all stumped. And please recognize living brain and NDE are two different circumstances, and the s/s/c may function differently in both.
dhw: Recognized. NDEs are only relevant to our discussion as evidence for dualism. Our discussion concerns the respective roles of the s/s/c and the brain in life. And you have missed the point: we are stumped because there is evidence both for dualism and for materialism, and nobody knows which is correct. When I present the case for dualism, you counter with evidence for materialism, but you refuse to recognize that IQ as a product of the brain, and new concepts as a product of the enlarged brain, both run counter to dualism. You say you are stumped. So am I, and so is Gazzaniga. He and I are stumped because we recognize the dichotomy created by the evidence. Now please explain WHY you are stumped, although you claim to be a dualist.
DAVID: I am not stumped.
You are "happy to show that we are all stumped", but you are not stumped!
DAVID: I have a very specific dualistic theory: the s/s/c functions differently in life and in death/nonfunction. In life it must use the brain it attaches to and use it with the ability the brain has to handle whatever level of complex thought it is built to handle/allow. Thus my statement above. In death the s/s/c acts as an independent entity by a different quantum mechanism.
We have agreed on all this, and it is not the issue! The issue is the roles played by the s/s/c and the brain IN LIFE. So once more: do you believe that IN LIFE your immaterial thoughts are the product of your material brain, or do you believe that you have an immaterial self that gathers information from and gives instructions to your material brain, so that your immaterial thoughts can be given material expression and/or implementation? Or are you stumped?
Big brain evolution: brain size and intelligence
by David Turell , Sunday, April 08, 2018, 19:41 (2204 days ago) @ dhw
DAVID: I am not stumped.
dhw: You are "happy to show that we are all stumped", but you are not stumped!
DAVID: I have a very specific dualistic theory: the s/s/c functions differently in life and in death/nonfunction. In life it must use the brain it attaches to and use it with the ability the brain has to handle whatever level of complex thought it is built to handle/allow. Thus my statement above. In death the s/s/c acts as an independent entity by a different quantum mechanism.
We have agreed on all this, and it is not the issue! The issue is the roles played by the s/s/c and the brain IN LIFE. So once more: do you believe that IN LIFE your immaterial thoughts are the product of your material brain, or do you believe that you have an immaterial self that gathers information from and gives instructions to your material brain, so that your immaterial thoughts can be given material expression and/or implementation? Or are you stumped?
I'm not stumped and happy with my conclusion. The s/s/c cannot IN LIFE work on its own! It must use the brain to gather information, to think and to develop instructions for the brain to move onto implementations. The brain and the s/s/c are tightly interfaced, not in any way separate as you constantly try to imply. The s/s/c is a quantum software using a material brain, but in death/ non-functional state it is a slightly different quantum software interfacing with the afterlife.
Big brain evolution: brain size and intelligence
DAVID: I am not stumped.
dhw: You are "happy to show that we are all stumped", but you are not stumped!
DAVID: I have a very specific dualistic theory: the s/s/c functions differently in life and in death/nonfunction. In life it must use the brain it attaches to and use it with the ability the brain has to handle whatever level of complex thought it is built to handle/allow. Thus my statement above. In death the s/s/c acts as an independent entity by a different quantum mechanism.
dhw: We have agreed on all this, and it is not the issue! The issue is the roles played by the s/s/c and the brain IN LIFE. So once more: (a) do you believe that IN LIFE your immaterial thoughts are the product of your material brain, or (b) do you believe that you have an immaterial self that gathers information from and gives instructions to your material brain, so that your immaterial thoughts can be given material expression and/or implementation? Or are you stumped? (Dhw’s bold, with the insertion of the letters (a) and (b) to make it simpler!)
DAVID: I'm not stumped and happy with my conclusion. The s/s/c cannot IN LIFE work on its own! It must use the brain to gather information, to think and to develop instructions for the brain to move onto implementations. The brain and the s/s/c are tightly interfaced, not in any way separate as you constantly try to imply. The s/s/c is a quantum software using a material brain, but in death/ non-functional state it is a slightly different quantum software interfacing with the afterlife.
You have virtually repeated everything I have been saying for the last couple of years, but have modified it with tiny obfuscations. Let us ignore the fact that initially you were stumped like the rest of us but are no longer stumped, though we may have to come back to that!
Of course the s/s/c cannot work on its own in life, because it needs the brain to gather information and to give instructions that will enable implementation of its thoughts. But you have popped the word “think” in the middle. The s/s/c does the thinking, and you have ignored the question I asked you: “do you believe that IN LIFE your immaterial thoughts are the product of your material brain…etc”. “The brain and the s/s/c are tightly interfaced.” Of course they are, and I do not imply that they are “separate”, but that if dualism is correct they have different functions: the s/s/c does the thinking, and the brain does the information gathering and the implementing. What happens in death is irrelevant to our discussion on the different roles in life, but it is blindingly obvious that an s/s/c without a brain will have to function differently from an s/s/c with a brain, since it will not be interfacing with materials. We would therefore appear to be in agreement on the different roles of the s/s/c and the brain IN LIFE, but to be on the safe side, perhaps you could just answer the bolded question above with a simple (a) or (b).
Big brain evolution: brain size and intelligence
by David Turell , Monday, April 09, 2018, 18:16 (2203 days ago) @ dhw
DAVID: I have a very specific dualistic theory: the s/s/c functions differently in life and in death/nonfunction. In life it must use the brain it attaches to and use it with the ability the brain has to handle whatever level of complex thought it is built to handle/allow. Thus my statement above. In death the s/s/c acts as an independent entity by a different quantum mechanism.
dhw: We have agreed on all this, and it is not the issue! The issue is the roles played by the s/s/c and the brain IN LIFE. So once more: (a) do you believe that IN LIFE your immaterial thoughts are the product of your material brain, or (b) do you believe that you have an immaterial self that gathers information from and gives instructions to your material brain, so that your immaterial thoughts can be given material expression and/or implementation? Or are you stumped? (Dhw’s bold, with the insertion of the letters (a) and (b) to make it simpler!)DAVID: I'm not stumped and happy with my conclusion. The s/s/c cannot IN LIFE work on its own! It must use the brain to gather information, to think and to develop instructions for the brain to move onto implementations. The brain and the s/s/c are tightly interfaced, not in any way separate as you constantly try to imply. The s/s/c is a quantum software using a material brain, but in death/ non-functional state it is a slightly different quantum software interfacing with the afterlife.
dhw: You have virtually repeated everything I have been saying for the last couple of years, but have modified it with tiny obfuscations. Let us ignore the fact that initially you were stumped like the rest of us but are no longer stumped, though we may have to come back to that!
Of course the s/s/c cannot work on its own in life, because it needs the brain to gather information and to give instructions that will enable implementation of its thoughts. But you have popped the word “think” in the middle. The s/s/c does the thinking, (my bold)
And that is our difference. My view is that in life the s/s/c cannot think without using the brain. You keep proposing there is some sort of separation in function between the s/s/c and the material brain. I (s/s/c) use my material brain to produce my immaterial thoughts. Same statement as always.
dhw: and you have ignored the question I asked you: “do you believe that IN LIFE your immaterial thoughts are the product of your material brain…etc”. “The brain and the s/s/c are tightly interfaced.” Of course they are, and I do not imply that they are “separate”, but that if dualism is correct they have different functions: the s/s/c does the thinking, and the brain does the information gathering and the implementing.
The brain must be used to do the implementation of the thinking mechanism supplied by the s/s/c. Without the brain the s/s/c will not produce thought in life. But what I am describing is a proposed material quantum mechanism in the brain which facilitates the brain to have consciousness and produce thought. That mechanism is a gift from God's universal consciousness. This is dualism in a different form from yours.
dhw: What happens in death is irrelevant to our discussion on the different roles in life, but it is blindingly obvious that an s/s/c without a brain will have to function differently from an s/s/c with a brain, since it will not be interfacing with materials. We would therefore appear to be in agreement on the different roles of the s/s/c and the brain IN LIFE, but to be on the safe side, perhaps you could just answer the bolded question above with a simple (a) or (b).
I'm close to your (b) but with nuanced changes as above. I look at the s/s/c mechanism as a quantum construct, differing in form in life and death.
Big brain evolution: brain size and intelligence
dhw: “The brain and the s/s/c are tightly interfaced.” Of course they are, and I do not imply that they are “separate”, but that if dualism is correct they have different functions: the s/s/c does the thinking, and the brain does the information gathering and the implementing.
DAVID: The brain must be used to do the implementation of the thinking mechanism supplied by the s/s/c.
Agreed.
DAVID: Without the brain the s/s/c will not produce thought in life. But what I am describing is a proposed material quantum mechanism in the brain which facilitates the brain to have consciousness and produce thought. That mechanism is a gift from God's universal consciousness. This is dualism in a different form from yours.
I’ve sat here trying to puzzle this out, but you’ll have to help me. The idea that there is a material quantum mechanism which enables the brain to have consciousness and produce thought means nothing more to me than that somehow or the other the material brain produces consciousness and thought – which is clearly pure materialism. But “that mechanism is a gift from God’s universal consciousness” is not clear at all. If you mean that your God gave us a material mechanism which enabled us to think, OK. Materialists call it the brain, but call it a material quantum mechanism if you like. However, if you mean that the mechanism is a part of your God’s own consciousness, then is his own consciousness a material quantum mechanism?
DAVID: I look at the s/s/c mechanism as a quantum construct, differing in form in life and death.
You said that in life it was a material quantum mechanism. You have agreed that in death your s/s/c is still you: NDE patients, whose brains are non-functional, are aware of what is happening around them, whether in the operating theatre or in another world, and when it’s the latter they can communicate and even express their own wishes (some do not want to return). Clearly the mechanism for consciousness in death has to interact differently with its new surroundings (e.g. using telepathy), but are you now saying that although it retains all the attributes (thought, memory, emotion etc.) it had when inside the brain, it suddenly becomes an immaterial quantum construct? Is there such a thing? If there is, why would your God need to manufacture a material one? Why wouldn’t the immaterial one perform the same thinking/remembering/feeling functions inside the brain as outside it, and as we have agreed over and over again, use the brain simply to gather information and give material expression and implementation to its thoughts?
Big brain evolution: brain size and intelligence
by David Turell , Tuesday, April 10, 2018, 15:24 (2202 days ago) @ dhw
dhw: “The brain and the s/s/c are tightly interfaced.” Of course they are, and I do not imply that they are “separate”, but that if dualism is correct they have different functions: the s/s/c does the thinking, and the brain does the information gathering and the implementing.
DAVID: The brain must be used to do the implementation of the thinking mechanism supplied by the s/s/c.
dhw: Agreed.
DAVID: Without the brain the s/s/c will not produce thought in life. But what I am describing is a proposed material quantum mechanism in the brain which facilitates the brain to have consciousness and produce thought. That mechanism is a gift from God's universal consciousness. This is dualism in a different form from yours.
I’ve sat here trying to puzzle this out, but you’ll have to help me. The idea that there is a material quantum mechanism which enables the brain to have consciousness and produce thought means nothing more to me than that somehow or the other the material brain produces consciousness and thought – which is clearly pure materialism. But “that mechanism is a gift from God’s universal consciousness” is not clear at all. If you mean that your God gave us a material mechanism which enabled us to think, OK. Materialists call it the brain, but call it a material quantum mechanism if you like. However, if you mean that the mechanism is a part of your God’s own consciousness, then is his own consciousness a material quantum mechanism?
See below.
DAVID: I look at the s/s/c mechanism as a quantum construct, differing in form in life and death.dhw: You said that in life it was a material quantum mechanism. You have agreed that in death your s/s/c is still you: NDE patients, whose brains are non-functional, are aware of what is happening around them, whether in the operating theatre or in another world, and when it’s the latter they can communicate and even express their own wishes (some do not want to return). Clearly the mechanism for consciousness in death has to interact differently with its new surroundings (e.g. using telepathy), but are you now saying that although it retains all the attributes (thought, memory, emotion etc.) it had when inside the brain, it suddenly becomes an immaterial quantum construct? Is there such a thing? If there is, why would your God need to manufacture a material one? Why wouldn’t the immaterial one perform the same thinking/remembering/feeling functions inside the brain as outside it, and as we have agreed over and over again, use the brain simply to gather information and give material expression and implementation to its thoughts?
I view a purely quantum mechanism as pure quantum energy in an immaterial form. This is why we have had so many discussion of quantum reality and trying to understand the uncertainty of how we view it and try to understand it. Quantum reality underlies our universe and is the basis of it in my view. God's consciousness is quantum reality, pure energy, and we have a portion of it in our brains where it interfaces with the living us.
Big brain evolution: brain size and intelligence
dhw: You said that in life it was a material quantum mechanism. You have agreed that in death your s/s/c is still you: NDE patients, whose brains are non-functional, are aware of what is happening around them, whether in the operating theatre or in another world, and when it’s the latter they can communicate and even express their own wishes (some do not want to return). Clearly the mechanism for consciousness in death has to interact differently with its new surroundings (e.g. using telepathy), but are you now saying that although it retains all the attributes (thought, memory, emotion etc.) it had when inside the brain, it suddenly becomes an immaterial quantum construct? Is there such a thing? If there is, why would your God need to manufacture a material one? Why wouldn’t the immaterial one perform the same thinking/remembering/feeling functions inside the brain as outside it, and as we have agreed over and over again, use the brain simply to gather information and give material expression and implementation to its thoughts?
DAVID: I view a purely quantum mechanism as pure quantum energy in an immaterial form. This is why we have had so many discussion of quantum reality and trying to understand the uncertainty of how we view it and try to understand it. Quantum reality underlies our universe and is the basis of it in my view. God's consciousness is quantum reality, pure energy, and we have a portion of it in our brains where it interfaces with the living us.
But you wrote: “…what I am describing is a proposed material quantum mechanism in the brain which facilitates the brain to have consciousness and produce thought. That mechanism is a gift from God's universal consciousness. This is dualism in a different form from yours.” (My bold) Prior to the entry I have reproduced above, I asked if this meant God gave us a material quantum mechanism (which might just as well be called the brain), and if God’s own consciousness was also a material quantum mechanism. It now appears that you are only referring to an immaterial quantum mechanism in both cases, which I’m afraid takes us straight back to Square One. You believe in an immaterial self which resides within and interacts with the material brain in life and leaves it in death. I suggest to you that in a dualist’s life this immaterial self (or “pure quantum energy”) does the thinking, while the material self provides the information and material expression and implementation of those thoughts. You keep agreeing and then disagreeing, so may I ask which it is now?
Big brain evolution: brain size and intelligence
by David Turell , Wednesday, April 11, 2018, 21:13 (2200 days ago) @ dhw
dhw: You said that in life it was a material quantum mechanism. You have agreed that in death your s/s/c is still you: NDE patients, whose brains are non-functional, are aware of what is happening around them, whether in the operating theatre or in another world, and when it’s the latter they can communicate and even express their own wishes (some do not want to return). Clearly the mechanism for consciousness in death has to interact differently with its new surroundings (e.g. using telepathy), but are you now saying that although it retains all the attributes (thought, memory, emotion etc.) it had when inside the brain, it suddenly becomes an immaterial quantum construct? Is there such a thing? If there is, why would your God need to manufacture a material one? Why wouldn’t the immaterial one perform the same thinking/remembering/feeling functions inside the brain as outside it, and as we have agreed over and over again, use the brain simply to gather information and give material expression and implementation to its thoughts?
DAVID: I view a purely quantum mechanism as pure quantum energy in an immaterial form. This is why we have had so many discussion of quantum reality and trying to understand the uncertainty of how we view it and try to understand it. Quantum reality underlies our universe and is the basis of it in my view. God's consciousness is quantum reality, pure energy, and we have a portion of it in our brains where it interfaces with the living us.
dhw: But you wrote: “…what I am describing is a proposed material quantum mechanism in the brain which facilitates the brain to have consciousness and produce thought. That mechanism is a gift from God's universal consciousness. This is dualism in a different form from yours.” (My bold) Prior to the entry I have reproduced above, I asked if this meant God gave us a material quantum mechanism (which might just as well be called the brain), and if God’s own consciousness was also a material quantum mechanism. It now appears that you are only referring to an immaterial quantum mechanism in both cases, which I’m afraid takes us straight back to Square One. You believe in an immaterial self which resides within and interacts with the material brain in life and leaves it in death. I suggest to you that in a dualist’s life this immaterial self (or “pure quantum energy”) does the thinking, while the material self provides the information and material expression and implementation of those thoughts. You keep agreeing and then disagreeing, so may I ask which it is now?
Think back to our discussion about what was in the beginning before the Big Bang: God as pure energy with no material form was my opinion. That is what I view now as God's universal consciousness, of which we have a portion to interface with our brain to produce immaterial thought. Our personality/s/s/c is a construct built from birth in that interface. Both this consciousness mechanism and brain must work together to produce thought in life. The immaterial self cannot by itself produce or even drive immaterial thought unless interlocked with the material brain during life. I can control my consciousness only by employing my brain, typing these words which are a material implementation of immaterial response thoughts.
Big brain evolution: brain size and intelligence
dhw: But you wrote: “…what I am describing is a proposed material quantum mechanism in the brain which facilitates the brain to have consciousness and produce thought. That mechanism is a gift from God's universal consciousness. This is dualism in a different form from yours.” (My bold) Prior to the entry I have reproduced above, I asked if this meant God gave us a material quantum mechanism (which might just as well be called the brain), and if God’s own consciousness was also a material quantum mechanism. It now appears that you are only referring to an immaterial quantum mechanism in both cases, which I’m afraid takes us straight back to Square One. You believe in an immaterial self which resides within and interacts with the material brain in life and leaves it in death. I suggest to you that in a dualist’s life this immaterial self (or “pure quantum energy”) does the thinking, while the material self provides the information and material expression and implementation of those thoughts. You keep agreeing and then disagreeing, so may I ask which it is now?
DAVID: Think back to our discussion about what was in the beginning before the Big Bang: God as pure energy with no material form was my opinion. That is what I view now as God's universal consciousness, of which we have a portion to interface with our brain to produce immaterial thought. Our personality/s/s/c is a construct built from birth in that interface. Both this consciousness mechanism and brain must work together to produce thought in life. The immaterial self cannot by itself produce or even drive immaterial thought unless interlocked with the material brain during life. I can control my consciousness only by employing my brain, typing these words which are a material implementation of immaterial response thoughts.
So let’s clear up the first anomaly: when you wrote that you were proposing a material quantum mechanism which enabled the brain to think, you meant an immaterial mechanism. The rest of your post simply reiterates your belief that you have an immaterial self, but in life it cannot think without being interlocked with the material brain. Only when the material brain stops functioning (NDEs) is it able to think without being interlocked with the brain. I find this illogical. I asked, as I frequently do, whether you accepted the dualistic view that in life the immaterial self (the s/s/c) does the thinking and the material self (body/brain) provides information and implements the thoughts of the immaterial self (soul). You have not answered. Your last sentence separates “I” from your consciousness, but these are united in the concept of the self/soul/consciousness which = the immaterial self, so now you have your immaterial self controlling your immaterial self, but you then go on to give an example of your brain enabling you to give material implementation to your immaterial thoughts. I will therefore try once more to get a direct answer from you: did these immaterial thoughts come from your s/s/c (the immaterial self), or from your brain?
Big brain evolution: brain size and intelligence
by David Turell , Thursday, April 12, 2018, 23:21 (2199 days ago) @ dhw
dhw: But you wrote: “…what I am describing is a proposed material quantum mechanism in the brain which facilitates the brain to have consciousness and produce thought. That mechanism is a gift from God's universal consciousness. This is dualism in a different form from yours.” (My bold) Prior to the entry I have reproduced above, I asked if this meant God gave us a material quantum mechanism (which might just as well be called the brain), and if God’s own consciousness was also a material quantum mechanism. It now appears that you are only referring to an immaterial quantum mechanism in both cases, which I’m afraid takes us straight back to Square One. You believe in an immaterial self which resides within and interacts with the material brain in life and leaves it in death. I suggest to you that in a dualist’s life this immaterial self (or “pure quantum energy”) does the thinking, while the material self provides the information and material expression and implementation of those thoughts. You keep agreeing and then disagreeing, so may I ask which it is now?
DAVID: Think back to our discussion about what was in the beginning before the Big Bang: God as pure energy with no material form was my opinion. That is what I view now as God's universal consciousness, of which we have a portion to interface with our brain to produce immaterial thought. Our personality/s/s/c is a construct built from birth in that interface. Both this consciousness mechanism and brain must work together to produce thought in life. The immaterial self cannot by itself produce or even drive immaterial thought unless interlocked with the material brain during life. I can control my consciousness only by employing my brain, typing these words which are a material implementation of immaterial response thoughts.
dhw: So let’s clear up the first anomaly: when you wrote that you were proposing a material quantum mechanism which enabled the brain to think, you meant an immaterial mechanism. The rest of your post simply reiterates your belief that you have an immaterial self, but in life it cannot think without being interlocked with the material brain. Only when the material brain stops functioning (NDEs) is it able to think without being interlocked with the brain. I find this illogical. I asked, as I frequently do, whether you accepted the dualistic view that in life the immaterial self (the s/s/c) does the thinking and the material self (body/brain) provides information and implements the thoughts of the immaterial self (soul). You have not answered. Your last sentence separates “I” from your consciousness, but these are united in the concept of the self/soul/consciousness which = the immaterial self, so now you have your immaterial self controlling your immaterial self, but you then go on to give an example of your brain enabling you to give material implementation to your immaterial thoughts. I will therefore try once more to get a direct answer from you: did these immaterial thoughts come from your s/s/c (the immaterial self), or from your brain?
I can only go back to what I have presented. In life the s/s/c must use the brain which with it is interlocked. Its mechanism in life requires that. In death or NDE it operates differently and can think without the brain interface. The s/s/c has two different forms and function. And it is a pure energy (as God is) format. What I propose is the s/s/c has dual forms. I have a right to propose my own theory of dualism. There is the obvious dualism of material brain and immaterial personality/ thoughts implemented to appear through the work of the brain, along with two forms of the immaterial quantum energy s/s/c.
Big brain evolution: brain size and intelligence
DAVID: I can control my consciousness only by employing my brain, typing these words which are a material implementation of immaterial response thoughts.
dhw: Your last sentence separates “I” from your consciousness, but these are united in the concept of the self/soul/consciousness which = the immaterial self, so now you have your immaterial self controlling your immaterial self, but you then go on to give an example of your brain enabling you to give material implementation to your immaterial thoughts. I will therefore try once more to get a direct answer from you: did these immaterial thoughts come from your s/s/c (the immaterial self), or from your brain?
DAVID: I can only go back to what I have presented. In life the s/s/c must use the brain which with it is interlocked. Its mechanism in life requires that. In death or NDE it operates differently and can think without the brain interface. The s/s/c has two different forms and function. And it is a pure energy (as God is) format. What I propose is the s/s/c has dual forms. I have a right to propose my own theory of dualism. There is the obvious dualism of material brain and immaterial personality/ thoughts implemented to appear through the work of the brain, along with two forms of the immaterial quantum energy s/s/c.
You have the right to propose any theory you like, but the object of our discussions is to test theories to see if they make sense. If the s/s/c is “pure energy”, I don’t see how it can have two different forms. Clearly, if it survives the death of the brain it will function or “operate” differently, since NDEs suggest that it can still perceive, communicate, think, feel etc., but it will “interface” with a different reality and has no material means of expressing itself (hence perhaps communication by telepathy). But that is irrelevant to our discussion, which only concerns how it functions or operates IN LIFE, and here you have specified “the obvious dualism of material brain and immaterial personality/thoughts implemented to appear through the work of the brain”. I’m glad this is obvious, as it answers the question I keep asking you, though for some reason you never answer with a simple yes or no. Even to you it now seems “obvious” that if the immaterial self exists, IN LIFE it does the thinking and the brain does the implementing. It should therefore be equally obvious that if your form of dualism is correct, IN LIFE there is no need for the brain to expand or complexify before the immaterial self comes up with new immaterial thoughts. It needs to expand or complexify in order to implement the new immaterial thoughts, as proven by modern science (with sapiens shrinkage probably the result of efficient complexification). The alternative to this is materialism, and one of these days I’ll find time to expand on the reconciliation hypothesis I proposed earlier!
Big brain evolution: brain size and intelligence
by David Turell , Friday, April 13, 2018, 16:50 (2199 days ago) @ dhw
DAVID: I can only go back to what I have presented. In life the s/s/c must use the brain which with it is interlocked. Its mechanism in life requires that. In death or NDE it operates differently and can think without the brain interface. The s/s/c has two different forms and function. And it is a pure energy (as God is) format. What I propose is the s/s/c has dual forms. I have a right to propose my own theory of dualism. There is the obvious dualism of material brain and immaterial personality/ thoughts implemented to appear through the work of the brain, along with two forms of the immaterial quantum energy s/s/c.dhw: You have the right to propose any theory you like, but the object of our discussions is to test theories to see if they make sense. If the s/s/c is “pure energy”, I don’t see how it can have two different forms. Clearly, if it survives the death of the brain it will function or “operate” differently, since NDEs suggest that it can still perceive, communicate, think, feel etc., but it will “interface” with a different reality and has no material means of expressing itself (hence perhaps communication by telepathy). But that is irrelevant to our discussion, which only concerns how it functions or operates IN LIFE, and here you have specified “the obvious dualism of material brain and immaterial personality/thoughts implemented to appear through the work of the brain”. I’m glad this is obvious, as it answers the question I keep asking you, though for some reason you never answer with a simple yes or no. Even to you it now seems “obvious” that if the immaterial self exists, IN LIFE it does the thinking and the brain does the implementing. It should therefore be equally obvious that if your form of dualism is correct, IN LIFE there is no need for the brain to expand or complexify before the immaterial self comes up with new immaterial thoughts. It needs to expand or complexify in order to implement the new immaterial thoughts, as proven by modern science (with sapiens shrinkage probably the result of efficient complexification). The alternative to this is materialism, and one of these days I’ll find time to expand on the reconciliation hypothesis I proposed earlier!
The point we disagree upon is brain complexity in life in this way: since the s/s/c must interface with the brain and rely upon it to functionally think, only a more complex brain allows more advanced thought. Thus only a larger brain with an expanded thought area (prefrontal cortex) allows for the development of highly complex concepts, as proven by the artifacts at each level of brain complexity in earlier hominin fossils. The history of sapiens is compatible with my approach: we are present for 315,000 years with big brains, but have only learned how to use them in extreme complexity (as shown by our artifacts) in the past 10,000 years. If our most previous ancestors had 'immaterial thoughts' that required expansion (your 'push' concept) why was there a delay of 305,000 years for those thoughts to appear and be implemented?
Big brain evolution: brakes on thought found
by David Turell , Friday, April 13, 2018, 21:45 (2198 days ago) @ David Turell
Unwanted thought can be suppressed by the prefrontal cortex:
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/brain-rsquo-s-ldquo-brakes-rdquo-suppress-un...
"Everyone has unwelcome thoughts from time to time. But such intrusions can signal serious psychiatric conditions—from “flashbacks” in post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) to obsessive negative thinking in depression to hallucinations in schizophrenia.
***
"New research led by Anderson and neuroscientist Taylor Schmitz, now at McGill University, suggests these symptoms may all stem from a faulty brain mechanism responsible for blocking thoughts. Researchers studying this faculty usually focus on the prefrontal cortex (PFC), a control center that directs the activity of other brain regions. But Anderson and his colleagues noticed that conditions featuring intrusive thoughts—such as schizophrenia—often involve increased activity in the hippocampus, an important memory region. The severity of symptoms such as hallucinations also increases with this elevated activity.
"In the new study, Anderson and his team had healthy participants learn a series of word pairs. The subjects were presented with one word and had to either recall or suppress the associated one. When participants suppressed thoughts, brain scans detected increased activity in part of the PFC and reduced activity in the hippocampus. The findings, ... are consistent with a brain circuit in which a “stop” command from the PFC suppresses hippocampus activity.
"Using magnetic resonance spectroscopy, the team also found that levels of GABA—the main chemical that inhibits signals in the brain—in participants' hippocampi predicted their ability to suppress thoughts. “If you have more GABA to work with, you're better at controlling your thoughts,” Anderson says. In other words, if the PFC contains the mental brake pedal, hippocampal GABA levels are the brake pads that determine how effectively the brain stops.
"The study helps to bridge the gap between molecular neuroscience and human behavior—and how the process goes awry in disease. “It's a great step,” says neuroscientist Brendan Depue of the University of Louisville, who was not involved in the work. “The next step is to do a drug study,” Anderson says. “Could we make people better [at suppressing thoughts] by giving them drugs that enhance GABA?'”
Comment: this study looks at the s/s/c brain interface and shows the brain can stop unwanted thought. It looks as if the brain and the s/s/c are equal partners if the brain can reject thought it does not want to work with.
Big brain evolution: brakes on thought found
QUOTE: "The study helps to bridge the gap between molecular neuroscience and human behavior—and how the process goes awry in disease. “It's a great step,” says neuroscientist Brendan Depue of the University of Louisville, who was not involved in the work. “The next step is to do a drug study,” Anderson says. “Could we make people better [at suppressing thoughts] by giving them drugs that enhance GABA?'”
DAVID’s comment: this study looks at the s/s/c brain interface and shows the brain can stop unwanted thought. It looks as if the brain and the s/s/c are equal partners if the brain can reject thought it does not want to work with.
The study makes no mention of a s/s/c, and is not concerned with the origin of thought but only with material influences on thought and behaviour. The effects of disease and of drugs are both evidence for materialism.
Big brain evolution: brakes on thought found
by David Turell , Saturday, April 14, 2018, 15:25 (2198 days ago) @ dhw
QUOTE: "The study helps to bridge the gap between molecular neuroscience and human behavior—and how the process goes awry in disease. “It's a great step,” says neuroscientist Brendan Depue of the University of Louisville, who was not involved in the work. “The next step is to do a drug study,” Anderson says. “Could we make people better [at suppressing thoughts] by giving them drugs that enhance GABA?'”
DAVID’s comment: this study looks at the s/s/c brain interface and shows the brain can stop unwanted thought. It looks as if the brain and the s/s/c are equal partners if the brain can reject thought it does not want to work with.
dhw: The study makes no mention of a s/s/c, and is not concerned with the origin of thought but only with material influences on thought and behaviour. The effects of disease and of drugs are both evidence for materialism.
What is thought but evidence of an s/s/c at work?
Big brain evolution: brakes on thought found
DAVID’s comment: this study looks at the s/s/c brain interface and shows the brain can stop unwanted thought. It looks as if the brain and the s/s/c are equal partners if the brain can reject thought it does not want to work with.
dhw: The study makes no mention of a s/s/c, and is not concerned with the origin of thought but only with material influences on thought and behaviour. The effects of disease and of drugs are both evidence for materialism.
DAVID: What is thought but evidence of an s/s/c at work?
I’m afraid we will have to break our s/s/c down to its components: self/soul/consciousness. Thought is evidence of self and consciousness, but materialists argue that the source of thought and consciousness is material (the brain), whereas dualists argue that the source is an immaterial soul. Nice try, though!
Big brain evolution: brakes on thought found
by David Turell , Sunday, April 15, 2018, 16:12 (2197 days ago) @ dhw
DAVID’s comment: this study looks at the s/s/c brain interface and shows the brain can stop unwanted thought. It looks as if the brain and the s/s/c are equal partners if the brain can reject thought it does not want to work with.
dhw: The study makes no mention of a s/s/c, and is not concerned with the origin of thought but only with material influences on thought and behaviour. The effects of disease and of drugs are both evidence for materialism.
DAVID: What is thought but evidence of an s/s/c at work?
dhw: I’m afraid we will have to break our s/s/c down to its components: self/soul/consciousness. Thought is evidence of self and consciousness, but materialists argue that the source of thought and consciousness is material (the brain), whereas dualists argue that the source is an immaterial soul. Nice try, though!
I think about it differently. Surprise! I view the study as indicating how intimately the brain and s/s/c are interfaced. The origin of thought is the soul, but part of the soul may not like an unwanted thought that appears, and uses a section of the brain to counter it. This implies the soul doesn't exert complete control on thinking if an unpleasant thought appears, but that is exactly what we experience in life.
Big brain evolution: brakes on thought found
DAVID: What is thought but evidence of an s/s/c at work?
dhw: I’m afraid we will have to break our s/s/c down to its components: self/soul/consciousness. Thought is evidence of self and consciousness, but materialists argue that the source of thought and consciousness is material (the brain), whereas dualists argue that the source is an immaterial soul. Nice try, though!
DAVID: I think about it differently. Surprise! I view the study as indicating how intimately the brain and s/s/c are interfaced. The origin of thought is the soul, but part of the soul may not like an unwanted thought that appears, and uses a section of the brain to counter it. This implies the soul doesn't exert complete control on thinking if an unpleasant thought appears, but that is exactly what we experience in life.
I really don’t know how the soul can “use” the brain to argue with itself and to ensure that it loses the argument. However, you have raised a challenging issue. In most cases, the dualist’s division is clear: a thought (originating in the soul) needs expressing or implementing (done by the brain). But what happens when the soul has conflicting thoughts, e.g. I want to do this, but I know I shouldn’t? (The same applies during NDEs, when the brainless patient doesn’t want to go back but is told to do so.) The dualistic inference of this particular study seems to be that in life, every thought triggers chemical responses in the brain; the materialistic inference seems to be that every thought is caused by chemical actions in the brain. Once again we have an apparently irreconcilable dichotomy, with evidence for and against both schools of thought.
Big brain evolution: brakes on thought found
by David Turell , Monday, April 16, 2018, 15:17 (2196 days ago) @ dhw
DAVID: What is thought but evidence of an s/s/c at work?
dhw: I’m afraid we will have to break our s/s/c down to its components: self/soul/consciousness. Thought is evidence of self and consciousness, but materialists argue that the source of thought and consciousness is material (the brain), whereas dualists argue that the source is an immaterial soul. Nice try, though!
DAVID: I think about it differently. Surprise! I view the study as indicating how intimately the brain and s/s/c are interfaced. The origin of thought is the soul, but part of the soul may not like an unwanted thought that appears, and uses a section of the brain to counter it. This implies the soul doesn't exert complete control on thinking if an unpleasant thought appears, but that is exactly what we experience in life.
dhw: I really don’t know how the soul can “use” the brain to argue with itself and to ensure that it loses the argument. However, you have raised a challenging issue. In most cases, the dualist’s division is clear: a thought (originating in the soul) needs expressing or implementing (done by the brain). But what happens when the soul has conflicting thoughts, e.g. I want to do this, but I know I shouldn’t? (The same applies during NDEs, when the brainless patient doesn’t want to go back but is told to do so.) The dualistic inference of this particular study seems to be that in life, every thought triggers chemical responses in the brain; the materialistic inference seems to be that every thought is caused by chemical actions in the brain. Once again we have an apparently irreconcilable dichotomy, with evidence for and against both schools of thought.
This issue is why we have crossed swords or words. The s/s/c and brain are locked together and what science studies is where the s/s/c is specifically expressed.
Big brain evolution: brain size and intelligence
dhw: […] Even to you it now seems “obvious” that if the immaterial self exists, IN LIFE it does the thinking and the brain does the implementing. It should therefore be equally obvious that if your form of dualism is correct, IN LIFE there is no need for the brain to expand or complexify before the immaterial self comes up with new immaterial thoughts. It needs to expand or complexify in order to implement the new immaterial thoughts, as proven by modern science (with sapiens shrinkage probably the result of efficient complexification). […]
DAVID: The point we disagree upon is brain complexity in life in this way: since the s/s/c must interface with the brain and rely upon it to functionally think, only a more complex brain allows more advanced thought.
What does “functionally think” mean? In life the s/s/c thinks and relies on the brain to implement its thoughts, as you stated quite explicitly: “the obvious dualism of material brain and immaterial personality/thoughts implemented to appear through the work of the brain.” You keep agreeing and then trying to disagree through obfuscation. According to your dualistic beliefs, only a more complex brain allows implementation of more advanced thought. Modern science shows that the brain changes in response to implementation and not before it.
DAVID: Thus only a larger brain with an expanded thought area (prefrontal cortex) allows for the development of highly complex concepts, as proven by the artifacts at each level of brain complexity in earlier hominin fossils.
The artefacts are the material implementation of the immaterial thoughts. If you wish to argue that the pfc PRODUCES the concepts/thoughts, you are once again embracing materialism, which may be correct but is not what you profess to believe.
DAVID: The history of sapiens is compatible with my approach: we are present for 315,000 years with big brains, but have only learned how to use them in extreme complexity (as shown by our artifacts) in the past 10,000 years. If our most previous ancestors had 'immaterial thoughts' that required expansion (your 'push' concept) why was there a delay of 305,000 years for those thoughts to appear and be implemented?
We have dealt with this over and over again. We don’t know what concept caused the final expansion. We only know that the skull stopped expanding x years ago (the figure seems to change from one post to another). Our immediate ancestors did not think the thoughts we thought ten thousand years ago! They thought the thoughts that caused the final expansion. From then on, new concepts required additional complexification (probably resulting in overall shrinkage) or restricted expansion. It takes individuals to come up with new ideas. For 305,000 years, things carried on without any major advance – just as they had done for hundreds of thousands of years with the non-advancing species that preceded sapiens (a fact which you like to ignore). Then 10,000 years ago along came the geniuses with new ideas that mushroomed into the civilizations (so-called) that we know today.
Big brain evolution: brain size and intelligence
by David Turell , Saturday, April 14, 2018, 21:29 (2197 days ago) @ dhw
DAVID: The point we disagree upon is brain complexity in life in this way: since the s/s/c must interface with the brain and rely upon it to functionally think, only a more complex brain allows more advanced thought.
dhw: What does “functionally think” mean? In life the s/s/c thinks and relies on the brain to implement its thoughts, as you stated quite explicitly: “the obvious dualism of material brain and immaterial personality/thoughts implemented to appear through the work of the brain.” You keep agreeing and then trying to disagree through obfuscation. According to your dualistic beliefs, only a more complex brain allows implementation of more advanced thought. Modern science shows that the brain changes in response to implementation and not before it.
First, in life the s/s/c cannot think without being attached to the brain. That is not obfuscation, but fact. You keep trying to portray the s/s/c that can function on its own as a totally separate actor in life. Not so, as we have both agreed. Modern science studies an already established human brain of very large prefrontal and frontal cortical size, and doesn't tell us, in any way, how it arrived at that end point. In general we do know that the current human brain is smaller than those of 100,000+ years ago whuile developing much m ore complex use. The Neanderthal brain was bigger in size, and they didn't survive, although we are coming to realize they had more aesthetic ability than we first thought. .
DAVID: Thus only a larger brain with an expanded thought area (prefrontal cortex) allows for the development of highly complex concepts, as proven by the artifacts at each level of brain complexity in earlier hominin fossils.dhw: The artefacts are the material implementation of the immaterial thoughts. If you wish to argue that the pfc PRODUCES the concepts/thoughts, you are once again embracing materialism, which may be correct but is not what you profess to believe.
You know full well that the s/s/c uses the pfc to produce concepts and thoughts during life.
DAVID: The history of sapiens is compatible with my approach: we are present for 315,000 years with big brains, but have only learned how to use them in extreme complexity (as shown by our artifacts) in the past 10,000 years. If our most previous ancestors had 'immaterial thoughts' that required expansion (your 'push' concept) why was there a delay of 305,000 years for those thoughts to appear and be implemented?dhw: We have dealt with this over and over again. We don’t know what concept caused the final expansion. We only know that the skull stopped expanding x years ago .... Our immediate ancestors did not think the thoughts we thought ten thousand years ago!They thought the thoughts that caused the final expansion.
The bold is your 'push enlargement' hypothesis stated as fact. While all we know is shrinkage in size of the human brain, while its use is vastly increased, which you admit:
dhw: From then on, new concepts required additional complexification (probably resulting in overall shrinkage) or restricted expansion.
Can't avoid that point
dhw: It takes individuals to come up with new ideas. For 305,000 years, things carried on without any major advance – just as they had done for hundreds of thousands of years with the non-advancing species that preceded sapiens (a fact which you like to ignore).
I've not ignored the point at all. I've pointed out in the past that early humans only had 'survival skills'. They managed fire in their caves and wore animal skins for covering, not much different than H. heidelbergensis. So heidelbergensis did not think up a larger brain, as you keep declaring.
Big brain evolution: brain size and intelligence
DAVID: First, in life the s/s/c cannot think without being attached to the brain. That is not obfuscation, but fact. You keep trying to portray the s/s/c that can function on its own as a totally separate actor in life. Not so, as we have both agreed.
The obfuscation was that the s/s/c relied on the brain to “functionally think”, when you keep agreeing (but then disagreeing) that the s/s/c does the thinking while the brain functions as the implementer of those thoughts. The only total separation talked of in these discussions is your belief that the s/s/c which interacts with the brain in life can continue to think, feel, remember, observe and take decisions when there is no brain to interact with. That is why dualists normally believe that in life the s/s/c and brain interact in a process which you yourself summed up as: “the obvious dualism of material brain and immaterial personality/thoughts implemented to appear through the work of the brain.” Of course in life they function together, but the dualist s/s/c’s immaterial thoughts and concepts precede implementation and therefore do not depend on the size of the brain. As you say, that is “obvious dualism”.
DAVID: Modern science studies an already established human brain of very large prefrontal and frontal cortical size, and doesn't tell us, in any way, how it arrived at that end point.
Agreed.That is why there are different hypotheses.
DAVID: Thus only a larger brain with an expanded thought area (prefrontal cortex) allows for the development of highly complex concepts, as proven by the artifacts at each level of brain complexity in earlier hominin fossils.
dhw: The artefacts are the material implementation of the immaterial thoughts. If you wish to argue that the pfc PRODUCES the concepts/thoughts, you are once again embracing materialism, which may be correct but is not what you profess to believe.
DAVID: You know full well that the s/s/c uses the pfc to produce concepts and thoughts during life.
No I don’t. As above, if I were a dualist and believed that a conscious, thinking s/s/c survived the death of the pfc, the “obvious dualism” would be that the s/s/c was responsible for producing concepts and thoughts during life, and used the pfc and the rest of the brain to provide information and – as you keep agreeing – to implement its thoughts. I remain on the fence between dualism and materialism.
DAVID: If our most previous ancestors had 'immaterial thoughts' that required expansion (your 'push' concept) why was there a delay of 305,000 years for those thoughts to appear and be implemented?
dhw: Our immediate ancestors did not think the thoughts we thought ten thousand years ago! They thought the thoughts that caused the final expansion.
DAVID: The bold is your 'push enlargement' hypothesis stated as fact. While all we know is shrinkage in size of the human brain, while its use is vastly increased, which you admit…
All we know is not shrinkage. We know that the modern brain responds to new concepts by complexifying and by partially expanding within the given limits of the skull (and I suggest that shrinkage is merely a by-product of efficient complexification). You had mistakenly argued that my hypothesis meant our immediate ancestors had thought all our modern thoughts but we waited 305,000 years to implement them. I corrected this misunderstanding. But yes, it’s all a hypothesis and not a fact.
dhw: It takes individuals to come up with new ideas. For 305,000 years, things carried on without any major advance – just as they had done for hundreds of thousands of years with the non-advancing species that preceded sapiens (a fact which you like to ignore).
DAVID: I've not ignored the point at all. I've pointed out in the past that early humans only had 'survival skills'. They managed fire in their caves and wore animal skins for covering, not much different than H. heidelbergensis. So heidelbergensis did not think up a larger brain, as you keep declaring.
You keep on about the “delay” of 305,000 years. I explain it by pointing out that just like pre-sapiens, sapiens survived perfectly well with what he had – as you have just confirmed. It takes special minds to come up with innovations. Nobody “thinks up” larger brains. My hypothesis is that early brains expanded when existing brains did not have the capacity to implement new concepts. We don’t know what concepts would have triggered expansion, but new ideas for artefacts are one possibility.
Big brain evolution: brain size and intelligence
by David Turell , Sunday, April 15, 2018, 18:57 (2197 days ago) @ dhw
dhw: Of course in life they function together, but the dualist s/s/c’s immaterial thoughts and concepts precede implementation and therefore do not depend on the size of the brain. As you say, that is “obvious dualism”.
DAVID: Modern science studies an already established human brain of very large prefrontal and frontal cortical size, and doesn't tell us, in any way, how it arrived at that end point.
dhw: Agreed.That is why there are different hypotheses.
DAVID: Thus only a larger brain with an expanded thought area (prefrontal cortex) allows for the development of highly complex concepts, as proven by the artifacts at each level of brain complexity in earlier hominin fossils.
dhw: The artefacts are the material implementation of the immaterial thoughts. If you wish to argue that the pfc PRODUCES the concepts/thoughts, you are once again embracing materialism, which may be correct but is not what you profess to believe.
DAVID: You know full well that the s/s/c uses the pfc to produce concepts and thoughts during life.
dhw: No I don’t. As above, if I were a dualist and believed that a conscious, thinking s/s/c survived the death of the pfc, the “obvious dualism” would be that the s/s/c was responsible for producing concepts and thoughts during life, and used the pfc and the rest of the brain to provide information and – as you keep agreeing – to implement its thoughts. I remain on the fence between dualism and materialism.
DAVID: If our most previous ancestors had 'immaterial thoughts' that required expansion (your 'push' concept) why was there a delay of 305,000 years for those thoughts to appear and be implemented?
dhw: Our immediate ancestors did not think the thoughts we thought ten thousand years ago! They thought the thoughts that caused the final expansion.
DAVID: The bold is your 'push enlargement' hypothesis stated as fact. While all we know is shrinkage in size of the human brain, while its use is vastly increased, which you admit…dhw: All we know is not shrinkage. We know that the modern brain responds to new concepts by complexifying and by partially expanding within the given limits of the skull (and I suggest that shrinkage is merely a by-product of efficient complexification).
Not true. Shrinkage is a major effect of modern thought/concepts appearing as I have previously presented:
http://discovermagazine.com/2010/sep/25-modern-humans-smart-why-brain-shrinking
" Over the past 20,000 years, the average volume of the human male brain has decreased from 1,500 cubic centimeters to 1,350 cc, losing a chunk the size of a tennis ball. The female brain has shrunk by about the same proportion. “I’d call that major downsizing in an evolutionary eyeblink,” he says. “This happened in China, Europe, Africa—everywhere we look.'”
***
"The Homo sapiens with the biggest brains lived 20,000 to 30,000 years ago in Europe. Called the Cro-Magnons, they had barrel chests and huge, jutting jaws with enormous teeth. Consequently, their large brains have often been attributed to brawniness rather than brilliance. In support of that claim, one widely cited study found that the ratio of brain volume to body mass—commonly referred to as the encephalization quotient, or EQ—was the same for Cro-Magnons as it is for us. On that basis, Stringer says, our ancestors were presumed to have the same raw cognitive horsepower."
Comment: As we developed complex modern thinking our brains are much smaller.
dhw: My hypothesis is that early brains expanded when existing brains did not have the capacity to implement new concepts. We don’t know what concepts would have triggered expansion, but new ideas for artefacts are one possibility.
Doesn't fit the discussion in the article.
Big brain evolution: brain size and intelligence
dhw: All we know is not shrinkage. We know that the modern brain responds to new concepts by complexifying and by partially expanding within the given limits of the skull (and I suggest that shrinkage is merely a by-product of efficient complexification).
DAVID: Not true. Shrinkage is a major effect of modern thought/concepts appearing as I have previously presented:
http://discovermagazine.com/2010/sep/25-modern-humans-smart-why-brain-shrinking
I have not denied shrinkage! I have pointed out that modern science has also shown complexification and limited expansion. I’m surprised that you ignore all the other points raised in my post concerning the “obvious” form of dualism that you outlined, whereby in dualism the soul thinks and the brain gathers information and implements the thoughts. And modern science confirms that the implementation of concepts changes the brain – the brain does not change in anticipation of new concepts. Presumably you now accept all this. Thank you.
As regards shrinkage, the article makes it clear that nobody knows why the brain has shrunk. The different theories include the following:
“As the brain shrank, its wiring became more efficient, transforming us into quicker, more agile thinkers.”
That is almost the same as my proposal, except that in mine it is the efficiency of the complexification process (rewiring) that reduced the need for many existing cells and connections, i.e. efficient wiring CAUSED the shrinkage. I’m surprised the author hasn’t thought of this.
dhw: My hypothesis is that early brains expanded when existing brains did not have the capacity to implement new concepts. We don’t know what concepts would have triggered expansion, but new ideas for artefacts are one possibility.
DAVID: Doesn't fit the discussion in the article.
The article does not discuss pre-sapiens expansion, or the processes whereby immaterial thought is expressed or implemented by the brain. Nor does it deny that the implementation of concepts causes complexification and limited expansion in the brain, as proven by modern science and in contrast to your claim that the brain has to expand before it can come up with new concepts. The article is only concerned with possible causes of shrinkage over the last 20,000 years (i.e. since, according to you, human thought started taking such giant strides). As shrinkage is so important to you, perhaps you should explain why you object to my explanation, and then give us your own.
Big brain evolution: brain size and intelligence
by David Turell , Monday, April 16, 2018, 15:39 (2196 days ago) @ dhw
dhw: All we know is not shrinkage. We know that the modern brain responds to new concepts by complexifying and by partially expanding within the given limits of the skull (and I suggest that shrinkage is merely a by-product of efficient complexification).
DAVID: Not true. Shrinkage is a major effect of modern thought/concepts appearing as I have previously presented:
http://discovermagazine.com/2010/sep/25-modern-humans-smart-why-brain-shrinkingdhw: I have not denied shrinkage! I have pointed out that modern science has also shown complexification and limited expansion. I’m surprised that you ignore all the other points raised in my post concerning the “obvious” form of dualism that you outlined, whereby in dualism the soul thinks and the brain gathers information and implements the thoughts. And modern science confirms that the implementation of concepts changes the brain – the brain does not change in anticipation of new concepts. Presumably you now accept all this. Thank you.
You keep forgetting I posit that God enlarges the rain in anticipation of each advance in human form from Lucy to erectus to us.
dhw: As regards shrinkage, the article makes it clear that nobody knows why the brain has shrunk. The different theories include the following:
“As the brain shrank, its wiring became more efficient, transforming us into quicker, more agile thinkers.”
dhw: That is almost the same as my proposal, except that in mine it is the efficiency of the complexification process (rewiring) that reduced the need for many existing cells and connections, i.e. efficient wiring CAUSED the shrinkage. I’m surprised the author hasn’t thought of this.
It has been suggested in the literature.
dhw: My hypothesis is that early brains expanded when existing brains did not have the capacity to implement new concepts. We don’t know what concepts would have triggered expansion, but new ideas for artefacts are one possibility.
DAVID: Doesn't fit the discussion in the article.
dhw: The article does not discuss pre-sapiens expansion, or the processes whereby immaterial thought is expressed or implemented by the brain. Nor does it deny that the implementation of concepts causes complexification and limited expansion in the brain, as proven by modern science and in contrast to your claim that the brain has to expand before it can come up with new concepts. The article is only concerned with possible causes of shrinkage over the last 20,000 years (i.e. since, according to you, human thought started taking such giant strides). As shrinkage is so important to you, perhaps you should explain why you object to my explanation, and then give us your own.
Back to God did it. God speciates. The point you have struggled to avoid, but now accept in another thread, is the intimate connection of brain and s/s/c. Advanced thought can only occur in a brain of more advanced complexity. The ability to think of the s/s/c of Lucy could not have been the s/s/c of humans. Immaterial thought complexity is grounded in the material complexity of the brain. My software/hardware view of s/s/c and brain.
Big brain evolution: brain size and intelligence
Dhw (under “brakes on thought”): The dualistic inference of this particular study seems to be that in life, every thought triggers chemical responses in the brain; the materialistic inference seems to be that every thought is caused by chemical actions in the brain. Once again we have an apparently irreconcilable dichotomy, with evidence for and against both schools of thought.
DAVID: This issue is why we have crossed swords or words. The s/s/c and brain are locked together and what science studies is where the s/s/c is specifically expressed.
This is not where we have crossed (s)words. We agree that in dualism s/s/c and brain are locked together, and yes indeed, science studies the workings of the brain. But the unsolved mystery is the source of thought/consciousness. Where we disagree is on your claim that human thought depends on the size of the brain. You claim that on the death of the brain, the “soul” is released and is still able to think, feel, remember, make decisions - though now finding itself in a different, immaterial world. If so, then in life, that must be its FUNCTION within the dualist’s self: it thinks, feels, remembers, makes decisions and uses the brain to gather information and to implement its thoughts. Yes, the dualist’s soul and brain are inseparable and interdependent during life in the material world, but they perform different FUNCTIONS in this world (see your own software/hardware analogy). My “soul” can conceive of flapping its arms enabling me to fly, but my brain/body cannot implement such a concept. However, my “soul” can conceive of a machine that will enable me to fly, and it will then use the brain to implement that concept. Modern science has shown that the brain changes when implementing new concepts. That is evidence for thought causing brain change (= dualism). Modern science has also shown that chemicals can alter thought processes. That is evidence for materialism. For reasons I cannot fathom, you refuse to recognize this dichotomy both in the findings of modern science and in your own arguments. That is the issue between us.
DAVID: You keep forgetting I posit that God enlarges the rain in anticipation of each advance in human form from Lucy to erectus to us.
A delightful misprint, which might explain why we soaking wet British are so intelligent. But no, your claim has always been that your God enlarged the brain, and only then could pre-humans think of new concepts. This means that the large brain must be the source of the concepts, which is pure materialism. It may be correct, but contradicts your belief in dualism.
Dhw: As shrinkage is so important to you, perhaps you should explain why you object to my explanation [that it is caused by the efficiency of complexification], and then give us your own.
DAVID: Back to God did it. God speciates. The point you have struggled to avoid, but now accept in another thread, is the intimate connection of brain and s/s/c.
I have never denied the intimate connection between thought (by s/s/c) and implementation of thought (by brain). Stop erecting straw men.
DAVID: Advanced thought can only occur in a brain of more advanced complexity. The ability to think of the s/s/c of Lucy could not have been the s/s/c of humans.
You keep repeating that advanced thought depends on an advanced brain, which means that thought depends on the brain, and that is pure materialism, which contradicts your claim to be a dualist. Nobody would claim that Lucy was capable of thinking like sapiens! The evolution of human thought is one of learning. Our ancestors invented primitive killing projectiles, their descendants improved the killing capacity, and now we have projectiles that can obliterate whole countries. Clever us. But is that because we have bigger brains (materialism) or because the s/s/c has built on the knowledge acquired by earlier s/s/c’s, and brains initially expanded and currently complexify in order to implement the new ideas (dualism).
DAVID: Immaterial thought complexity is grounded in the material complexity of the brain. My software/hardware view of s/s/c and brain.
You are a master of obfuscation. What do you mean by “grounded”? Do you mean your soul lives in your brain during life, or do you mean the brain is the source of our thought? Your software/hardware analogy can only mean that the s/s/c is the software which provides the thought, and the brain is the hardware that implements it. The software does not depend on the hardware for its programmes, but only for implementing its programmes. And you still haven’t told us why you object to my explanation of shrinkage, and you still haven’t given us your own explanation.
Big brain evolution: brain size and intelligence
by David Turell , Tuesday, April 17, 2018, 15:44 (2195 days ago) @ dhw
dhw: Modern science has shown that the brain changes when implementing new concepts. That is evidence for thought causing brain change (= dualism). Modern science has also shown that chemicals can alter thought processes. That is evidence for materialism. For reasons I cannot fathom, you refuse to recognize this dichotomy both in the findings of modern science and in your own arguments. That is the issue between us.
The chemicals that affect the brain are controlled by the pituitary gland and the hypothalamus, both intimately connected to the brain, so are all part of the effect of stimuli on the brain. They are more emotional effects than changes due to new thought effects. Of course the materialism of the issue is shown by what happens in the brain.
Dhw: As shrinkage is so important to you, perhaps you should explain why you object to my explanation [that it is caused by the efficiency of complexification], and then give us your own.
My pointing out the shrinkage is that the demonstrated shrinkage is opposite to your view that the desire for implementation of concepts forces a new sized brain to carry that out. What we see is a brain that is able to complexify and shrink 150cc in size while developing complex concepts and carrying them out. I agree with you that it is new complexity.
DAVID: Advanced thought can only occur in a brain of more advanced complexity. The ability to think of the s/s/c of Lucy could not have been the s/s/c of humans.dhw: You keep repeating that advanced thought depends on an advanced brain, which means that thought depends on the brain, and that is pure materialism, which contradicts your claim to be a dualist. Nobody would claim that Lucy was capable of thinking like sapiens! The evolution of human thought is one of learning. Our ancestors invented primitive killing projectiles, their descendants improved the killing capacity, and now we have projectiles that can obliterate whole countries. Clever us. But is that because we have bigger brains (materialism) or because the s/s/c has built on the knowledge acquired by earlier s/s/c’s, and brains initially expanded and currently complexify in order to implement the new ideas (dualism).
Agreed Lucy couldn't think like we do. But remember, 20,000 years ago no one could think like we do, but 150cc smaller brain and the s/s/c have vastly more complex thinking.
DAVID: Immaterial thought complexity is grounded in the material complexity of the brain. My software/hardware view of s/s/c and brain.dhw: You are a master of obfuscation. What do you mean by “grounded”? Do you mean your soul lives in your brain during life, or do you mean the brain is the source of our thought? Your software/hardware analogy can only mean that the s/s/c is the software which provides the thought, and the brain is the hardware that implements it. The software does not depend on the hardware for its programmes, but only for implementing its programmes.
The word 'grounded' confuses you? As built on a solid basis of connectivity. They must work together as you full well know I believe. In life the s/s/c must use the brain to create thought. We go back and forth like a ping pong game.
Big brain evolution: brain size and intelligence
dhw: Modern science has shown that the brain changes when implementing new concepts. That is evidence for thought causing brain change (= dualism). Modern science has also shown that chemicals can alter thought processes. That is evidence for materialism. For reasons I cannot fathom, you refuse to recognize this dichotomy both in the findings of modern science and in your own arguments. That is the issue between us.
DAVID: The chemicals that affect the brain are controlled by the pituitary gland and the hypothalamus, both intimately connected to the brain, so are all part of the effect of stimuli on the brain. They are more emotional effects than changes due to new thought effects. Of course the materialism of the issue is shown by what happens in the brain.
Drugs are also chemicals and can totally change a person’s way of thinking. It is not clear to me whether your final sentence is or is not an acknowledgement of the materialistic/dualistic dichotomy I keep pointing out in the scientific research and in your own insistence that, despite your professed dualism, the s/s/c can only THINK by using the brain except when it hasn’t got a brain to think with. Do you or do you not acknowledge this dichotomy in both contexts?
Dhw: As shrinkage is so important to you, perhaps you should explain why you object to my explanation [that it is caused by the efficiency of complexification], and then give us your own.
DAVID: My pointing out the shrinkage is that the demonstrated shrinkage is opposite to your view that the desire for implementation of concepts forces a new sized brain to carry that out. What we see is a brain that is able to complexify and shrink 150cc in size while developing complex concepts and carrying them out. I agree with you that it is new complexity
Shrinkage is in sapiens, and I keep offering you an explanation for it. My hypothesis of concepts forcing expansion refers to pre-sapiens. Once more, here is my hypothesis step by step:
Pre-sapiens: small brain, new concepts force expansion of brain and skull to implement them.
Sapiens: brain and skull have reached maximum size for comfort. New concepts force complexification and limited expansion of certain areas within given skull size. Efficiency of complexification causes overall shrinkage.
Please explain in equally direct terms what you object to, and please explain what you think is the cause of shrinkage.
DAVID: Agreed Lucy couldn't think like we do. But remember, 20,000 years ago no one could think like we do, but 150cc smaller brain and the s/s/c have vastly more complex thinking.
Yes, we know the modern s/s/c thinks vastly more complex thoughts. I have explained that thought evolves, as generations build on the thoughts of previous generations. Are you now saying that shrinkage has CAUSED the new thoughts?
DAVID: Immaterial thought complexity is grounded in the material complexity of the brain. My software/hardware view of s/s/c and brain.
dhw: What do you mean by “grounded”? Do you mean your soul lives in your brain during life, or do you mean the brain is the source of our thought? Your software/hardware analogy can only mean that the s/s/c is the software which provides the thought, and the brain is the hardware that implements it. The software does not depend on the hardware for its programmes, but only for implementing its programmes.
DAVID: The word 'grounded' confuses you? As built on a solid basis of connectivity. They must work together as you full well know I believe. In life the s/s/c must use the brain to create thought. We go back and forth like a ping pong game.
I have explained the ambiguity of "grounded". Yes, the thinking mechanism must work together with the implementing mechanism in life, in order to give material expression/form to its thoughts. So do you believe that in life you have an immaterial thinking soul (software) which interacts with the material brain (hardware) by using it to gather information and to implement its thoughts? A simple yes or no may end this set of ping pong and we can start the next.
Big brain evolution: brain size and intelligence
by David Turell , Wednesday, April 18, 2018, 20:42 (2193 days ago) @ dhw
DAVID: Of course the materialism of the issue is shown by what happens in the brain.[/i]
dhw: It is not clear to me whether your final sentence is or is not an acknowledgement of the materialistic/dualistic dichotomy I keep pointing out in the scientific research and in your own insistence that, despite your professed dualism, the s/s/c can only THINK by using the brain except when it hasn’t got a brain to think with. Do you or do you not acknowledge this dichotomy in both contexts?
I can only repeat what I believe: in life the immaterial s/s/c cannot think without being attached to the material brain. When the brain is not functional the s/s/c changes its quantum mechanism slightly and exists in an afterlife. Your version of duality is certainly not mine.
DAVID: My pointing out the shrinkage is that the demonstrated shrinkage is opposite to your view that the desire for implementation of concepts forces a new sized brain to carry that out. What we see is a brain that is able to complexify and shrink 150cc in size while developing complex concepts and carrying them out. I agree with you that it is new complexity
dhw: Shrinkage is in sapiens, and I keep offering you an explanation for it. My hypothesis of concepts forcing expansion refers to pre-sapiens. Once more, here is my hypothesis step by step:
Pre-sapiens: small brain, new concepts force expansion of brain and skull to implement them.
Sapiens: brain and skull have reached maximum size for comfort. New concepts force complexification and limited expansion of certain areas within given skull size. Efficiency of complexification causes overall shrinkage.
The only evidence we have about brain activity (shrinkage) is in sapiens but it might just as well apply to all pre-sapiens, since evolution builds on mechanisms of its past.
dhw: Please explain in equally direct terms what you object to, and please explain what you think is the cause of shrinkage.DAVID: Agreed Lucy couldn't think like we do. But remember, 20,000 years ago no one could think like we do, but 150cc smaller brain and the s/s/c have vastly more complex thinking.
dhw: Yes, we know the modern s/s/c thinks vastly more complex thoughts. I have explained that thought evolves, as generations build on the thoughts of previous generations. Are you now saying that shrinkage has CAUSED the new thoughts?
No, brain complexification caused the shrinkage as demonstrated.
DAVID: The word 'grounded' confuses you? As built on a solid basis of connectivity. They must work together as you full well know I believe. In life the s/s/c must use the brain to create thought. We go back and forth like a ping pong game.
dhw: I have explained the ambiguity of "grounded". Yes, the thinking mechanism must work together with the implementing mechanism in life, in order to give material expression/form to its thoughts. So do you believe that in life you have an immaterial thinking soul (software) which interacts with the material brain (hardware) by using it to gather information and to implement its thoughts? A simple yes or no may end this set of ping pong and we can start the next.
Of course, yes. As I have always explained your view of dualism is not mine.
Big brain evolution: brain size and intelligence
DAVID: Of course the materialism of the issue is shown by what happens in the brain.
dhw: It is not clear to me whether your final sentence is or is not an acknowledgement of the materialistic/dualistic dichotomy I keep pointing out in the scientific research and in your own insistence that, despite your professed dualism, the s/s/c can only THINK by using the brain except when it hasn’t got a brain to think with. Do you or do you not acknowledge this dichotomy in both contexts?
DAVID: I can only repeat what I believe: in life the immaterial s/s/c cannot think without being attached to the material brain. When the brain is not functional the s/s/c changes its quantum mechanism slightly and exists in an afterlife. Your version of duality is certainly not mine.
Of course the mechanism would have to change if there is no material brain and no material world for the immaterial s/s/c to interact with! That is not the issue. The issue is your insistence that in life the s/s/c cannot THINK without being attached to the brain. Contrast this with the following exchange at the end of your post:
Dhw: Yes, the thinking mechanism must work together with the implementing mechanism in life, in order to give material expression/form to its thoughts. So do you believe that in life you have an immaterial thinking soul (software) which interacts with the material brain (hardware) by using it to gather information and to implement its thoughts? A simple yes or no may end this set of ping pong and we can start the next.
DAVID: Of course, yes. As I have always explained your view of dualism is not mine.
How can you say yes and then claim that our view of dualism is not the same? Our view is identical! You agree that in life the soul (software) does the thinking and interacts with the brain (hardware), which does the implementing. It is therefore a blatant contradiction for a dualist to argue that THOUGHT depends on the size of the brain. It must be the ability to implement that depends on the size of the brain.
DAVID: My pointing out the shrinkage is that the demonstrated shrinkage is opposite to your view that the desire for implementation of concepts forces a new sized brain to carry that out. What we see is a brain that is able to complexify and shrink 150cc in size while developing complex concepts and carrying them out. I agree with you that it is new complexity
dhw: Shrinkage is in sapiens, and I keep offering you an explanation for it. My hypothesis of concepts forcing expansion refers to pre-sapiens. Once more, here is my hypothesis step by step:
Pre-sapiens: small brain, new concepts force expansion of brain and skull to implement them.
Sapiens: brain and skull have reached maximum size for comfort. New concepts force complexification and limited expansion of certain areas within given skull size. Efficiency of complexification causes overall shrinkage.
DAVID: The only evidence we have about brain activity (shrinkage) is in sapiens but it might just as well apply to all pre-sapiens, since evolution builds on mechanisms of its past.
We are trying to find out why the pre-sapiens brain and skull expanded. We know that the brain changes as it implements new thoughts, and modern activity includes expansion and complexification as well as shrinkage. If evolution builds on mechanisms of its past, it is only logical that pre-sapiens brain-changes also took place through the implementation of new thoughts. Whether it shrunk and complexified as well as expanded is irrelevant, since we are only interested in the cause of expansion.
dhw: Please explain in equally direct terms what you object to, and please explain what you think is the cause of shrinkage.
DAVID: Agreed Lucy couldn't think like we do. But remember, 20,000 years ago no one could think like we do, but 150cc smaller brain and the s/s/c have vastly more complex thinking.
dhw: Yes, we know the modern s/s/c thinks vastly more complex thoughts. I have explained that thought evolves, as generations build on the thoughts of previous generations. Are you now saying that shrinkage has CAUSED the new thoughts?
DAVID: No, brain complexification caused the shrinkage as demonstrated.
Thank you. So you now agree with my hypothesis concerning shrinkage, and you have agreed that the same processes we know today (thought causing brain change) would have applied to pre-sapiens and can therefore explain pre-sapiens’ brain expansion. What are we arguing about?
Big brain evolution: brain size and intelligence
by David Turell , Thursday, April 19, 2018, 17:43 (2193 days ago) @ dhw
Dhw: Yes, the thinking mechanism must work together with the implementing mechanism in life, in order to give material expression/form to its thoughts. So do you believe that in life you have an immaterial thinking soul (software) which interacts with the material brain (hardware) by using it to gather information and to implement its thoughts? A simple yes or no may end this set of ping pong and we can start the next.DAVID: Of course, yes. As I have always explained your view of dualism is not mine.
dhw: How can you say yes and then claim that our view of dualism is not the same? Our view is identical! You agree that in life the soul (software) does the thinking and interacts with the brain (hardware), which does the implementing. It is therefore a blatant contradiction for a dualist to argue that THOUGHT depends on the size of the brain. It must be the ability to implement that depends on the size of the brain.
You are making black white from the facts we have. The only brain we can study is ours. The Cro-Magnon brain from 20,000 years ago was 150 cc larger in the frontal area where thinking takes place. Since then we have complexly civilized with massive concepts and implementations. All of the planning takes place in the front and it shrank from a developing complexity of neuronal connections.
DAVID: The only evidence we have about brain activity (shrinkage) is in sapiens but it might just as well apply to all pre-sapiens, since evolution builds on mechanisms of its past.
We are trying to find out why the pre-sapiens brain and skull expanded. We know that the brain changes as it implements new thoughts, and modern activity includes expansion and complexification as well as shrinkage. If evolution builds on mechanisms of its past, it is only logical that pre-sapiens brain-changes also took place through the implementation of new thoughts. Whether it shrunk and complexified as well as expanded is irrelevant, since we are only interested in the cause of expansion.
dhw: Please explain in equally direct terms what you object to, and please explain what you think is the cause of shrinkage.
DAVID: Agreed Lucy couldn't think like we do. But remember, 20,000 years ago no one could think like we do, but 150cc smaller brain and the s/s/c have vastly more complex thinking.
dhw: Yes, we know the modern s/s/c thinks vastly more complex thoughts. I have explained that thought evolves, as generations build on the thoughts of previous generations. Are you now saying that shrinkage has CAUSED the new thoughts?
DAVID: No, brain complexification caused the shrinkage as demonstrated.dhw: Thank you. So you now agree with my hypothesis concerning shrinkage, and you have agreed that the same processes we know today (thought causing brain change) would have applied to pre-sapiens and can therefore explain pre-sapiens’ brain expansion. What are we arguing about?
Again black is white. The only process that we know about in brain function is shrinkage when operating under intense thought for concepts or planning for implementation. The brain cannot plan for implementation without thought. As for a pre-sapiens making a clay pot, it requires frontal lobe concepts and coordination with the visual area, the motor area, and the cerebellum. What has enlarged since Lucy is primarily the frontal lobes. Designing an airplane is all frontal lobe. Implementation is planning a factory in the frontal lobes! The factory workers use all parts of their brains in working at the factory. So, please define your use of the word 'implementation' as it relates to brain function. For the argument about brain size, it is important to know where thought and actions take place. The s/s/c is compartmentalized in its interface with the brain, a concept you struggle with.
Big brain evolution: brain size and intelligence
DAVID: You are making black white from the facts we have. The only brain we can study is ours. The Cro-Magnon brain from 20,000 years ago was 150 cc larger in the frontal area where thinking takes place. Since then we have complexly civilized with massive concepts and implementations. All of the planning takes place in the front and it shrank from a developing complexity of neuronal connections.
You agree that the dualist’s “soul” does the thinking and the brain does the information gathering and the implementing, and you agree that shrinkage is the result of complexification. And so all you are saying is that the “soul” is situated in the brain (which is where thinking and planning take place). That doesn’t change its function!
dhw: So you now agree with my hypothesis concerning shrinkage, and you have agreed that the same processes we know today (thought causing brain change) would have applied to pre-sapiens and can therefore explain pre-sapiens’ brain expansion. What are we arguing about?
DAVID: Again black is white. The only process that we know about in brain function is shrinkage when operating under intense thought for concepts or planning for implementation.
We know that the brain complexifies and also expands in certain areas AS A RESULT of implementation (illiterate women, musicians, taxi drivers). Why do you persist in limiting brain activity to shrinkage, which is not associated with any particular concept but which you and I agree has been caused by the general efficiency of complexification?
DAVID: The brain cannot plan for implementation without thought. As for a pre-sapiens making a clay pot, it requires frontal lobe concepts and coordination with the visual area, the motor area, and the cerebellum. What has enlarged since Lucy is primarily the frontal lobes. Designing an airplane is all frontal lobe. Implementation is planning a factory in the frontal lobes! The factory workers use all parts of their brains in working at the factory. So, please define your use of the word 'implementation' as it relates to brain function. For the argument about brain size, it is important to know where thought and actions take place. The s/s/c is compartmentalized in its interface with the brain, a concept you struggle with.
Planning is thought, and once again you are talking of WHERE thought and actions take place, but that does not mean the brain does the thinking/planning! As usual, you are dodging the issue of your own dualism. All you are saying is that the thinking "soul" operates within different areas of the implementing brain. You know perfectly well what is meant by implementation, since you gave a model description of it yourself in relation to making the spear. Pre-sapiens “soul” (I am explaining dualism, not taking sides in the dualism v materialism debate) has the concept of a weapon that will kill from a distance. In order to make the weapon, his “soul” must get his brain to direct his body to make the shaft, sharpen the stone, attach the stone to the shaft, and throw the weapon with the required force and accuracy. This, as you point out, involves different parts of the brain. (The “soul” may even adjust its plans as it learns from the material results of implementation. That is all part of the interaction.) As with the examples we know through modern science, these new actions will require changes to the brain. In sapiens the direct changes are not shrinkage but complexification and in some cases limited expansion. Since you propose that the same processes would have taken place earlier in evolution, and since you agree that the “soul” does the thinking and the brain does the implementing, it is logical to propose that the implementing caused expansion in pre-sapiens. It is not logical to propose that the brain had to be expanded BEFORE the new concept could be conceived by the “soul”, since brain changes are known to take place as a RESULT of implementing new concepts, not before the concepts come into existence.
Big brain evolution: brain size and intelligence
by David Turell , Friday, April 20, 2018, 15:26 (2192 days ago) @ dhw
DAVID: You are making black white from the facts we have. The only brain we can study is ours. The Cro-Magnon brain from 20,000 years ago was 150 cc larger in the frontal area where thinking takes place. Since then we have complexly civilized with massive concepts and implementations. All of the planning takes place in the front and it shrank from a developing complexity of neuronal connections.
dhw: You agree that the dualist’s “soul” does the thinking and the brain does the information gathering and the implementing, and you agree that shrinkage is the result of complexification. And so all you are saying is that the “soul” is situated in the brain (which is where thinking and planning take place). That doesn’t change its function!
dhw: So you now agree with my hypothesis concerning shrinkage, and you have agreed that the same processes we know today (thought causing brain change) would have applied to pre-sapiens and can therefore explain pre-sapiens’ brain expansion. What are we arguing about?DAVID: Again black is white. The only process that we know about in brain function is shrinkage when operating under intense thought for concepts or planning for implementation.
dhw: We know that the brain complexifies and also expands in certain areas AS A RESULT of implementation (illiterate women, musicians, taxi drivers). Why do you persist in limiting brain activity to shrinkage, which is not associated with any particular concept but which you and I agree has been caused by the general efficiency of complexification?
DAVID: The brain cannot plan for implementation without thought. As for a pre-sapiens making a clay pot, it requires frontal lobe concepts and coordination with the visual area, the motor area, and the cerebellum. What has enlarged since Lucy is primarily the frontal lobes. Designing an airplane is all frontal lobe. Implementation is planning a factory in the frontal lobes! The factory workers use all parts of their brains in working at the factory. So, please define your use of the word 'implementation' as it relates to brain function. For the argument about brain size, it is important to know where thought and actions take place. The s/s/c is compartmentalized in its interface with the brain, a concept you struggle with.
dhw: Planning is thought, and once again you are talking of WHERE thought and actions take place, but that does not mean the brain does the thinking/planning! As usual, you are dodging the issue of your own dualism. All you are saying is that the thinking "soul" operates within different areas of the implementing brain. You know perfectly well what is meant by implementation, since you gave a model description of it yourself in relation to making the spear. Pre-sapiens “soul” (I am explaining dualism, not taking sides in the dualism v materialism debate) has the concept of a weapon that will kill from a distance. In order to make the weapon, his “soul” must get his brain to direct his body to make the shaft, sharpen the stone, attach the stone to the shaft, and throw the weapon with the required force and accuracy. This, as you point out, involves different parts of the brain. (The “soul” may even adjust its plans as it learns from the material results of implementation. That is all part of the interaction.) As with the examples we know through modern science, these new actions will require changes to the brain. In sapiens the direct changes are not shrinkage but complexification and in some cases limited expansion.
Cro-Magnons are sapiens!!! Their brain was 150 larger! Why are you ignoring a major scientific finding? It is obvious complexification can shrink a brain.
dhw: Since you propose that the same processes would have taken place earlier in evolution, and since you agree that the “soul” does the thinking and the brain does the implementing, it is logical to propose that the implementing caused expansion in pre-sapiens. It is not logical to propose that the brain had to be expanded BEFORE the new concept could be conceived by the “soul”, since brain changes are known to take place as a RESULT of implementing new concepts, not before the concepts come into existence.
Cro-Magnons show advanced thought shrinks a brain, not the opposite effect.
Big brain evolution: brain size and intelligence
DAVID: The brain cannot plan for implementation without thought. So, please define your use of the word 'implementation' as it relates to brain function. For the argument about brain size, it is important to know where thought and actions take place. The s/s/c is compartmentalized in its interface with the brain, a concept you struggle with.
dhw: Planning is thought, and once again you are talking of WHERE thought and actions take place, but that does not mean the brain does the thinking/planning! As usual, you are dodging the issue of your own dualism. All you are saying is that the thinking "soul" operates within different areas of the implementing brain. You know perfectly well what is meant by implementation, since you gave a model description of it yourself in relation to making the spear. [I repeated the details.] As with the examples we know through modern science, these new actions will require changes to the brain. In sapiens the direct changes are not shrinkage but complexification and in some cases limited expansion.
DAVID: Cro-Magnons are sapiens!!! Their brain was 150 larger! Why are you ignoring a major scientific finding? It is obvious complexification can shrink a brain.
First you say the brain does the planning (as if planning was not thought), you give the soul a location as if that negated its function as the source of thought, then you ask me to define implementation, which I do, and now you ignore all that to tell me what I have been telling you for months: we know the brain of sapiens has shrunk, and I am the one who has proposed that the shrinkage is due to the efficiency of complexification!
DAVID: Cro-Magnons show advanced thought shrinks a brain, not the opposite effect.
Cro-Magnons show that over the last x thousand years, the sapiens’ brain has shrunk. You have just agreed that it is material complexification (not immaterial thought) that shrinks the brain, and complexification, as modern science has demonstrated, is caused by IMPLEMENTATION of thought. But by focusing on shrinkage, you are ignoring the whole context of our discussion, and so yet again let me try to summarize the context and the sequence from expansion to shrinkage:
1 Facts: a) pre-sapiens’ brain expanded; b) sapiens’ brain has shrunk; c) implementation of thought causes brain changes (complexification and limited expansion) in sapiens; d) sapiens’ thought has made major advances during the last x thousand years.
2 You agree a) that in dualism the “soul” (software) does the thinking and interacts with the brain/body (hardware), which does the implementing; b) complexification has caused shrinkage in sapiens.
3 dhw’s dualistic hypothesis: a) pre-sapiens “soul” thinks up new concept; implementation of concept requires additional brain cells and connections. Brain expands; b) brain/skull reach maximum practical size in sapiens; “soul’s” thoughts now implemented by complexification and limited expansion of particular sections; c) process of complexification so efficient that sapiens’ brain no longer needs certain cells and connections, and shrinks.
4 All advances in thought must begin with individuals. Every stage in pre-sapiens human evolution continued for hundreds of thousands of years without significant advances until someone came up with new ideas which required brain change (expansion). Sapiens continued for hundreds of thousands of years until someone came up with new ideas which required brain change (see 3 b and c). The pattern is consistent.
Please tell us what you object to.
Big brain evolution: brain size and intelligence
by David Turell , Saturday, April 21, 2018, 15:42 (2191 days ago) @ dhw
dhw: First you say the brain does the planning (as if planning was not thought), you give the soul a location as if that negated its function as the source of thought, then you ask me to define implementation, which I do, and now you ignore all that to tell me what I have been telling you for months: we know the brain of sapiens has shrunk, and I am the one who has proposed that the shrinkage is due to the efficiency of complexification!
DAVID: Cro-Magnons show advanced thought shrinks a brain, not the opposite effect.
dhw: Cro-Magnons show that over the last x thousand years, the sapiens’ brain has shrunk. You have just agreed that it is material complexification (not immaterial thought) that shrinks the brain, and complexification, as modern science has demonstrated, is caused by IMPLEMENTATION of thought.
Another misinterpretation of my thought. Our brain shrunk exactly because of new complex intensive immaterial thought, which drove the complexification to cause shrinkage. You cannot separate the two.
dhw: But by focusing on shrinkage, you are ignoring the whole context of our discussion, and so yet again let me try to summarize the context and the sequence from expansion to shrinkage:
1 Facts: a) pre-sapiens’ brain expanded; b) sapiens’ brain has shrunk; c) implementation of thought causes brain changes (complexification and limited expansion) in sapiens; d) sapiens’ thought has made major advances during the last x thousand years.
Not 'limited expansion' but 150cc shrinkage.
dhw: 2 You agree a) that in dualism the “soul” (software) does the thinking and interacts with the brain/body (hardware), which does the implementing; b) complexification has caused shrinkage in sapiens.
Because of intensive new thought/
dhw: 3 dhw’s dualistic hypothesis: a) pre-sapiens “soul” thinks up new concept; implementation of concept requires additional brain cells and connections. Brain expands; b) brain/skull reach maximum practical size in sapiens; “soul’s” thoughts now implemented by complexification and limited expansion of particular sections; c) process of complexification so efficient that sapiens’ brain no longer needs certain cells and connections, and shrinks.
Your theory is some not very complex thought, as compared to ours, in early hominins explodes the brain and with it the skull to larger size. Is this an explanation for speciation?
dhw" 4 All advances in thought must begin with individuals. Every stage in pre-sapiens human evolution continued for hundreds of thousands of years without significant advances until someone came up with new ideas which required brain change (expansion). Sapiens continued for hundreds of thousands of years until someone came up with new ideas which required brain change (see 3 b and c). The pattern is consistent.
Consistent only in your thinking. Pre-sapiens dealt with survival skills, not complex thought. They were little different than the wild animals we see today. The larger brains that appeared with each new advanced species produced more advanced artifacts. Artifacts require planning thought that only a bigger brain could supply through its s/s/c. And then implement the production of them. This pattern is consistent with history.
Big brain evolution: brain size and intelligence
DAVID: Cro-Magnons show advanced thought shrinks a brain, not the opposite effect.
dhw: Cro-Magnons show that over the last x thousand years, the sapiens’ brain has shrunk. You have just agreed that it is material complexification (not immaterial thought) that shrinks the brain, and complexification, as modern science has demonstrated, is caused by IMPLEMENTATION of thought.
DAVID: Another misinterpretation of my thought. Our brain shrunk exactly because of new complex intensive immaterial thought, which drove the complexification to cause shrinkage. You cannot separate the two.
There are three steps and not two. Immaterial complex intensive thought by the dualist’s “soul” is the first step. Material implementation by material complexification of the brain is the second step, the efficiency of which is the direct cause of the third step: material shrinkage. We can observe how the implementation of individual concepts complexifies the brain, but shrinkage has occurred over thousands of years, and so we can only offer a general explanation.The 150 cc shrinkage must have been accumulative, as efficient complexification made some cells and connections redundant.
Dhw: 1 Facts: a) pre-sapiens’ brain expanded; b) sapiens’ brain has shrunk; c) implementation of thought causes brain changes (complexification and limited expansion) in sapiens; d) sapiens’ thought has made major advances during the last x thousand years.
DAVID: Not 'limited expansion' but 150cc shrinkage.
“Limited expansion” refers to the examples of taxi drivers and musicians, where sections of the brain expand owing to special usage – but the expansion remains within the limits of the skull.
dhw: 2 You agree a) that in dualism the “soul” (software) does the thinking and interacts with the brain/body (hardware), which does the implementing; b) complexification has caused shrinkage in sapiens.
DAVID: Because of intensive new thought.
Because of efficient complexification during the implementation of intensive new thought. See above.
dhw: 3 dhw’s dualistic hypothesis: a) pre-sapiens “soul” thinks up new concept; implementation of concept requires additional brain cells and connections. Brain expands; b) brain/skull reach maximum practical size in sapiens; “soul’s” thoughts now implemented by complexification and limited expansion of particular sections; c) process of complexification so efficient that sapiens’ brain no longer needs certain cells and connections, and shrinks.
DAVID: Your theory is some not very complex thought, as compared to ours, in early hominins explodes the brain and with it the skull to larger size. Is this an explanation for speciation?
Why do you insist on comparing degrees of complexity? The advance from bare hands to manufactured weapons and tools was a huge advance in its day, and as you once acknowledged, involved highly complex thinking and physical activity. Use the word “explode” if you like: your theory then is that your God “exploded” the brain, and only then could pre-sapiens’ soul think the complex thoughts enabling him to manufacture weapons/tools. This directly contradicts your dualistic belief that thoughts derive from the soul and not the brain! And yes, if your God speciates by exploding the brain before it can think new thoughts, then the brain exploding through implementation of new thoughts also explains speciation.
dhw" 4 All advances in thought must begin with individuals. Every stage in pre-sapiens human evolution continued for hundreds of thousands of years without significant advances until someone came up with new ideas which required brain change (expansion). Sapiens continued for hundreds of thousands of years until someone came up with new ideas which required brain change (see 3 b and c). The pattern is consistent.
DAVID: Consistent only in your thinking. Pre-sapiens dealt with survival skills, not complex thought. They were little different than the wild animals we see today.
See above for “complex thought”.
DAVID: The larger brains that appeared with each new advanced species produced more advanced artifacts. Artifacts require planning thought that only a bigger brain could supply through its s/s/c. And then implement the production of them. This pattern is consistent with history.
“…thought that only a bigger brain could supply through its s/s/c” is one of your now typical obfuscations. In dualism the brain does not supply thought through anything! You have agreed over and over again that the s/s/c is the supplier of thought. Planning is thought. The material brain implements the immaterial thoughts/plans of the immaterial s/s/c by producing the material object. Concept (thought/plan) precedes implementation of concept. Yes, the larger brains produced the artefacts, but it was the s/s/c that planned them, and we know that brains change through implementation of ideas – they do not change in anticipation of new ideas.
Big brain evolution: brain size and intelligence
by David Turell , Sunday, April 22, 2018, 15:36 (2190 days ago) @ dhw
DAVID: Your theory is some not very complex thought, as compared to ours, in early hominins explodes the brain and with it the skull to larger size. Is this an explanation for speciation?
dhw: Why do you insist on comparing degrees of complexity? The advance from bare hands to manufactured weapons and tools was a huge advance in its day, and as you once acknowledged, involved highly complex thinking and physical activity. Use the word “explode” if you like: your theory then is that your God “exploded” the brain, and only then could pre-sapiens’ soul think the complex thoughts enabling him to manufacture weapons/tools. This directly contradicts your dualistic belief that thoughts derive from the soul and not the brain! And yes, if your God speciates by exploding the brain before it can think new thoughts, then the brain exploding through implementation of new thoughts also explains speciation.
Hands that had a useful thumb required species anatomic changes and learned coordination movements, not the complex thoughts of today. I'll stick to my analogy that the brain is a computer using the s/s/c as software.
DAVID: The larger brains that appeared with each new advanced species produced more advanced artifacts. Artifacts require planning thought that only a bigger brain could supply through its s/s/c. And then implement the production of them. This pattern is consistent with history.dhw: “…thought that only a bigger brain could supply through its s/s/c” is one of your now typical obfuscations. In dualism the brain does not supply thought through anything! You have agreed over and over again that the s/s/c is the supplier of thought. Planning is thought. The material brain implements the immaterial thoughts/plans of the immaterial s/s/c by producing the material object. Concept (thought/plan) precedes implementation of concept. Yes, the larger brains produced the artefacts, but it was the s/s/c that planned them, and we know that brains change through implementation of ideas – they do not change in anticipation of new ideas.
I full well know how the s/s/c interfaces with the brain, and I view the process is that only a more complex brain can permit the s/s/c software to advance to m ore complex thought.
Big brain evolution: brain size and intelligence
DAVID: Your theory is some not very complex thought, as compared to ours, in early hominins explodes the brain and with it the skull to larger size. Is this an explanation for speciation?
dhw: Why do you insist on comparing degrees of complexity? The advance from bare hands to manufactured weapons and tools was a huge advance in its day, and as you once acknowledged, involved highly complex thinking and physical activity. Use the word “explode” if you like: your theory then is that your God “exploded” the brain, and only then could pre-sapiens’ soul think the complex thoughts enabling him to manufacture weapons/tools. This directly contradicts your dualistic belief that thoughts derive from the soul and not the brain! And yes, if your God speciates by exploding the brain before it can think new thoughts, then the brain exploding through implementation of new thoughts also explains speciation.
DAVID: Hands that had a useful thumb required species anatomic changes and learned coordination movements, not the complex thoughts of today. I'll stick to my analogy that the brain is a computer using the s/s/c as software.
I accept your analogy, which you keep agreeing means that the “soul” (software) provides the thought, and uses the brain (hardware) to implements the thought. I don’t know how your response is meant to counter my argument 1) that making and using tools required complex thought and new use of the brain/body, and 2) that if your theory of brain explosion could have led to speciation, then my theory of brain explosion could also have led to speciation.
DAVID: The larger brains that appeared with each new advanced species produced more advanced artifacts. Artifacts require planning thought that only a bigger brain could supply through its s/s/c. And then implement the production of them. This pattern is consistent with history.
dhw: “…thought that only a bigger brain could supply through its s/s/c” is one of your now typical obfuscations. In dualism the brain does not supply thought through anything! You have agreed over and over again that the s/s/c is the supplier of thought. Planning is thought. The material brain implements the immaterial thoughts/plans of the immaterial s/s/c by producing the material object. Concept (thought/plan) precedes implementation of concept. Yes, the larger brains produced the artefacts, but it was the s/s/c that planned them, and we know that brains change through implementation of ideas – they do not change in anticipation of new ideas.
DAVID:I full well know how the s/s/c interfaces with the brain, and I view the process is that only a more complex brain can permit the s/s/c software to advance to more complex thought.
Thought is thought, whether more complex or not. If the source of thought is the “soul”, as you profess to believe, then the complexities of the brain cannot be the source of more complex thought. “Soul” software provides the thought, brain hardware implements it, and if you believe in dualism, no amount of obfuscation can justify the claim that the brain must expand (pre-sapiens) or complexify (sapiens) before the soul can think its thoughts, no matter how simple or complex. That is pure materialism.
Big brain evolution: brain size and intelligence
by David Turell , Monday, April 23, 2018, 18:40 (2189 days ago) @ dhw
DAVID: Hands that had a useful thumb required species anatomic changes and learned coordination movements, not the complex thoughts of today. I'll stick to my analogy that the brain is a computer using the s/s/c as software.
dhw: I accept your analogy, which you keep agreeing means that the “soul” (software) provides the thought, and uses the brain (hardware) to implements the thought. I don’t know how your response is meant to counter my argument 1) that making and using tools required complex thought and new use of the brain/body, and 2) that if your theory of brain explosion could have led to speciation, then my theory of brain explosion could also have led to speciation.
But I insist God speciated the various hominins as their pre-frontal cortex grew and their ability to think increased. You prefer a chance natural growth of brain and skull and change in the female pelvis simultaneously coordinated. Only a planning mind could accomplish that task in the time given for the changes. Your alternative of God given the cell communities the intelligence to do it is still God at work, or haven't you noticed.
DAVID:I full well know how the s/s/c interfaces with the brain, and I view the process is that only a more complex brain can permit the s/s/c software to advance to more complex thought.dhw: Thought is thought, whether more complex or not. If the source of thought is the “soul”, as you profess to believe, then the complexities of the brain cannot be the source of more complex thought. “Soul” software provides the thought, brain hardware implements it, and if you believe in dualism, no amount of obfuscation can justify the claim that the brain must expand (pre-sapiens) or complexify (sapiens) before the soul can think its thoughts, no matter how simple or complex. That is pure materialism.
You separate soul software from brain hardware. I view them as intimately interfaced and inseparable. You must see that the material brain is inseparable from the immaterial soul in life. When will you really accept my analogy as you state above.
Big brain evolution: brain size and intelligence
DAVID: I'll stick to my analogy that the brain is a computer using the s/s/c as software.
dhw: I accept your analogy, which you keep agreeing means that the “soul” (software) provides the thought, and uses the brain (hardware) to implements the thought. I don’t know how your response is meant to counter my argument 1) that making and using tools required complex thought and new use of the brain/body, and 2) that if your theory of brain explosion could have led to speciation, then my theory of brain explosion could also have led to speciation.
DAVID: But I insist God speciated the various hominins as their pre-frontal cortex grew and their ability to think increased. You prefer a chance natural growth of brain and skull and change in the female pelvis simultaneously coordinated. Only a planning mind could accomplish that task in the time given for the changes. Your alternative of God given the cell communities the intelligence to do it is still God at work, or haven't you noticed.
I keep repeating that cellular intelligence may be God-given, or haven’t you noticed? The dispute here is not over God but over your insistence that your God directed every stage of evolution, every lifestyle and every natural wonder, and that he did so in order to produce the sapiens brain. “Chance” is not involved in my proposal. Once the perhaps God-given mechanism is in place, the advances are brought about by the intelligence of the cell communities of which all organisms consist. And if your God speciated by expanding the brain, then expansion of the brain as I propose is the same means of speciation.
DAVID:I full well know how the s/s/c interfaces with the brain, and I view the process is that only a more complex brain can permit the s/s/c software to advance to more complex thought.
dhw: Thought is thought, whether more complex or not. If the source of thought is the “soul”, as you profess to believe, then the complexities of the brain cannot be the source of more complex thought. “Soul” software provides the thought, brain hardware implements it, and if you believe in dualism, no amount of obfuscation can justify the claim that the brain must expand (pre-sapiens) or complexify (sapiens) before the soul can think its thoughts, no matter how simple or complex. That is pure materialism.
DAVID: You separate soul software from brain hardware. I view them as intimately interfaced and inseparable. You must see that the material brain is inseparable from the immaterial soul in life. When will you really accept my analogy as you state above.
I have agreed over and over again that in life they are interfaced and inseparable. You cannot lead a material existence without materials! But over and over again you ignore the fact that your own analogy identifies their different FUNCTIONS. Otherwise what is the point of the analogy? Our organs also form interdependent, interactive parts of a unit, but they perform different functions. So what is the function of the software soul, as opposed to the function of the hardware brain? The one provides the thought, and continues to do so after death if your faith is correct, while the other provides information and produces material implementation of immaterial thought. You keep agreeing, and then trying to disagree by pretending that I don’t accept the fact that they work together.
DAVID’s comment (under “memory at molecular level”): The work of the s/s/c is represented by work at the molecular level. No way to separate the material and the immaterial.
Of course you can’t separate them. The s/s/c does the thinking and the molecules do the implementing. In life you can’t have one without the other. But that does not mean they have the same FUNCTION.
Big brain evolution: brain size and intelligence
by David Turell , Tuesday, April 24, 2018, 17:09 (2188 days ago) @ dhw
DAVID: But I insist God speciated the various hominins as their pre-frontal cortex grew and their ability to think increased. You prefer a chance natural growth of brain and skull and change in the female pelvis simultaneously coordinated. Only a planning mind could accomplish that task in the time given for the changes. Your alternative of God given the cell communities the intelligence to do it is still God at work, or haven't you noticed.dhw: I keep repeating that cellular intelligence may be God-given, or haven’t you noticed? The dispute here is not over God but over your insistence that your God directed every stage of evolution, every lifestyle and every natural wonder, and that he did so in order to produce the sapiens brain. “Chance” is not involved in my proposal. Once the perhaps God-given mechanism is in place, the advances are brought about by the intelligence of the cell communities of which all organisms consist. And if your God speciated by expanding the brain, then expansion of the brain as I propose is the same means of speciation.
Neat sidestep. Your version of God's role is simply a different role for God than I grant Him. Evolution ended up with humans, a most unexpected outcome. If you will agree with me that God did it by whatever mechanism, what are we debating?
DAVID:I full well know how the s/s/c interfaces with the brain, and I view the process is that only a more complex brain can permit the s/s/c software to advance to more complex thought.
DAVID: You separate soul software from brain hardware. I view them as intimately interfaced and inseparable. You must see that the material brain is inseparable from the immaterial soul in life. When will you really accept my analogy as you state above.
dhw: I have agreed over and over again that in life they are interfaced and inseparable. You cannot lead a material existence without materials! But over and over again you ignore the fact that your own analogy identifies their different FUNCTIONS. Otherwise what is the point of the analogy? Our organs also form interdependent, interactive parts of a unit, but they perform different functions. So what is the function of the software soul, as opposed to the function of the hardware brain? The one provides the thought, and continues to do so after death if your faith is correct, while the other provides information and produces material implementation of immaterial thought. You keep agreeing, and then trying to disagree by pretending that I don’t accept the fact that they work together.
I agree they must work together.
DAVID’s comment (under “memory at molecular level”): The work of the s/s/c is represented by work at the molecular level. No way to separate the material and the immaterial.dhw: Of course you can’t separate them. The s/s/c does the thinking and the molecules do the implementing. In life you can’t have one without the other. But that does not mean they have the same FUNCTION.
Of course they have different functions. You seem to object to my reviewing where in the brain the interlocking is required to take place.
Big brain evolution: brain size and intelligence
DAVID: Your alternative of God given the cell communities the intelligence to do it is still God at work, or haven't you noticed.
dhw: I keep repeating that cellular intelligence may be God-given, or haven’t you noticed? The dispute here is not over God but over your insistence that your God directed every stage of evolution, every lifestyle and every natural wonder, and that he did so in order to produce the sapiens brain. “Chance” is not involved in my proposal. Once the perhaps God-given mechanism is in place, the advances are brought about by the intelligence of the cell communities of which all organisms consist. And if your God speciated by expanding the brain, then expansion of the brain as I propose is the same means of speciation.
DAVID: Neat sidestep. Your version of God's role is simply a different role for God than I grant Him. Evolution ended up with humans, a most unexpected outcome. If you will agree with me that God did it by whatever mechanism, what are we debating?
There is no sidestep. I cannot explain how the complexities of life and consciousness came into being, which is why I remain an agnostic. You have quoted me above, and then ignored what you have quoted! What we are debating is not God’s existence, which remains an open question for me, but how evolution works and, if your God exists, what might have been his motives. We are therefore debating two totally different answers to both these questions.
DAVID: You separate soul software from brain hardware. I view them as intimately interfaced and inseparable. You must see that the material brain is inseparable from the immaterial soul in life. When will you really accept my analogy as you state above.
dhw: I have agreed over and over again that in life they are interfaced and inseparable. You cannot lead a material existence without materials! But over and over again you ignore the fact that your own analogy identifies their different FUNCTIONS. Otherwise what is the point of the analogy? Our organs also form interdependent, interactive parts of a unit, but they perform different functions. So what is the function of the software soul, as opposed to the function of the hardware brain? The one provides the thought, and continues to do so after death if your faith is correct, while the other provides information and produces material implementation of immaterial thought. You keep agreeing, and then trying to disagree by pretending that I don’t accept the fact that they work together.
DAVID: I agree they must work together.
So do I, so please stop pretending that I don’t.
DAVID’s comment (under “memory at molecular level”): The work of the s/s/c is represented by work at the molecular level. No way to separate the material and the immaterial.
dhw: Of course you can’t separate them. The s/s/c does the thinking and the molecules do the implementing. In life you can’t have one without the other. But that does not mean they have the same FUNCTION.
DAVID: Of course they have different functions. You seem to object to my reviewing where in the brain the interlocking is required to take place.
I have no objection whatsoever. Since you now agree that in dualism the “soul” functions as the thinker of thoughts and the brain/body as the implementer of thoughts, you have no grounds for your insistence that your God had to expand the pre-sapiens brain before pre-sapiens could think up new concepts.
Big brain evolution: brain size and intelligence
by David Turell , Wednesday, April 25, 2018, 20:28 (2186 days ago) @ dhw
DAVID: Neat sidestep. Your version of God's role is simply a different role for God than I grant Him. Evolution ended up with humans, a most unexpected outcome. If you will agree with me that God did it by whatever mechanism, what are we debating?
dhw: There is no sidestep. I cannot explain how the complexities of life and consciousness came into being, which is why I remain an agnostic. You have quoted me above, and then ignored what you have quoted! What we are debating is not God’s existence, which remains an open question for me, but how evolution works and, if your God exists, what might have been his motives. We are therefore debating two totally different answers to both these questions.
I understand your agnosticism. There is no debate for me that God wanted to produce humans and used evolution to do it. What mechanism beside God could have reasonably accomplished the result we see?
DAVID’s comment (under “memory at molecular level”): The work of the s/s/c is represented by work at the molecular level. No way to separate the material and the immaterial.
dhw: Of course you can’t separate them. The s/s/c does the thinking and the molecules do the implementing. In life you can’t have one without the other. But that does not mean they have the same FUNCTION.
DAVID: Of course they have different functions. You seem to object to my reviewing where in the brain the interlocking is required to take place.dhw: I have no objection whatsoever. Since you now agree that in dualism the “soul” functions as the thinker of thoughts and the brain/body as the implementer of thoughts, you have no grounds for your insistence that your God had to expand the pre-sapiens brain before pre-sapiens could think up new concepts.
Yes, I do. Using my software/hardware analogy, only an complex brain can be the home for complex s/s/c thought. The artifacts show it.
Big brain evolution: memory at molecular level
by David Turell , Monday, April 23, 2018, 19:23 (2189 days ago) @ dhw
Studies at the synapses show somewhat how memory works. Memory is retained thought from the s/s/c:
https://medicalxpress.com/news/2018-04-brain.html
"When we learn the connections between neurons strengthen. Addiction or other neurological diseases are linked to abnormally strong connections. But what does learning look like on the cellular and molecular level? How do our cells change when we learn? Using super-resolution live-cell microscopy, researchers at Thomas Jefferson University zoomed into the connections between neurons that strengthen to discover structural changes that had never been seen before.
***
"Rather than simply seeing bigger connections during learning, which has been observed before, Dr. Dalva and his colleagues found that the molecules involved in sending and receiving the signals between neurons appeared to be organized in clumps or "nanomodules" that both dance and multiply when stimulated by learning-like signals.
"The researchers made their observations using living neurons in real-time, zooming into synapses, the sites of neuronal connection where information is passed from one cell to another to enable learning and other behavior. Dr. Dalva's colleagues visualized the key molecules involved in the neurotransmission from neuron to neuron with two colors, green on sending side (the pre-synaptic side) and red on the receiving side (postsynaptic side).
"The team made a number of surprising observations about the synaptic nanomodules. They saw that the key molecules on the presynaptic side clumped together and tracked, as if linked, to the key molecules clumped on the postsynaptic side. These pre/post molecular clumps or nanomodules appear to have a uniform size. They also multiplied when the neurons were stimulated in a way that mimicked changes in the size of the spines which protrude from neurons to nearly touch at the synapse. And as the number of nanomodules increased, so did the size of the spines. "The key finding is that changes in synaptic strength might be more digital than analog - with same sized units added to change synaptic strength," said Dr. Dalva.
"Another surprise was how the nanomodules behaved when stimulated. "When we activated the neuron with signals that would strengthen the synaptic connection, a non-moving nanomodule would begin to jiggle and move around the synaptic spine, with the pre- and post-synaptic components always in lock step," said first author Dr. Martin Hruska, an Instructor in Dr. Dalva's lab."
Comment: The work of the s/s/c is represented by work at the molecular level. No way to separate the material and the immaterial.
Big brain evolution: learning new tasks
by David Turell , Saturday, April 21, 2018, 21:55 (2190 days ago) @ David Turell
Changing how to do a simple task results in reuse of existing systems of neurons:
https://www.quantamagazine.org/brain-computer-interfaces-show-that-neural-networks-lear...
"The hallmark of intelligence is the ability to learn. As decades of research have shown, our brains exhibit a high degree of “plasticity,” meaning that neurons can rewire their connections in response to new stimuli. But researchers at Carnegie Mellon University and the University of Pittsburgh have recently discovered surprising constraints on our learning abilities. The brain may be highly flexible and adaptive overall, but at least over short time frames, it learns by inefficiently recycling tricks from its neural repertoire rather than rewiring from scratch.
***
"Several years ago, Yu, Aaron Batista of the University of Pittsburgh and members of their labs began using brain-computer interfaces (BCIs) as tools for neuroscience discovery. These devices have a chip roughly the size of a fingernail that can track the electrical activity of 100 neurons at once in the brain’s motor cortex, which controls movement. By monitoring the sequences of voltage spikes that run through the individual neurons over time, a BCI can calculate a “spike rate” to characterize the behavior of each neuron during the performance of a task.
***
"When Yu, Batista and their colleagues monitored the motor cortex of a monkey while it repeatedly performed simple arm-waving tasks, they found that the neurons were not firing independently. Rather, the behavior of the 100 neurons being measured could be described statistically in terms of about 10 neurons, which were variously exciting or inhibiting the others. In the researchers’ analysis, this result showed up as a set of plotted points that filled only a small volume of a 100-dimensional data space.
“'We’ve been calling [that volume] the intrinsic manifold because we think it’s something really intrinsic to the brain,” said Steven Chase, a professor of biomedical engineering at Carnegie Mellon. “The dimensionality of this space is highly predictive of what these neurons can do.”
***
"To find out, the researchers first let primates equipped with BCIs become adept at moving the cursor left and right. Then the team switched the neural activity requirements for moving the cursor and waited to see what new patterns of neural activity, corresponding to new points in the intrinsic manifold, the animals would use to accomplish them.
***
"But to the researchers’ surprise, neither realignment nor rescaling occurred. Instead, the researchers observed a highly inefficient approach called “reassociation.” The animal subjects learned the new tasks simply by repeating the original neural activity patterns and swapping their assignments. Patterns that had previously moved the cursor left now moved it right, and vice versa. “It’s recycling what they used to do,” Golub said, but under new circumstances.
***
"Batista suggests that the changes in the synaptic connections between neurons that would be required for realignment may be too hard to accomplish quickly. “Plasticity must be more limited in the short term than we thought,” he said. “Learning entails forgetting. The brain might be reluctant to let go of things it already knows how to do.”
"Chase likened the motor cortex to an old-fashioned telephone switchboard, with neural connections like cables linking inputs from other cortical areas to outputs in the brain’s cerebellum. During their experiments, he said, the brain “just rearranges all the cables” — though the nuances of what that means are still unknown.
“'The quick-and-dirty strategy is to change the inputs to the cortex,” Yu said. But he also noted that their experiments only tracked the brain’s activity for one or two hours. The researchers can’t yet rule out the possibility that reassociation is a fast interim way for the brain to learn new tasks; over a longer time period, realignment or rescaling might still show up."
Comment: this is a study of the motor cortex only, and it shows the immediate result is re-use of existing neuronal patterns. No size change. The point about possible brain enlargement is that implementation may be planned in the frontal cortex, but must take place elsewhere such as the motor cortex with coordination in the cerebellum. The pre-frontal and frontal cortex (the thinking cortex) are where all the enlargement has taken place from Lucy to us. The motor cortices, the sensory cortices are little changed in size thru evolution, nor is the hypothalamus or cerebellum. Thinking of a new concept and the planning for it is where all the enlargement has taken place. Implementation uses the other areas mentioned. Again to avoid criticism, this is how the s/s/c interfaces with the brain.
Big brain evolution: learning new tasks
DAVID’s comment: this is a study of the motor cortex only, and it shows the immediate result is re-use of existing neuronal patterns. No size change. The point about possible brain enlargement is that implementation may be planned in the frontal cortex, but must take place elsewhere such as the motor cortex with coordination in the cerebellum. The pre-frontal and frontal cortex (the thinking cortex) are where all the enlargement has taken place from Lucy to us. The motor cortices, the sensory cortices are little changed in size thru evolution, nor is the hypothalamus or cerebellum. Thinking of a new concept and the planning for it is where all the enlargement has taken place. Implementation uses the other areas mentioned. Again to avoid criticism, this is how the s/s/c interfaces with the brain.
It’s not clear to me what you are trying to tell us. We know that the implementation of new ideas involves using different parts of the brain. If it is the so-called “thinking cortex” that has expanded most, does that mean the expanding cortex caused our expanded thinking ability (pure materialism), which you reject? Or did our inventive s/s/c make ever greater demands on the pfc as the material control centre, which had to expand in order to send new instructions to the rest of the implementing brain? You only tell us WHERE, not how the s/s/c interfaces with the brain. But perhaps I’ve missed something.
Big brain evolution: learning new tasks
by David Turell , Sunday, April 22, 2018, 15:41 (2190 days ago) @ dhw
DAVID’s comment: this is a study of the motor cortex only, and it shows the immediate result is re-use of existing neuronal patterns. No size change. The point about possible brain enlargement is that implementation may be planned in the frontal cortex, but must take place elsewhere such as the motor cortex with coordination in the cerebellum. The pre-frontal and frontal cortex (the thinking cortex) are where all the enlargement has taken place from Lucy to us. The motor cortices, the sensory cortices are little changed in size thru evolution, nor is the hypothalamus or cerebellum. Thinking of a new concept and the planning for it is where all the enlargement has taken place. Implementation uses the other areas mentioned. Again to avoid criticism, this is how the s/s/c interfaces with the brain.
dhw: It’s not clear to me what you are trying to tell us. We know that the implementation of new ideas involves using different parts of the brain. If it is the so-called “thinking cortex” that has expanded most, does that mean the expanding cortex caused our expanded thinking ability (pure materialism), which you reject? Or did our inventive s/s/c make ever greater demands on the pfc as the material control centre, which had to expand in order to send new instructions to the rest of the implementing brain? You only tell us WHERE, not how the s/s/c interfaces with the brain. But perhaps I’ve missed something.
I'm simply describing whee the brain's control centers do their job. And, yes, the very enlarged pfc allows the s/s/c much more complex thought, following my software/hardware analogy.
Big brain evolution: learning new tasks
dhw: It’s not clear to me what you are trying to tell us. We know that the implementation of new ideas involves using different parts of the brain. If it is the so-called “thinking cortex” that has expanded most, does that mean the expanding cortex caused our expanded thinking ability (pure materialism), which you reject? Or did our inventive s/s/c make ever greater demands on the pfc as the material control centre, which had to expand in order to send new instructions to the rest of the implementing brain? You only tell us WHERE, not how the s/s/c interfaces with the brain. But perhaps I’ve missed something.
DAVID: I'm simply describing where the brain's control centers do their job. And, yes, the very enlarged pfc allows the s/s/c much more complex thought, following my software/hardware analogy.
Back you go to “allows”. Following your analogy, yet again the enlarged pfc/hardware allows for the implementation of the more complex thought produced by the “soul” software. Only a materialist will argue that thought cannot be produced without a brain (and the materialist may be right), and any dualist who believes that the thinking “soul” survives the death of the brain but in life depends on the brain for its ability to think has missed the point of NDEs as evidence for his dualism.
Big brain evolution: learning new tasks
by David Turell , Monday, April 23, 2018, 18:26 (2189 days ago) @ dhw
dhw: It’s not clear to me what you are trying to tell us. We know that the implementation of new ideas involves using different parts of the brain. If it is the so-called “thinking cortex” that has expanded most, does that mean the expanding cortex caused our expanded thinking ability (pure materialism), which you reject? Or did our inventive s/s/c make ever greater demands on the pfc as the material control centre, which had to expand in order to send new instructions to the rest of the implementing brain? You only tell us WHERE, not how the s/s/c interfaces with the brain. But perhaps I’ve missed something.
DAVID: I'm simply describing where the brain's control centers do their job. And, yes, the very enlarged pfc allows the s/s/c much more complex thought, following my software/hardware analogy.
dhw: Back you go to “allows”. Following your analogy, yet again the enlarged pfc/hardware allows for the implementation of the more complex thought produced by the “soul” software. Only a materialist will argue that thought cannot be produced without a brain (and the materialist may be right), and any dualist who believes that the thinking “soul” survives the death of the brain but in life depends on the brain for its ability to think has missed the point of NDEs as evidence for his dualism.
Your usual confusion. The very complex pfc works with the s/s/c to create complex ideas. The s/s/c must use the pfc networks to create the complex concept to implement the active thought to the living person. I'm sure you think in words in your head as I do.If the brain is non-functional in NDE or death, the s/s/c operates differently. We have agreed to all of this in the past.
Big brain evolution: learning new tasks
Dhw: Following your analogy, yet again the enlarged pfc/hardware allows for the implementation of the more complex thought produced by the “soul” software. Only a materialist will argue that thought cannot be produced without a brain (and the materialist may be right), and any dualist who believes that the thinking “soul” survives the death of the brain but in life depends on the brain for its ability to think has missed the point of NDEs as evidence for his dualism.
DAVID: Your usual confusion. The very complex pfc works with the s/s/c to create complex ideas. The s/s/c must use the pfc networks to create the complex concept to implement the active thought to the living person. I'm sure you think in words in your head as I do.If the brain is non-functional in NDE or death, the s/s/c operates differently. We have agreed to all of this in the past.
There is no confusion on my part. Dualism means TWO: one is material and the other immaterial, no matter how interdependent they are, and this two-ness only applies to life. Yes, I think in words (but I also have feelings, which are not words), and they are immaterial until I use my materials to speak them or write them. I don’t know what you mean by “implement the active thought to the living person”. If there is a “soul”, it is the source of the living person’s thought, and interacts with the living person’s material self in order to give material expression or implementation to their thoughts. Of course an immaterial soul in an immaterial world must operate differently but, as you have agreed in the past, you will still be “you” if there is an afterlife. “You” are then your thinking soul and – a point you steadfastly go on ignoring – it is NDEs, i.e. the experience of a separate thinking “you” or “soul”, that provides believers with their evidence for dualism in life, i.e. a thinking “soul” and a materially implementing brain/body.
Big brain evolution: learning new tasks
by David Turell , Tuesday, April 24, 2018, 15:10 (2188 days ago) @ dhw
Dhw: Following your analogy, yet again the enlarged pfc/hardware allows for the implementation of the more complex thought produced by the “soul” software. Only a materialist will argue that thought cannot be produced without a brain (and the materialist may be right), and any dualist who believes that the thinking “soul” survives the death of the brain but in life depends on the brain for its ability to think has missed the point of NDEs as evidence for his dualism.
DAVID: Your usual confusion. The very complex pfc works with the s/s/c to create complex ideas. The s/s/c must use the pfc networks to create the complex concept to implement the active thought to the living person. I'm sure you think in words in your head as I do.If the brain is non-functional in NDE or death, the s/s/c operates differently. We have agreed to all of this in the past.
dhw: There is no confusion on my part. Dualism means TWO: one is material and the other immaterial, no matter how interdependent they are, and this two-ness only applies to life. Yes, I think in words (but I also have feelings, which are not words), and they are immaterial until I use my materials to speak them or write them. I don’t know what you mean by “implement the active thought to the living person”. If there is a “soul”, it is the source of the living person’s thought, and interacts with the living person’s material self in order to give material expression or implementation to their thoughts. Of course an immaterial soul in an immaterial world must operate differently but, as you have agreed in the past, you will still be “you” if there is an afterlife. “You” are then your thinking soul and – a point you steadfastly go on ignoring – it is NDEs, i.e. the experience of a separate thinking “you” or “soul”, that provides believers with their evidence for dualism in life, i.e. a thinking “soul” and a materially implementing brain/body.
I don't ignore NDEs. I don't know where you got that idea. They are the reason I stick firmly to dualism. I agree with your review above. It is my insistence upon identifying how the parts of the brain the s/s/c interacts with that bothers you.
Big brain evolution: learning new tasks
dhw: There is no confusion on my part. Dualism means TWO: one is material and the other immaterial, no matter how interdependent they are, and this two-ness only applies to life. Yes, I think in words (but I also have feelings, which are not words), and they are immaterial until I use my materials to speak them or write them. I don’t know what you mean by “implement the active thought to the living person”. If there is a “soul”, it is the source of the living person’s thought, and interacts with the living person’s material self in order to give material expression or implementation to their thoughts. Of course an immaterial soul in an immaterial world must operate differently but, as you have agreed in the past, you will still be “you” if there is an afterlife. “You” are then your thinking soul and – a point you steadfastly go on ignoring – it is NDEs, i.e. the experience of a separate thinking “you” or “soul”, that provides believers with their evidence for dualism in life, i.e. a thinking “soul” and a materially implementing brain/body.
DAVID: I don't ignore NDEs. I don't know where you got that idea. They are the reason I stick firmly to dualism. I agree with your review above. It is my insistence upon identifying how the parts of the brain the s/s/c interacts with that bothers you.
I didn’t say you ignored NDEs. What you ignore is the fact that they are used as evidence for the existence of TWO components in our living selves: 1) the immaterial “soul”, which is the thinking self and lives on, and 2) the material brain and body which gather information and express or implement thought. I am not in the least bothered by your identifying which parts of the brain the s/s/c interacts with. I am bothered by your insistence that your God had to expand pre-sapiens’ brain before pre-sapiens could come up with new ideas, which means that the soul depends on the brain to be able to think, which in turn directly contradicts the whole basis of your dualism.
Big brain evolution: learning new tasks
by David Turell , Wednesday, April 25, 2018, 20:21 (2186 days ago) @ dhw
dhw: There is no confusion on my part. Dualism means TWO: one is material and the other immaterial, no matter how interdependent they are, and this two-ness only applies to life. Yes, I think in words (but I also have feelings, which are not words), and they are immaterial until I use my materials to speak them or write them. I don’t know what you mean by “implement the active thought to the living person”. If there is a “soul”, it is the source of the living person’s thought, and interacts with the living person’s material self in order to give material expression or implementation to their thoughts. Of course an immaterial soul in an immaterial world must operate differently but, as you have agreed in the past, you will still be “you” if there is an afterlife. “You” are then your thinking soul and – a point you steadfastly go on ignoring – it is NDEs, i.e. the experience of a separate thinking “you” or “soul”, that provides believers with their evidence for dualism in life, i.e. a thinking “soul” and a materially implementing brain/body.
DAVID: I don't ignore NDEs. I don't know where you got that idea. They are the reason I stick firmly to dualism. I agree with your review above. It is my insistence upon identifying how the parts of the brain the s/s/c interacts with that bothers you.
dhw: I didn’t say you ignored NDEs. What you ignore is the fact that they are used as evidence for the existence of TWO components in our living selves: 1) the immaterial “soul”, which is the thinking self and lives on, and 2) the material brain and body which gather information and express or implement thought. I am not in the least bothered by your identifying which parts of the brain the s/s/c interacts with. I am bothered by your insistence that your God had to expand pre-sapiens’ brain before pre-sapiens could come up with new ideas, which means that the soul depends on the brain to be able to think, which in turn directly contradicts the whole basis of your dualism.
Obviously I don't agree with your interpretation of my theories. I am totally aware of what NDE's mean. But I insist that the soul must interface with the brain in life to produce recognizable thoughts: the software/hardware analogy. I am me. You are you. You direct your brain to think as I do. We cannot separate from our brains except in NDE or death. You keep presenting the s/s/c as a totally separate entity from the living brain. It isn't and it is developed as a personality from birth. The s/s/c is structured as a personality unique to each individual. The memory of that structure is carried by the brain. The two are inextricably intertwined in life. Consciousness, as a result, is the HARD problem. You and I have not solved it, as shown by our differing views. Dennett is convinced it is totally an illusion.
I know I initiate thought. I just did and manifested it through my somewhat trained fingers. No monkey can do that with any sense of purpose. I know I made the thought initiated in my prefrontal cortex, which then told my motor cortex what to do. Immaterial thought appeared in this material entry. Obvious dualism.
Big brain evolution: learning new tasks
I am telescoping this thread and the "brain size and intelligence" thread, as they overlap.
DAVID: […] I insist that the soul must interface with the brain in life to produce recognizable thoughts: the software/hardware analogy. I am me. You are you. You direct your brain to think as I do. We cannot separate from our brains except in NDE or death. You keep presenting the s/s/c as a totally separate entity from the living brain.
I do not (except as you do in relation to NDEs) and you know I do not, as was clear from the following exchange made yesterday:
DAVID’s comment (under “memory at molecular level”): The work of the s/s/c is represented by work at the molecular level. No way to separate the material and the immaterial.
dhw: Of course you can’t separate them. The s/s/c does the thinking and the molecules do the implementing. In life you can’t have one without the other. But that does not mean they have the same FUNCTION.
DAVID: Of course they have different functions.
Their different functions are the only separation involved, and you agree. Please stop manufacturing straw men. However, you are still faced with the problem raised in our next exchange.
DAVID: You seem to object to my reviewing where in the brain the interlocking is required to take place.
dhw: I have no objection whatsoever. Since you now agree that in dualism the “soul” functions as the thinker of thoughts and the brain/body as the implementer of thoughts, you have no grounds for your insistence that your God had to expand the pre-sapiens brain before pre-sapiens could think up new concepts.
DAVID: Yes, I do. Using my software/hardware analogy, only an complex brain can be the home for complex s/s/c thought. The artifacts show it.
My objection is to your claim that the soul can’t think new thoughts until it has a bigger/more complex home. Your software/hardware analogy, as you keep agreeing, is software thought and hardware implementation. You can’t have one without the other, but the function of the hardware is to implement the thoughts of the software. The artefacts are the implementations of the soul’s thoughts. You can have your pre-sapiens soul sitting inside the pre-frontal cortex if you like, but it’s sitting there directing the operations of expansion or complexification that will implement its thoughts. It does not sit there waiting for the implemental complexifications and expansions to arrive before it can do its thinking.
DAVID: I know I initiate thought. I just did and manifested it through my somewhat trained fingers. No monkey can do that with any sense of purpose. I know I made the thought initiated in my prefrontal cortex, which then told my motor cortex what to do. Immaterial thought appeared in this material entry. Obvious dualism.
All agreed, but your thinking “I” is your s/s/c. So your s/s/c is sitting in your pfc thinking its thoughts, and then it tells the rest of the brain what to do, and you produce this entry. Thought first, material implementation second. That is indeed how your form of dualism works. And if your sapiens brain were asked to perform a task it had never performed before (e.g. if you were an illiterate person just learning to write) your brain would respond by making new connections or complexifying. It would not make new connections/complexify/expand in anticipation of the new tasks.
Perhaps before replying to all this, you might read my “Theory of Intelligence”, which may help us to move on a little.
Big brain evolution: learning new tasks
by David Turell , Thursday, April 26, 2018, 18:14 (2186 days ago) @ dhw
DAVID: Yes, I do. Using my software/hardware analogy, only an complex brain can be the home for complex s/s/c thought. The artifacts show it.
dhw: My objection is to your claim that the soul can’t think new thoughts until it has a bigger/more complex home. Your software/hardware analogy, as you keep agreeing, is software thought and hardware implementation. You can’t have one without the other, but the function of the hardware is to implement the thoughts of the software. The artefacts are the implementations of the soul’s thoughts. You can have your pre-sapiens soul sitting inside the pre-frontal cortex if you like, but it’s sitting there directing the operations of expansion or complexification that will implement its thoughts. It does not sit there waiting for the implemental complexifications and expansions to arrive before it can do its thinking.
You keep agreeing that the software/hardware analogy fits, but you refuse to recognize that only a complex expanded capacity computer can do complex expanded capacity solutions/concepts.
DAVID: I know I initiate thought. I just did and manifested it through my somewhat trained fingers. No monkey can do that with any sense of purpose. I know I made the thought initiated in my prefrontal cortex, which then told my motor cortex what to do. Immaterial thought appeared in this material entry. Obvious dualism.dhw: All agreed, but your thinking “I” is your s/s/c. So your s/s/c is sitting in your pfc thinking its thoughts, and then it tells the rest of the brain what to do, and you produce this entry. Thought first, material implementation second. That is indeed how your form of dualism works. And if your sapiens brain were asked to perform a task it had never performed before (e.g. if you were an illiterate person just learning to write) your brain would respond by making new connections or complexifying. It would not make new connections/complexify/expand in anticipation of the new tasks.
Once again, you are discussing what we know about the sapiens brain, and forgetting that evolution builds on what was accomplished in the past iterations of progressive species. We do not know that the erectus brain did not have the same plasticity, but perhaps not to the same degree. Recognize that erectus may well have had brain plasticity. It fits what we know.
dhw: Perhaps before replying to all this, you might read my “Theory of Intelligence”, which may help us to move on a little.
It didn't.
Big brain evolution: learning new tasks
DAVID: Using my software/hardware analogy, only an complex brain can be the home for complex s/s/c thought. The artifacts show it.
dhw: My objection is to your claim that the soul can’t think new thoughts until it has a bigger/more complex home. Your software/hardware analogy, as you keep agreeing, is software thought and hardware implementation. You can’t have one without the other, but the function of the hardware is to implement the thoughts of the software. The artefacts are the implementations of the soul’s thoughts. You can have your pre-sapiens soul sitting inside the pre-frontal cortex if you like, but it’s sitting there directing the operations of expansion or complexification that will implement its thoughts. It does not sit there waiting for the implemental complexifications and expansions to arrive before it can do its thinking.
DAVID: You keep agreeing that the software/hardware analogy fits, but you refuse to recognize that only a complex expanded capacity computer can do complex expanded capacity solutions/concepts.
What do you mean by “do”? Only a complex expanded capacity computer brain can implement the new complex concepts that are provided by the software s/s/c. If your computer is working perfectly well with the software you already have, you don’t get a new one. I suggest that the pre-sapiens brain (computer) could not implement the new concepts provided by the s/s/c (software), and so it required additional cells and connections (a computer with a larger capacity).
DAVID: […] I know I made the thought initiated in my prefrontal cortex, which then told my motor cortex what to do. Immaterial thought appeared in this material entry. Obvious dualism.
dhw: All agreed, but your thinking “I” is your s/s/c. So your s/s/c is sitting in your pfc thinking its thoughts, and then it tells the rest of the brain what to do, and you produce this entry. Thought first, material implementation second. That is indeed how your form of dualism works. And if your sapiens brain were asked to perform a task it had never performed before (e.g. if you were an illiterate person just learning to write) your brain would respond by making new connections or complexifying. It would not make new connections/complexify/expand in anticipation of the new tasks.
DAVID: Once again, you are discussing what we know about the sapiens brain, and forgetting that evolution builds on what was accomplished in the past iterations of progressive species. We do not know that the erectus brain did not have the same plasticity, but perhaps not to the same degree. Recognize that erectus may well have had brain plasticity. It fits what we know.
Another of your straw men. I have never suggested that erectus did not have brain plasticity – how else could it have expanded? No doubt it complexified too, until the s/s/c came up with concepts that required a great capacity. You insist that your God provided the greater capacity before it was needed. I propose that the need led to the increased capacity.
Big brain evolution: learning new tasks
by David Turell , Friday, April 27, 2018, 15:28 (2185 days ago) @ dhw
DAVID: You keep agreeing that the software/hardware analogy fits, but you refuse to recognize that only a complex expanded capacity computer can do complex expanded capacity solutions/concepts.
dhw: What do you mean by “do”? Only a complex expanded capacity computer brain can implement the new complex concepts that are provided by the software s/s/c. If your computer is working perfectly well with the software you already have, you don’t get a new one. I suggest that the pre-sapiens brain (computer) could not implement the new concepts provided by the s/s/c (software), and so it required additional cells and connections (a computer with a larger capacity).
A bigger brain requires a bigger skull and a different Mother's pelvic shape, all coordinated at once. Requires design across two sexes. Not by chance.
DAVID: […] I know I made the thought initiated in my prefrontal cortex, which then told my motor cortex what to do. Immaterial thought appeared in this material entry. Obvious dualism.
DAVID: Once again, you are discussing what we know about the sapiens brain, and forgetting that evolution builds on what was accomplished in the past iterations of progressive species. We do not know that the erectus brain did not have the same plasticity, but perhaps not to the same degree. Recognize that erectus may well have had brain plasticity. It fits what we know.dhw: Another of your straw men. I have never suggested that erectus did not have brain plasticity – how else could it have expanded? No doubt it complexified too, until the s/s/c came up with concepts that required a great capacity. You insist that your God provided the greater capacity before it was needed. I propose that the need led to the increased capacity.
And your 'need' might have created whales and all the other strange and wonderful creatures in the bush of life. The brain of humans was never needed for survival; the Darwin view of evolution doesn't fit.
Big brain evolution: learning new tasks
DAVID: You keep agreeing that the software/hardware analogy fits, but you refuse to recognize that only a complex expanded capacity computer can do complex expanded capacity solutions/concepts.
dhw: What do you mean by “do”? Only a complex expanded capacity computer brain can implement the new complex concepts that are provided by the software s/s/c. If your computer is working perfectly well with the software you already have, you don’t get a new one. I suggest that the pre-sapiens brain (computer) could not implement the new concepts provided by the s/s/c (software), and so it required additional cells and connections (a computer with a larger capacity).
DAVID: A bigger brain requires a bigger skull and a different Mother's pelvic shape, all coordinated at once. Requires design across two sexes. Not by chance.
Where have I said it was by chance? The issue between us is whether the pre-sapiens brain expanded before he had his new thoughts, or as a result of his having new thoughts. I have used your own computer analogy to explain the illogicality of your argument, and so you scuttle off to the chance issue. I presume you now accept my argument but are reluctant to say so.
DAVID: Once again, you are discussing what we know about the sapiens brain, and forgetting that evolution builds on what was accomplished in the past iterations of progressive species. We do not know that the erectus brain did not have the same plasticity, but perhaps not to the same degree. Recognize that erectus may well have had brain plasticity. It fits what we know.
dhw: Another of your straw men. I have never suggested that erectus did not have brain plasticity – how else could it have expanded? No doubt it complexified too, until the s/s/c came up with concepts that required a great capacity. You insist that your God provided the greater capacity before it was needed. I propose that the need led to the increased capacity.
DAVID: And your 'need' might have created whales and all the other strange and wonderful creatures in the bush of life. The brain of humans was never needed for survival; the Darwin view of evolution doesn't fit.
Another scuttle to a different path. No multicellular organisms were needed for survival, since single-celled organisms have survived. We are not talking about Darwin. We are talking about the complexification and expansion of the brain, in which I propose that the hardware brain needs to complexify/expand in order to implement new software ideas.
DAVID’s comment (relating to a memory experiment with mice): The study shows how the brain responds to work of the s/s/c in memory formation. When we remember something, we must be able to find where it is stored in the brain. This shows the interdependence of brain and s/s/c.
Yet more evidence that the brain responds to the work of the s/s/c, i.e. changes take place in response to thoughts and not in anticipation of them. And yes indeed, the two are interdependent.
DAVID’s comment (under “Neanderthal brain difference”): This study certainly shows a species can only think with the brain it is given, and more complexity gives more complex concepts.
Yes, it takes the materialist view for granted: that the material brain is the source of concepts. You have once again forgotten that you are a dualist.
Big brain evolution: learning new tasks
by David Turell , Saturday, April 28, 2018, 18:18 (2184 days ago) @ dhw
edited by David Turell, Saturday, April 28, 2018, 18:26
dhw: What do you mean by “do”? Only a complex expanded capacity computer brain can implement the new complex concepts that are provided by the software s/s/c. If your computer is working perfectly well with the software you already have, you don’t get a new one. I suggest that the pre-sapiens brain (computer) could not implement the new concepts provided by the s/s/c (software), and so it required additional cells and connections (a computer with a larger capacity).
DAVID: A bigger brain requires a bigger skull and a different Mother's pelvic shape, all coordinated at once. Requires design across two sexes. Not by chance.dhw: Where have I said it was by chance? The issue between us is whether the pre-sapiens brain expanded before he had his new thoughts, or as a result of his having new thoughts. I have used your own computer analogy to explain the illogicality of your argument, and so you scuttle off to the chance issue. I presume you now accept my argument but are reluctant to say so.
I don't accept your argument. You like to isolate issues without looking at the whole picture that surrounds them. How to go from smaller prefrontal lobe to larger is your nebulous 'push' concept, which just happens because it has to. I go back to design because it is obviously necessary.
DAVID’s comment (under “Neanderthal brain difference”): This study certainly shows a species can only think with the brain it is given, and more complexity gives more complex concepts.
dhw: Yes, it takes the materialist view for granted: that the material brain is the source of concepts. You have once again forgotten that you are a dualist.
Total misinterpretation. The s/s/c uses the brain it is given to have the level of thought complexity allowed. I view the issue as the s/s/c is confined to a level of thought complexity in the brain it is given. You like an s/s/c free as a bird, always thinking what it wants despite the brain. You accept my software/hardware analogy and then totally forget it. A new species is supposed to have new abilities, and that certainly can be a new level of thought as well as new levels of implementation all at once. This thought shows your step wise approach to the jump in pfc size is not appropriate to what we see in evolution.
The central theme of evolution is that tiny improvements in fitness can steadily accumulate resulting in a new species. The unstated assumption (usually) is that the original species was in need of improvement. That is your approach from Darwin. I have not accepted it as causing evolution. God drives the complex advances.
Big brain evolution: learning new tasks
DAVID: A bigger brain requires a bigger skull and a different Mother's pelvic shape, all coordinated at once. Requires design across two sexes. Not by chance.
dhw: Where have I said it was by chance? The issue between us is whether the pre-sapiens brain expanded before he had his new thoughts, or as a result of his having new thoughts. I have used your own computer analogy to explain the illogicality of your argument, and so you scuttle off to the chance issue. I presume you now accept my argument but are reluctant to say so.
DAVID: I don't accept your argument. You like to isolate issues without looking at the whole picture that surrounds them. How to go from smaller prefrontal lobe to larger is your nebulous 'push' concept, which just happens because it has to. I go back to design because it is obviously necessary.
It is not nebulous. We know that the implementation of concepts causes brain changes in sapiens: complexification and limited expansion (with shrinkage probably as a result of efficient complexification). There is no reason to suppose that the same processes did not take place in pre-sapiens, with the brain and skull expanding when their capacity had been exceeded (as in the computer analogy below).
DAVID’s comment (under “Neanderthal brain difference”): This study certainly shows a species can only think with the brain it is given, and more complexity gives more complex concepts.
dhw: Yes, it takes the materialist view for granted: that the material brain is the source of concepts. You have once again forgotten that you are a dualist.
DAVID: Total misinterpretation. The s/s/c uses the brain it is given to have the level of thought complexity allowed. I view the issue as the s/s/c is confined to a level of thought complexity in the brain it is given. You like an s/s/c free as a bird, always thinking what it wants despite the brain. You accept my software/hardware analogy and then totally forget it.
Your software/hardware analogy has the s/s/c doing the thinking and the hardware doing the implementing. When the software presents new concepts, you need to update your hardware. You do not stop producing new software because your computer can’t cope with new ideas. You wrote: “More complexity [of the brain] gives more complex concepts.” More complex hardware does not “give” more complex software.
DAVID: A new species is supposed to have new abilities, and that certainly can be a new level of thought as well as new levels of implementation all at once.
Thank you.
DAVID: This thought shows your step wise approach to the jump in pfc size is not appropriate to what we see in evolution.
You have just agreed that speciation can be the result of new levels of thought and implementation (= a new step) and now you say that is not what we see in evolution!
DAVID: The central theme of evolution is that tiny improvements in fitness can steadily accumulate resulting in a new species.
And now you scuttle back to the small-step gradualism that we have both rejected.
DAVID: The unstated assumption (usually) is that the original species was in need of improvement. That is your approach from Darwin. I have not accepted it as causing evolution. God drives the complex advances.
I have never stated that the original species was “in need of” improvement. I have stated that evolution proceeds through the drive for survival and/or improvement. A land animal may enter the water because that environment may offer improved chances of survival. But its mates may stay on the land and still survive. If it likes the new environment, it may improve its ability to live there by transforming its legs into fins. I don’t know why you find this logical progression so difficult to accept.
Big brain evolution: learning new tasks
by David Turell , Sunday, April 29, 2018, 20:26 (2182 days ago) @ dhw
DAVID: I don't accept your argument. You like to isolate issues without looking at the whole picture that surrounds them. How to go from smaller prefrontal lobe to larger is your nebulous 'push' concept, which just happens because it has to. I go back to design because it is obviously necessary.dhw: It is not nebulous. We know that the implementation of concepts causes brain changes in sapiens: complexification and limited expansion (with shrinkage probably as a result of efficient complexification). There is no reason to suppose that the same processes did not take place in pre-sapiens, with the brain and skull expanding when their capacity had been exceeded (as in the computer analogy below).
Note you are still ignoring the bigger picture. The Mother's pelvis has to change at the same tine for all of this to work.
dhw: Your software/hardware analogy has the s/s/c doing the thinking and the hardware doing the implementing. When the software presents new concepts, you need to update your hardware. You do not stop producing new software because your computer can’t cope with new ideas. You wrote: “More complexity [of the brain] gives more complex concepts.” More complex hardware does not “give” more complex software.
But you haven't recognized that human effort in computers upgrades software and hardware all at once in coordination. God speciates larger brains in the same way.
dhw: You have just agreed that speciation can be the result of new levels of thought and implementation (= a new step) and now you say that is not what we see in evolution!
DAVID: The central theme of evolution is that tiny improvements in fitness can steadily accumulate resulting in a new species.
dhw: And now you scuttle back to the small-step gradualism that we have both rejected.
And you want a giant jump in brain complexity and size due to the force of thought that may not exist in a brain not capable of handling that level of thought, all without remembering the Mother's pelvis has to change simultaneously, something you carefully never comment about.
DAVID: The unstated assumption (usually) is that the original species was in need of improvement. That is your approach from Darwin. I have not accepted it as causing evolution. God drives the complex advances.dhw: I have never stated that the original species was “in need of” improvement. I have stated that evolution proceeds through the drive for survival and/or improvement. A land animal may enter the water because that environment may offer improved chances of survival. But its mates may stay on the land and still survive. If it likes the new environment, it may improve its ability to live there by transforming its legs into fins. I don’t know why you find this logical progression so difficult to accept.
Because of the enormous difficult to achieve physiological changes required that I have pointed out continuously. They require a tremendous number of coordinated mutations. Only design can do this. You have animals transforming their own limbs by force of wishing it so!
Big brain evolution: learning new tasks
dhw: We know that the implementation of concepts causes brain changes in sapiens: complexification and limited expansion (with shrinkage probably as a result of efficient complexification). There is no reason to suppose that the same processes did not take place in pre-sapiens, with the brain and skull expanding when their capacity had been exceeded (as in the computer analogy below).
DAVID: Note you are still ignoring the bigger picture. The Mother's pelvis has to change at the same tine for all of this to work.
Any major change will require changes to the rest of the body! That is why I emphasize that the body is a community of cell communities which cooperate. Meanwhile, to stick to the subject of this thread, your belief that God had to engineer every single mutation himself does not alter the fact that we know implementation of thought changes the brain.
dhw: Your software/hardware analogy has the s/s/c doing the thinking and the hardware doing the implementing. When the software presents new concepts, you need to update your hardware. You do not stop producing new software because your computer can’t cope with new ideas. You wrote: “More complexity [of the brain] gives more complex concepts.” More complex hardware does not “give” more complex software.
DAVID: But you haven't recognized that human effort in computers upgrades software and hardware all at once in coordination. God speciates larger brains in the same way.
According to you, God provided the complex hardware (brain) and only then could pre-sapiens produce his new thoughts (software) – a clear sequence. We should stop faffing around with this unnecessary analogy. I suggest that the pre-sapiens s/s/c produced the concept and needed new brain capacity to implement it. You insist that the new capacity had to come first and only then could the s/s/c think of the new concept. The latter argument is pure materialism, whereas you claim to be a dualist.
dhw: You have just agreed that speciation can be the result of new levels of thought and implementation (= a new step) and now you say that is not what we see in evolution!
DAVID: The central theme of evolution is that tiny improvements in fitness can steadily accumulate resulting in a new species.
dhw: And now you scuttle back to the small-step gradualism that we have both rejected.
DAVID: And you want a giant jump in brain complexity and size due to the force of thought that may not exist in a brain not capable of handling that level of thought, all without remembering the Mother's pelvis has to change simultaneously, something you carefully never comment about.
Yet another switch of subject! I don’t comment on the pelvis when the discussion is about the brain, but see above for your answer. And yes, my hypothesis is that the pre-sapiens s/s/c was capable of new thoughts, the implementation of which required an increase in brain capacity, just as the sapiens s/s/c is capable of new thoughts, the implementation of which requires an increase in complexity.
dhw: I have stated that evolution proceeds through the drive for survival and/or improvement. A land animal may enter the water because that environment may offer improved chances of survival. But its mates may stay on the land and still survive. If it likes the new environment, it may improve its ability to live there by transforming its legs into fins. I don’t know why you find this logical progression so difficult to accept.
DAVID: Because of the enormous difficult to achieve physiological changes required that I have pointed out continuously. They require a tremendous number of coordinated mutations. Only design can do this. You have animals transforming their own limbs by force of wishing it so!
Not quite: I do not think a pre-whale says to itself: “I must change my legs to fins”, any more than the illiterate person says to himself/herself: “In order to read and write I must complexify my brain.” The s/s/c provides the thought, and the cell communities get to work to implement it. But I have always accepted your first objection: we know that the cell communities can achieve smaller changes (adaptations), but we don’t know the extent of their talents, which is why my hypothesis is a hypothesis and not a fact.
Big brain evolution: learning new tasks
by David Turell , Monday, April 30, 2018, 18:17 (2182 days ago) @ dhw
DAVID: Note you are still ignoring the bigger picture. The Mother's pelvis has to change at the same tine for all of this to work.
dhw: Any major change will require changes to the rest of the body!
Neat sidestep. The Mother's body has to accommodate a bigger bay head. Two separate bodies are involved. No way around it!
dhw: According to you, God provided the complex hardware (brain) and only then could pre-sapiens produce his new thoughts (software) – a clear sequence. We should stop faffing around with this unnecessary analogy. I suggest that the pre-sapiens s/s/c produced the concept and needed new brain capacity to implement it. You insist that the new capacity had to come first and only then could the s/s/c think of the new concept. The latter argument is pure materialism, whereas you claim to be a dualist.
The only material needed is the brain and its level of function. The s/s/c has to use something material. No way around it. Material brain, immaterial thought is recognized dualism, before trying to explain the mechanism. I am not your dualist theory; I am my dualist theory. Don't squeeze me into your mental box!
DAVID: And you want a giant jump in brain complexity and size due to the force of thought that may not exist in a brain not capable of handling that level of thought, all without remembering the Mother's pelvis has to change simultaneously, something you carefully never comment about.
dhw: Yet another switch of subject! I don’t comment on the pelvis when the discussion is about the brain, but see above for your answer. And yes, my hypothesis is that the pre-sapiens s/s/c was capable of new thoughts, the implementation of which required an increase in brain capacity, just as the sapiens s/s/c is capable of new thoughts, the implementation of which requires an increase in complexity.
Sidestep: how does the larger baby's head tell the Mother to enlarge her pelvic outlet which got much more complicated, as the pelvis changed for upright posture? Apes spit their kids out and we can't. That is not your drive for improvement. Somehow it was all coordinated so we have have our giant prefrontal cortex, when it was never needed for survival.
DAVID: Because of the enormous difficult to achieve physiological changes required that I have pointed out continuously. They require a tremendous number of coordinated mutations. Only design can do this. You have animals transforming their own limbs by force of wishing it so!dhw: Not quite: I do not think a pre-whale says to itself: “I must change my legs to fins”, any more than the illiterate person says to himself/herself: “In order to read and write I must complexify my brain.” The s/s/c provides the thought, and the cell communities get to work to implement it. But I have always accepted your first objection: we know that the cell communities can achieve smaller changes (adaptations), but we don’t know the extent of their talents, which is why my hypothesis is a hypothesis and not a fact.
Nothing is fact except the new species exist, and each of us has a favorite theory in which mine includes God.
Big brain evolution: learning new tasks
DAVID: Note you are still ignoring the bigger picture. The Mother's pelvis has to change at the same tine for all of this to work.
dhw: Any major change will require changes to the rest of the body!
DAVID: Neat sidestep. The Mother's body has to accommodate a bigger bay head. Two separate bodies are involved. No way around it!
Why did you leave out my next sentence? “That is why I emphasize that the body is a community of cell communities which cooperate.” This is true whether your God preprogrammed them 3.8 billion years ago to cooperate in changing the mother’s pelvis, personally reorganized them with a dabble, or gave them the means to work it out for themselves. Or do you think these changes have nothing to do with the reorganization of cell communities?
DAVID: The only material needed is the brain and its level of function. The s/s/c has to use something material. No way around it. Material brain, immaterial thought is recognized dualism, before trying to explain the mechanism. I am not your dualist theory; I am my dualist theory. Don't squeeze me into your mental box!
There is no disagreement on any of this! In dualism the immaterial s/s/c uses the material brain. The disagreement lies in your insistence that the immaterial s/s/c cannot think new thoughts until the material brain has already changed, together with statements to the effect that a sick brain will produce sick thoughts and that only a more complex brain can “give” more complex concepts, all of which are materialist arguments that contradict the dualism you believe in.
dhw: I don’t comment on the pelvis when the discussion is about the brain, but see above for your answer. And yes, my hypothesis is that the pre-sapiens s/s/c was capable of new thoughts, the implementation of which required an increase in brain capacity, just as the sapiens s/s/c is capable of new thoughts, the implementation of which requires an increase in complexity.
DAVID: Sidestep: how does the larger baby's head tell the Mother to enlarge her pelvic outlet which got much more complicated, as the pelvis changed for upright posture? Apes spit their kids out and we can't. That is not your drive for improvement. Somehow it was all coordinated so we have have our giant prefrontal cortex, when it was never needed for survival.
The sidestepping is yours. The subject of this thread is the expansion of the brain. But in answer to your comment, I’m surprised that you don’t regard our giant pre-frontal cortex as an improvement, since it plays such a vital role in our ability to implement the new concepts that make us so different from other species. See above re coordination. If all the cell communities fail to adapt, the organism won’t survive.
dhw: But I have always accepted your first objection: we know that the cell communities can achieve smaller changes (adaptations), but we don’t know the extent of their talents, which is why my hypothesis is a hypothesis and not a fact.
DAVID: Nothing is fact except the new species exist, and each of us has a favorite theory in which mine includes God.
Mine can also include God.
Big brain evolution: learning new tasks
by David Turell , Tuesday, May 01, 2018, 18:18 (2181 days ago) @ dhw
DAVID: Neat sidestep. The Mother's body has to accommodate a bigger bay head. Two separate bodies are involved. No way around it!
Why did you leave out my next sentence? “That is why I emphasize that the body is a community of cell communities which cooperate.”
Still sidestepping. The baby is one body, the mother is another body. How did they ( cell committees) communicate the differing needs?
DAVID: The only material needed is the brain and its level of function. The s/s/c has to use something material. No way around it. Material brain, immaterial thought is recognized dualism, before trying to explain the mechanism. I am not your dualist theory; I am my dualist theory. Don't squeeze me into your mental box!dhw: There is no disagreement on any of this! In dualism the immaterial s/s/c uses the material brain. The disagreement lies in your insistence that the immaterial s/s/c cannot think new thoughts until the material brain has already changed, together with statements to the effect that a sick brain will produce sick thoughts and that only a more complex brain can “give” more complex concepts, all of which are materialist arguments that contradict the dualism you believe in.
You just contradicted yourself. Yes, the s/s/c must use a material brain which will express its thoughts, which if sick will be garbled, if simple can only produce simple thought, and if complex can produce complex thought, each initially expressed by the s/s/c to the brain.
dhw: The sidestepping is yours. The subject of this thread is the expansion of the brain. But in answer to your comment, I’m surprised that you don’t regard our giant pre-frontal cortex as an improvement, since it plays such a vital role in our ability to implement the new concepts that make us so different from other species. See above re coordination. If all the cell communities fail to adapt, the organism won’t survive.
Still sidestepping the issue of changes in two different individuals, mother and baby. Haven't you noticed the bigger head requires a different pelvic bony canal
dhw: But I have always accepted your first objection: we know that the cell communities can achieve smaller changes (adaptations), but we don’t know the extent of their talents, which is why my hypothesis is a hypothesis and not a fact.
DAVID: Nothing is fact except the new species exist, and each of us has a favorite theory in which mine includes God.dhw: Mine can also include God.
But it really doesn't. You are an Agnostic.
Big brain evolution: learning new tasks
DAVID: Neat sidestep. The Mother's body has to accommodate a bigger bay head. Two separate bodies are involved. No way around it!
dhw: Why did you leave out my next sentence? “That is why I emphasize that the body is a community of cell communities which cooperate.”
DAVID: Still sidestepping. The baby is one body, the mother is another body. How did they ( cell committees) communicate the differing needs?
I realize that you are much happier changing the subject from brain evolution to the pelvis of the mother, and I could ask you a host of questions about HOW your God dabbled or preprogrammed every innovation, lifestyle and natural wonder 3.8 billion years ago. Ah well..."Two bodies"? So long as the baby is in the womb, it is physically joined to and totally dependent on the mother. What difference does all this make? Whatever you think your God did to ensure that the cell communities cooperated successfully to accommodate the bigger head, could also have been achieved by your God giving the cell communities the ability to work out the necessary changes for themselves. Or do you think your God was incapable of such a design?
DAVID: The only material needed is the brain and its level of function. The s/s/c has to use something material. No way around it. Material brain, immaterial thought is recognized dualism, before trying to explain the mechanism. I am not your dualist theory; I am my dualist theory. Don't squeeze me into your mental box!
dhw: There is no disagreement on any of this! In dualism the immaterial s/s/c uses the material brain. The disagreement lies in your insistence that the immaterial s/s/c cannot think new thoughts until the material brain has already changed, together with statements to the effect that a sick brain will produce sick thoughts and that only a more complex brain can “give” more complex concepts, all of which are materialist arguments that contradict the dualism you believe in.
DAVID: You just contradicted yourself. Yes, the s/s/c must use a material brain which will express its thoughts, which if sick will be garbled, if simple can only produce simple thought, and if complex can produce complex thought, each initially expressed by the s/s/c to the brain.
I have pointed out your materialist arguments which contradict your belief in dualism. I’m afraid I can make no sense of your sentence, apart from the s/s/c using the brain to express its thoughts, which is fine. Please clarify: what is sick, what is garbled, and is it the simple brain or the simple s/s/c that produces simple thought?
dhw: But I have always accepted your first objection: we know that the cell communities can achieve smaller changes (adaptations), but we don’t know the extent of their talents, which is why my hypothesis is a hypothesis and not a fact.
DAVID: Nothing is fact except the new species exist, and each of us has a favorite theory in which mine includes God.
dhw: Mine can also include God.
DAVID: But it really doesn't. You are an Agnostic.
An agnostic neither believes nor disbelieves, and so any hypothesis will inevitably include the possibility of a God. My agnosticism is totally irrelevant to the logic of the two theistic hypotheses.
Big brain evolution: learning new tasks
by David Turell , Wednesday, May 02, 2018, 23:55 (2179 days ago) @ dhw
DAVID: Still sidestepping. The baby is one body, the mother is another body. How did they ( cell committees) communicate the differing needs?
dhw: I realize that you are much happier changing the subject from brain evolution to the pelvis of the mother, and I could ask you a host of questions about HOW your God dabbled or preprogrammed every innovation, lifestyle and natural wonder 3.8 billion years ago. Ah well..."Two bodies"? So long as the baby is in the womb, it is physically joined to and totally dependent on the mother. What difference does all this make?
Beautiful fudging. I've changed nothing in the discussion. The mother and the baby are to very different folks with different DNAs no matter where each resides! And the mother's pelvis must change as each baby head in each species enlarges.
dhw: The disagreement lies in your insistence that the immaterial s/s/c cannot think new thoughts until the material brain has already changed, together with statements to the effect that a sick brain will produce sick thoughts and that only a more complex brain can “give” more complex concepts, all of which are materialist arguments that contradict the dualism you believe in.[/i]
DAVID: You just contradicted yourself. Yes, the s/s/c must use a material brain which will express its thoughts, which if sick will be garbled, if simple can only produce simple thought, and if complex can produce complex thought, each initially expressed by the s/s/c to the brain.
dhw: I have pointed out your materialist arguments which contradict your belief in dualism. I’m afraid I can make no sense of your sentence, apart from the s/s/c using the brain to express its thoughts, which is fine. Please clarify: what is sick, what is garbled, and is it the simple brain or the simple s/s/c that produces simple thought?
I'll simply repeat today's statement in The Neanderthal thread:
"You have twisted the meaning of my statements. My version of the theory is the s/s/c cannot create thought without using the brain during life. The s/s/c is an immaterial mechanism, which through use of the material brain produces immaterial mentation. This leads to my position that only a more complex brain network can produce more complex thought. I've told you that my form of dualism is not yours. Yours comes across as if the s/s/c sits aside at a distance and instructs the brain what to do, as if they are not connected intimately. The s/s/c mechanism resides completely within the brain structure. The dichotomy is ours, since we have vastly different views."
dhw: Mine can also include God.
DAVID: But it really doesn't. You are an Agnostic.dhw: An agnostic neither believes nor disbelieves, and so any hypothesis will inevitably include the possibility of a God. My agnosticism is totally irrelevant to the logic of the two theistic hypotheses.
Fair enough.
Big brain evolution: study with computer simulation
by David Turell , Thursday, May 24, 2018, 17:51 (2158 days ago) @ David Turell
As far as I am concerned this is GIGO, but it sould be presented. Note the objections at the end of the article:
https://www.the-scientist.com/?articles.view/articleNo/54648/title/What-Made-Human-Brai...
Finding food and lighting fires might explain why humans have such big brains, researchers report yesterday (May 23) in Nature.
Humans’ brains are six times as large as those of similarly sized mammals, an observation that has led scientists to ponder for decades what led to such big noodles. Studies suggest social challenges, such as cooperating to hunt, or sharing cultural knowledge spurred the expansion, but a mathematical model to explain human brain evolution finds the environment had a stronger influence.
Study coauthors Mauricio González-Forero and Andy Gardner of the University of St. Andrews developed a computer model to simulate the effects of social, environmental, and cultural challenges on brain size over time. “We were expecting social challenges to be a strong promoter of brain size,” González-Forero tells New Scientist. Surprisingly, environmental challenges won out. About 60 percent of the increase in brain size over our ape ancestors came as a result of surviving in the environment, finding and caching food, for example.
Another 30 percent came from banding together to survive, and the final 10 percent came from competing with other human groups, the researchers report.
If left alone to survive, humans’ brains would be even bigger, according to the model, González-Forero tells The Los Angeles Times. Increasing the cooperative challenges in the model to greater than 30 percent decreased brain size, the team found. “Cooperation decreases brain size because you can rely on the brain of other individuals and you don’t need to invest in such a large and expensive brain,” González-Forero says.
“González-Forero and Gardner are on the right track,” David Geary of the University of Missouri in Columbia tells New Scientist. But he questions whether the model accurately calculated just how challenging it is to live in groups. “Their conclusion that human brain evolution was largely driven by ecological pressures, and only minimally by social pressures, is surprising and likely premature.”
Language is another missing link in the model, Dean Falk, a brain-evolution expert at Florida State University, tells The Washington Post. González-Forero admits that the model falls short in addressing the influence cultural factors, such as language, had on expansion of brain size, but he and Gardner plan to incorporate those human traits in future work.
Comment: I agree with Geary. The apes survived just fine in cooperative groups with small brains. Atheist scientists at work.
Big brain evolution: complex synapse protein controls
by David Turell , Tuesday, October 09, 2018, 21:56 (2019 days ago) @ dhw
This is how synapses are modulated and controlled:
https://medicalxpress.com/news/2018-10-protein-unique-effects-neural.html
"Our cognitive abilities come down to how well the connections, or synapses, between our brain cells transmit signals.
***
"The key protein, called SAP102, is one of four members of a family of proteins, called PSD-MAGUKs, that regulate the transport and placement of key receptors called AMPARs on the receiving end of a synapse. But how each member of the family works, for instance as the brain progresses through development to maturity, is not well understood. The new study in the Journal of Neurophysiology shows that SAP102 and other family members like PSD-95, work in different ways, a feature whose evolution may have contributed to the greater cognitive capacity of mammals and other vertebrates.
"'Our results show that PSD-95 and SAP102 regulate synaptic AMPAR function differently," wrote the researchers
***
"Specifically, the scientists found that the proteins distinctly affected how quickly electrical currents lost strength in postsynaptic cells, or neurons.
"'For the first time we show that PSD-95 and SAP102 have differential effects on the decay kinetics of synaptic AMPAR currents," they wrote.
***
"These data showed that PSD-95alpha and SAP102 have distinct effects on the decay time of synaptic AMPAR currents, which potentially lead to differential synaptic integration for neuronal information processing," they wrote.
***
"In another set of experiments, the team showed that SAP102 uniquely depends on another protein called CNIH-2. Knocking the protein down on its own didn't affect AMPAR currents, but when they knocked down CNIH-2 in the context of replacing PSD-95 with PSD-95alpha or SAP102, the researchers found that SAP102 could no longer restore the currents. Meanwhile, knocking down CNIH-2 had no effect on PSD-95alpha's rescue of AMPAR currents.
"'These data showed that the effect of SAP102 but not that of PSD-95alpha on synaptic AMPAR currents depends on CNIH-2, suggesting that SAP102 and PSD-95alpha regulate different AMPAR complexes," they wrote.
"In all the findings suggest that the diversity of AMPAR regulation leads to cognitively consequential differences in current timing at synapses.
"'It is likely the AMPAR complex diversity contributes to the temporal profile of synaptic events important for information encoding and integration in different cell types and synapses," they wrote."
Comment: Neurons have to turn on and turn off synapses in a very regulated pattern or the electrical singles would become muddled and not work properly. Chance evolution could not have found each exact protein to set up such a control system. Only design fits.
Big brain evolution: changes in sapiens skull shape;addendum
by David Turell , Tuesday, October 15, 2019, 20:17 (1649 days ago) @ David Turell
A new study that raises the same old question: how did skull size and shape coordinate with brain growth in size, since bone is hard and brain is very soft:
https://phys.org/news/2019-10-brain-independently-braincase-evolution.html
"The human brain is about three times the size of the brains of great apes. This has to do, among other things, with the evolution of novel brain structures that enabled complex behaviors such as language and tool production. A study by anthropologists at the University of Zurich now shows that changes in the brain occurred independent of evolutionary rearrangements of the braincase.
"The human brain is like a fish in an aquarium, floating inside the liquid-filled braincase—but filling it out almost completely. The relationship between the brain and the braincase, and how they interacted during human evolution, has been occupying the minds of researchers for almost a century. They addressed this question by studying brain-braincase relationships in our own species, and in our closest living relatives, the great apes.
***
"The results show that the characteristic spatial relationships between brain and bone structures in humans are clearly distinct to those in chimpanzees. While the brain and its case continued to evolve side by side, they did so along largely independent evolutionary paths. (Note this does explain the problem of coordinating size.)
"For example, brain structures related to complex cognitive tasks such as language, social cognition and manual dexterity expanded significantly in the course of human evolution. This becomes visible as a shift of the neuroanatomical boundaries of the frontal lobe of the brain. This shift, however, did not affect the bony structures of the braincase. Instead, changes in the braincase largely reflect adaptations to walking upright on two legs, or bipedalism. For example, the opening at the skull base for the spinal cord moved forward during human evolution in order to optimize balance of the head atop the vertebral column. However, these evolutionary changes to the braincase did not have an effect on our cerebral structures." (This bold shows the necessary positional changes for bipedalism)
Comment: Still no solution as to how the size changes were coordinated. Soft brain enlarging cannot push hard bone to enlarge.
Big brain evolution: changes in sapiens skull shape;addendum
dhw: Do you or do you not agree that the software (s/s/c) does the thinking and the hardware (brain) does the implementing? If you agree, as you have already done umpteen times, and if the same thinking “you” is supposed to survive the death of the brain (even if it thinks about different things in death), how can you claim that the s/s/c cannot THINK without the brain?
DAVID: You continually ignore my point that in life the s/s/c is intimately connected to the brain and must use it to think. Neither you nor I can think if our brain is not working properly. Think a drunken stupor, or schizophrenia as misrepresentations of a normal s/s/c.
I have repeatedly pointed out to you that disease, accident, drugs, alcohol are evidence AGAINST dualism, but you are a dualist, and it is you who insist that the s/s/c is the THINKING self which survives death and therefore does NOT depend on the brain. In this discussion, if I remember rightly, we reached a dead end with the extreme case of dementia, in which you suggested that the “vegetable” was really still his/her normal self, knew what was going on, but couldn’t communicate properly. If so, of course, that too would mean the s/s/c does all the thinking and the brain only does the implementing.
DAVID: Death or NDE are different circumstances and my theory is that the s/s/c is free to think on its own with possibly a slightly different construction or mechanism.
Yes indeed, same THINKING s/s/c in different circumstances. And yes, the mechanism must be different because there is no material self to give material form to thought (e.g. communication by telepathy, and not by vocal chords or pen and ink.) In life you are still left with the same thinking self plus the material self which the thinking self uses for information and implementation. Therefore it makes no sense to claim that the thinking self cannot THINK of new ideas until the material brain has made the adjustments necessary to implement the new ideas.
DAVID: You cannot deny that sapiens thought is markedly more complex than erectus, and that is due to our giant pre-frontal cortex.
If you believe that more complex thought is “due to” a more complex pfc, then you believe that thought is “due to” the pfc, and you are a materialist! There is nothing wrong with this belief. But it makes nonsense of your claim to being a dualist, and of your belief that the thinking s/s/c survives the death of the pfc.
DAVID: Once again you specifically ignore the reasonable concept that the brain is a form of hardware and the s/s/c is a form of software, probably at a quantum level, with the result that complex thought requires complex neuronal networks in the prefrontal cortex.
I keep agreeing that in life the s/s/c (software) cannot implement its thoughts without the brain (hardware). But you keep ignoring your own analogy when you say that in death the same s/s/c (software) can exist and function independently of the brain (hardware), thereby proving that thought emanates from the s/s/c (software) and not from the brain (hardware).
DAVID: Whatever is contained in my s/s/c in life is also present in death totally unchanged. It is obvious that the living brain allows different levels of intelligence.
How does the brain “allow” intelligence? Either the brain is the source of the intelligence (materialism) or it is the tool of the intelligence (dualism).
DAVID: We really don't differ much in the definition of blank slate. You look to genetic guidelines to say it isn't blank at birth, and I say it starts blank at birth and is molded by the guidlines from day one.
Ah well, I say that if the guidelines are 40% present at birth, you are not a blank slate at birth. I’m happy to drop the subject if you are.
Big brain evolution: changes in sapiens skull shape;addendum
by David Turell , Tuesday, March 20, 2018, 17:37 (2223 days ago) @ dhw
DAVID: You continually ignore my point that in life the s/s/c is intimately connected to the brain and must use it to think. Neither you nor I can think if our brain is not working properly. Think a drunken stupor, or schizophrenia as misrepresentations of a normal s/s/c.
dhw: I have repeatedly pointed out to you that disease, accident, drugs, alcohol are evidence AGAINST dualism, but you are a dualist, and it is you who insist that the s/s/c is the THINKING self which survives death and therefore does NOT depend on the brain. In this discussion, if I remember rightly, we reached a dead end with the extreme case of dementia, in which you suggested that the “vegetable” was really still his/her normal self, knew what was going on, but couldn’t communicate properly. If so, of course, that too would mean the s/s/c does all the thinking and the brain only does the implementing.
You continually ignore the fact that I am alive and can only reach my s/s/c, to act on it or alter its thought pattern, is by working through my brain. I change conclusions by using my brain. My s/s/c never tells me what to do. I have free will and have modified me all of my life by thinking with my brain In implementing my new original thoughts my brain is modifying the personality construct of me, the s/s/c. This is my relationship with my s/s/c in life. Again, in death, the entire situation is different. My s/s/c is static, observing, but never creating any new facet of my personality. You keep trying to join life and death as a single entity for the s/s/c in which to act. I cannot thin k clearly if my brain is damaged.
DAVID: Death or NDE are different circumstances and my theory is that the s/s/c is free to think on its own with possibly a slightly different construction or mechanism.dhw: Yes indeed, same THINKING s/s/c in different circumstances. And yes, the mechanism must be different because there is no material self to give material form to thought (e.g. communication by telepathy, and not by vocal chords or pen and ink.) In life you are still left with the same thinking self plus the material self which the thinking self uses for information and implementation. Therefore it makes no sense to claim that the thinking self cannot THINK of new ideas until the material brain has made the adjustments necessary to implement the new ideas.
You are still ignoring the point that the brain is in a sense a computer, and only more complex computers can do more complex operations (implementations).
DAVID: You cannot deny that sapiens thought is markedly more complex than erectus, and that is due to our giant pre-frontal cortex.dhw: If you believe that more complex thought is “due to” a more complex pfc, then you believe that thought is “due to” the pfc, and you are a materialist! There is nothing wrong with this belief. But it makes nonsense of your claim to being a dualist, and of your belief that the thinking s/s/c survives the death of the pfc.
DAVID: Once again you specifically ignore the reasonable concept that the brain is a form of hardware and the s/s/c is a form of software, probably at a quantum level, with the result that complex thought requires complex neuronal networks in the prefrontal cortex.
dhw: I keep agreeing that in life the s/s/c (software) cannot implement its thoughts without the brain (hardware). But you keep ignoring your own analogy when you say that in death the same s/s/c (software) can exist and function independently of the brain (hardware), thereby proving that thought emanates from the s/s/c (software) and not from the brain (hardware).
You admit to two circumstances in life and death, and then ignore it.
DAVID: Whatever is contained in my s/s/c in life is also present in death totally unchanged. It is obvious that the living brain allows different levels of intelligence.
dhw: How does the brain “allow” intelligence? Either the brain is the source of the intelligence (materialism) or it is the tool of the intelligence (dualism).
DAVID: We really don't differ much in the definition of blank slate. You look to genetic guidelines to say it isn't blank at birth, and I say it starts blank at birth and is molded by the guidlines from day one.
dhw: Ah well, I say that if the guidelines are 40% present at birth, you are not a blank slate at birth. I’m happy to drop the subject if you are.
Fine.
Big brain evolution: Evidence of trading 300,000 years ago
by David Turell , Thursday, March 15, 2018, 20:23 (2227 days ago) @ David Turell
Evidence shows sapiens existed over 300,000 years ago. Now an archaeological paper demonstrates trade in articles over distance:
https://phys.org/news/2018-03-scientists-evidence-early-human-evolutionary.html
"Anthropologists at the Smithsonian's National Museum of Natural History and an international team of collaborators have discovered that early humans in East Africa had—by about 320,000 years ago—begun trading with distant groups, using color pigments and manufacturing more sophisticated tools than those of the Early Stone Age. These newly discovered activities approximately date to the oldest known fossil record of Homo sapiens and occur tens of thousands of years earlier than previous evidence has shown in eastern Africa. These behaviors, which are characteristic of humans who lived during the Middle Stone Age, replaced technologies and ways of life that had been in place for hundreds of thousands of years.
***
"The new discoveries... indicate that these behaviors emerged during a period of tremendous environmental variability in the region. As earthquakes remodeled the landscape and climate fluctuated between wet and dry conditions, technological innovation, social exchange networks and early symbolic communication would have helped early humans survive and obtain the resources they needed despite unpredictable conditions, the scientists say.
"'This change to a very sophisticated set of behaviors that involved greater mental abilities and more complex social lives may have been the leading edge that distinguished our lineage from other early humans," said Rick Potts, director of the National Museum of Natural History's Human Origins Program. (my bold)
***
"The first evidence of human life in the Olorgesailie Basin comes from about 1.2 million years ago. For hundreds of the thousands of years, people living there made and used large stone-cutting tools called handaxes. Beginning in 2002, Potts, Brooks and their team discovered a variety of smaller, more carefully shaped tools in the Olorgesailie Basin. Isotopic dating by Deino and collaborators revealed that the tools were surprisingly old—made between 320,000 and 305,000 years ago. These tools were carefully crafted and more specialized than the large, all-purpose handaxes. Many were points designed to be attached to a shaft and potentially used as projectile weapons, while others were shaped as scrapers or awls.
***
"The diverse chemical composition of the artifacts matches that of a wide range of obsidian sources in multiple directions 15 to 55 miles away, suggesting exchange networks were in place to move the valuable stone across the ancient landscape.
"The team also discovered black and red rocks—manganese and ocher—at the sites, along with evidence that the rocks had been processed for use as coloring material. "We don't know what the coloring was used on, but coloring is often taken by archeologists as the root of complex symbolic communication," Potts said. "Just as color is used today in clothing or flags to express identity, these pigments may have helped people communicate membership in alliances and maintain ties with distant groups."
"Hoping to understand what might have driven such fundamental changes in human behavior, the research team integrated data from a variety of sources to assess and reconstruct the ancient environment in which the users of these artifacts lived. Their findings suggest that the period when these behaviors emerged was one of changing landscapes and climate, in which the availability of resources would have been unreliable.
"Geological, geochemical, paleobotanical and faunal evidence indicates that an extended period of climate instability affected the region beginning around 360,000 years ago, at the same time earthquakes were continually altering the landscape. Although some researchers have proposed that early humans evolved gradually in response to an arid environment, Potts says his team's findings support an alternative idea. Environmental fluctuations would have presented significant challenges to inhabitants of the Olorgesailie Basin, prompting changes in technology and social structures that improved the likelihood of securing resources during times of scarcity."
Comment: These artifacts appear at exactly the same time period that H. sapiens fossils are found. In our modern times, the moment we have a concept that requires implementation, we can do it immediately or immediately create a plan to do it. It seems that the same observation applies to our ancient relatives. I do not see that it supports dhw's theory that conceptual pressure in a previous form of hominin came first, then with enlargement (however that happened) the artifacts quickly appeared. Note my bolded sentence above.
Big brain evolution: Evidence of trading 300,000 years ago
QUOTE: "The new discoveries... indicate that these behaviors emerged during a period of tremendous environmental variability in the region. As earthquakes remodeled the landscape and climate fluctuated between wet and dry conditions, technological innovation, social exchange networks and early symbolic communication would have helped early humans survive and obtain the resources they needed despite unpredictable conditions, the scientists say.
"'This change to a very sophisticated set of behaviors that involved greater mental abilities and more complex social lives may have been the leading edge that distinguished our lineage from other early humans…" (David’s bold)
David’s comment: These artifacts appear at exactly the same time period that H. sapiens fossils are found. In our modern times, the moment we have a concept that requires implementation, we can do it immediately or immediately create a plan to do it. It seems that the same observation applies to our ancient relatives. I do not see that it supports dhw's theory that conceptual pressure in a previous form of hominin came first, then with enlargement (however that happened) the artifacts quickly appeared. Note my bolded sentence above.
I don’t follow your argument. The article makes it clear that environmental changes offered new challenges and so gave rise to new technologies. This would have applied both to sapiens and to pre-sapiens (though perhaps to a lesser degree). You keep telling us that God had to expand pre-sapiens' brains before they could come up with new concepts (thereby supporting the materialist view that the brain is the source of thought), and I argue that all the evidence we have supports the view that thought expands the brain. (Eventually I hope to reconcile these two hypotheses.) In the case of pre-sapiens, we know the brain expanded to such an extent that the skull also had to expand. In the case of sapiens, the skull does not expand because, even though certain areas of the brain still do expand (which is actually a new factor in our discussion), complexification ensures that the overall dimensions do not require any further expansion of the skull. Artefacts are the material implementation of concepts. They will “quickly appear” once the brain is able to give them material form. If that requires brain and skull expansion (pre-sapiens), then you won’t see them until the brain and skull have ALREADY expanded, and so the appearance of the artefacts cannot tell us which of our hypotheses is true.
Big brain evolution: Evidence of trading 300,000 years ago
by David Turell , Friday, March 16, 2018, 15:20 (2227 days ago) @ dhw
QUOTE: "The new discoveries... indicate that these behaviors emerged during a period of tremendous environmental variability in the region. As earthquakes remodeled the landscape and climate fluctuated between wet and dry conditions, technological innovation, social exchange networks and early symbolic communication would have helped early humans survive and obtain the resources they needed despite unpredictable conditions, the scientists say.
"'This change to a very sophisticated set of behaviors that involved greater mental abilities and more complex social lives may have been the leading edge that distinguished our lineage from other early humans…" (David’s bold)David’s comment: These artifacts appear at exactly the same time period that H. sapiens fossils are found. In our modern times, the moment we have a concept that requires implementation, we can do it immediately or immediately create a plan to do it. It seems that the same observation applies to our ancient relatives. I do not see that it supports dhw's theory that conceptual pressure in a previous form of hominin came first, then with enlargement (however that happened) the artifacts quickly appeared. Note my bolded sentence above.
dhw: I don’t follow your argument. The article makes it clear that environmental changes offered new challenges and so gave rise to new technologies. This would have applied both to sapiens and to pre-sapiens (though perhaps to a lesser degree). You keep telling us that God had to expand pre-sapiens' brains before they could come up with new concepts (thereby supporting the materialist view that the brain is the source of thought), and I argue that all the evidence we have supports the view that thought expands the brain. (Eventually I hope to reconcile these two hypotheses.) In the case of pre-sapiens, we know the brain expanded to such an extent that the skull also had to expand. In the case of sapiens, the skull does not expand because, even though certain areas of the brain still do expand (which is actually a new factor in our discussion), complexification ensures that the overall dimensions do not require any further expansion of the skull. Artefacts are the material implementation of concepts. They will “quickly appear” once the brain is able to give them material form. If that requires brain and skull expansion (pre-sapiens), then you won’t see them until the brain and skull have ALREADY expanded, and so the appearance of the artefacts cannot tell us which of our hypotheses is true.
My bold in your answer is right on the issue. Of course, the artifacts appear after the brain is enlarged. What it doesn't tell us is when concepts appear. The existing size and complexity of neuron networks is the material side of the interface between brain and s/s/c and in my view gives the s/s/c more in depth thought capacity. After all IQ varies from 60 to 200+, so a large part of the range must represent the brain's competence/ability to handle s/s/c thought. With this in mind advanced concepts require an advanced complexity in brain size and structure. Size first concepts second.
Your problem, as I see it, is your insistence upon what you think drives evolution. I see complexity while you see improvement. The nuance you miss is bacteria have never needed improvement, so multicellularity is from complexity drive, nothing more.
Big brain evolution: Evidence of trading 300,000 years ago
Dhw: Artefacts are the material implementation of concepts. They will “quickly appear” once the brain is able to give them material form. If that requires brain and skull expansion (pre-sapiens), then you won’t see them until the brain and skull have ALREADY expanded, and so the appearance of the artefacts cannot tell us which of our hypotheses is true.
DAVID: My bold in your answer is right on the issue. Of course, the artifacts appear after the brain is enlarged. What it doesn't tell us is when concepts appear. The existing size and complexity of neuron networks is the material side of the interface between brain and s/s/c and in my view gives the s/s/c more in depth thought capacity.
When concepts appear is indeed the issue between us. All the evidence we have points to the conclusion that thought changes the brain – whether in complexity or in size. But once a concept has been realized (and the brain has complexified or enlarged), of course the s/s/c will have greater "thought capacity" – because it can build on existing, and now materialized concepts! The s/s/c learns from experience, and that is an ongoing process, but the concept always has to precede the implementation, and that is what causes expansion/complexification.
DAVID: After all IQ varies from 60 to 200+, so a large part of the range must represent the brain's competence/ability to handle s/s/c thought. With this in mind advanced concepts require an advanced complexity in brain size and structure. Size first concepts second.
The competence of the brain to HANDLE thought is the whole point! If the thought is too complex for the existing brain to HANDLE, then the brain is required to make changes, i.e. complexify or expand. The concept creates the need for expansion (dualism). But you the dualist keep arguing that expansion creates the ability to conceive (materialism).
DAVID: Your problem, as I see it, is your insistence upon what you think drives evolution. I see complexity while you see improvement. The nuance you miss is bacteria have never needed improvement, so multicellularity is from complexity drive, nothing more.
This is a totally different subject, already dealt with repeatedly. We are talking specifically about brain enlargement, and you insist that your God enlarged the pre-sapiens brain before it was able to come up with new concepts, i.e. the brain is the source of thought. And that is a complete contradiction of your dualistic belief that the s/s/c is the source of thought.
Big brain evolution: Evidence of trading 300,000 years ago
by David Turell , Saturday, March 17, 2018, 14:03 (2226 days ago) @ dhw
dhw: When concepts appear is indeed the issue between us. All the evidence we have points to the conclusion that thought changes the brain – whether in complexity or in size. But once a concept has been realized (and the brain has complexified or enlarged), of course the s/s/c will have greater "thought capacity" – because it can build on existing, and now materialized concepts! The s/s/c learns from experience, and that is an ongoing process, but the concept always has to precede the implementation, and that is what causes expansion/complexification.
Yes, concept precedes implementation, but that in no way proves it is the reason the brain expanded. It is just your hypothesis.
DAVID: After all IQ varies from 60 to 200+, so a large part of the range must represent the brain's competence/ability to handle s/s/c thought. With this in mind advanced concepts require an advanced complexity in brain size and structure. Size first concepts second.dhw: The competence of the brain to HANDLE thought is the whole point! If the thought is too complex for the existing brain to HANDLE, then the brain is required to make changes, i.e. complexify or expand. The concept creates the need for expansion (dualism). But you the dualist keep arguing that expansion creates the ability to conceive (materialism).
And you keep forgetting my theory that in life the only way original thought occurs is if the s/s/c is interfaced with the brain.
dhw: We are talking specifically about brain enlargement, and you insist that your God enlarged the pre-sapiens brain before it was able to come up with new concepts, i.e. the brain is the source of thought. And that is a complete contradiction of your dualistic belief that the s/s/c is the source of thought.
My concept of how brain and s/s/c relate: In life the s/s/c and the brain must work together. Your interpretation of my theory is totally incorrect.
Big brain evolution: Evidence of trading 300,000 years ago
dhw: The s/s/c learns from experience, and that is an ongoing process, but the concept always has to precede the implementation, and that is what causes expansion/complexification.
DAVID: Yes, concept precedes implementation, but that in no way proves it is the reason the brain expanded. It is just your hypothesis.
Yes, it is a hypothesis, just like your belief that your God expanded the brain before hominins could think up new concepts. However, modern science has demonstrated that thought changes areas of the brain through complexification and limited expansion, which would seem to support the dualism you claim to believe in, i.e. the hypothesis that the self/soul/conscious mind is a separate immaterial entity which in life works with and controls the brain (the will being an integral part of the s/s/c) but in death remains itself. This clearly runs directly counter to the hypothesis that the immaterial s/s/c is incapable of THINKING without the material brain.
DAVID: And you keep forgetting my theory that in life the only way original thought occurs is if the s/s/c is interfaced with the brain.
Not forgotten at all. The question is how the two function in life. If your dualism is correct, the s/s/c does the THINKING, and the brain provides information and implementation. If, as you frequently agree, the s/s/c USES the brain, the thoughts of the s/s/c have to PRECEDE the activities of the brain. It is therefore illogical to claim that the s/s/c cannot have its THOUGHTS until the brain is ready to implement those thoughts. See above for the evidence provided by modern science. (NB that does not mean modern science supports dualism, and eventually I hope to explain how I believe the two hypotheses can be reconciled.)
dhw: We are talking specifically about brain enlargement, and you insist that your God enlarged the pre-sapiens brain before it was able to come up with new concepts, i.e. the brain is the source of thought. And that is a complete contradiction of your dualistic belief that the s/s/c is the source of thought.
DAVID: My concept of how brain and s/s/c relate: In life the s/s/c and the brain must work together. Your interpretation of my theory is totally incorrect.
There is no disagreement over the fact that they work together in life. But if it is “totally incorrect” that you believe your God had to expand the implementing brain BEFORE the thinking s/s/c had the ability to think up new ideas, i.e. that new thought was impossible without prior expansion of the brain, then I apologize but have no idea what we are arguing about. (But see my next post on the "Big brain evolution" thread.)
Big brain evolution: Evidence of trading 300,000 years ago
by David Turell , Sunday, March 18, 2018, 18:14 (2225 days ago) @ dhw
dhw: The s/s/c learns from experience, and that is an ongoing process, but the concept always has to precede the implementation, and that is what causes expansion/complexification.
DAVID: Yes, concept precedes implementation, but that in no way proves it is the reason the brain expanded. It is just your hypothesis.
dhw: Yes, it is a hypothesis, just like your belief that your God expanded the brain before hominins could think up new concepts. However, modern science has demonstrated that thought changes areas of the brain through complexification and limited expansion, which would seem to support the dualism you claim to believe in, i.e. the hypothesis that the self/soul/conscious mind is a separate immaterial entity which in life works with and controls the brain (the will being an integral part of the s/s/c) but in death remains itself. This clearly runs directly counter to the hypothesis that the immaterial s/s/c is incapable of THINKING without the material brain.
You have just contradicted yourself. I am in full agreement with my bolded statement of yours. In life I believe the s/s/c must think WITH the brain during life. It is obligated to do so. But not the next statement of yours, which, therefore, doesn't follow.
DAVID: And you keep forgetting my theory that in life the only way original thought occurs is if the s/s/c is interfaced with the brain.
dhw: Not forgotten at all. The question is how the two function in life. If your dualism is correct, the s/s/c does the THINKING, and the brain provides information and implementation. If, as you frequently agree, the s/s/c USES the brain, the thoughts of the s/s/c have to PRECEDE the activities of the brain.
I do not believe the s/s/c thinks before the brain gets it. You are imagining a time sequence. They work together thinking simultaneously, because they are intimately interfaced in life . Brain implementation than follows under s/s/c direction. They never are separate in time.
DAVID: My concept of how brain and s/s/c relate: In life the s/s/c and the brain must work together. Your interpretation of my theory is totally incorrect.
dhw: There is no disagreement over the fact that they work together in life. But if it is “totally incorrect” that you believe your God had to expand the implementing brain BEFORE the thinking s/s/c had the ability to think up new ideas, i.e. that new thought was impossible without prior expansion of the brain, then I apologize but have no idea what we are arguing about.
I am disputing your concept that the s/s/c must be exactly the same in life and death in its mechanism. It is the same in memory, thought pattern, personality in life and death, but in life it must interface with the living brain. In death it doesn't and logically must work slightly differently. That is my point.
Big brain evolution: changes in sapiens skull shape;addendum
by David Turell , Wednesday, February 21, 2018, 15:12 (2250 days ago) @ dhw
DAVID: The prefrontal cortex develops a judgmental area about one's actions future results as part of the development from birth. Can it be altered later. Of course. But the initial development takes to an average age 25. to be complete enough to make mature decisions.
dhw: So it’s not complete, and once more according to you, despite your claim to be a dualist, it is the prefrontal cortex that makes decisions.
No, it is the area where the s/s/c can use the brain to make decisions. s/s/c and brain must be able to interface fully in each developed/developing area.
"The results may also help us understand how emotional control can go awry during development. It's possible that the failure of the prefrontal cortex to integrate properly into the emotional control circuit could contribute to the emergence of affective disorders in adolescence."[/i]
DAVID’s comment: Hard evidence and straight forward explanation of brain development. dhw take notice.dhw: I am not disputing brain development. I am pointing out the discrepancies in your arguments. You cannot have it both ways. For a dualist the soul is responsible for the immaterial attributes I listed. Earlier I pointed out that it is the dualist’s s/s/c that controls the brain except when the latter is affected by outside influences such as disease, drugs, accidents, alcohol. You have repeatedly agreed to this, but now you support what you call “current medical theory” which argues the exact opposite: i.e. that the brain is responsible for all the attributes.
As above, the brain must be developed enough in the prefrontal area to allow all the attributes described for the s/s/c to act.
dhw: In this context, I notice you have ignored my question: What does current medical theory tell us about the soul?
Snarky.
Big brain evolution: changes in sapiens skull shape;addendum
I am combining comments from various posts on the same subject. I’m afraid many of my own comments are repeated, since the same response applies to most of the objections that David raises.
DAVID: The prefrontal cortex develops a judgmental area about one's actions future results as part of the development from birth. Can it be altered later. Of course. But the initial development takes to an average age 25. to be complete enough to make mature decisions.
dhw: So it’s not complete, and once more according to you, despite your claim to be a dualist, it is the prefrontal cortex that makes decisions.
DAVID: No, it is the area where the s/s/c can use the brain to make decisions. s/s/c and brain must be able to interface fully in each developed/developing area.
Just to clarify, which is essential if we are to reach an understanding: the s/s/c takes the decisions and it uses whichever part of the brain it needs to express or implement the decisions. That is how they interface in dualism, as you keep agreeing. And so the development of the pre-frontal cortex does not become “complete enough to make mature decisions” (which is what you wrote above) because according to your dualism it doesn’t make decisions.
DAVID: As above, the brain must be developed enough in the prefrontal area to allow all the attributes described for the s/s/c to act.
Yes. In other words, the brain has to have the requisite means to express and implement the thoughts/feelings/decisions etc. of the s/s/c. The plastic brain is the requisite means, and each new experience establishes the new connections. See later.
dhw: In this context, I notice you have ignored my question: What does current medical theory tell us about the soul?
DAVID: Snarky.
Yes and no. You don’t seem to have realized that the medical research you keep referring to is based on materialism, not on dualism.
DAVID: The s/s/c can only work to the point that brain development has reached from childhood to age 25 in the prefrontal area.
The individual s/s/c comes up with or is confronted by new ideas, tasks, concepts, wishes, decisions etc. at all stages of life, not just up to age 25, and it “works” by expressing/implementing these new ideas etc., thereby developing new complexities in the brain. Clearly there will be more new ideas etc. in the earlier stages of life than later, and hence the development of more complexities, but the process is never completed. One example will suffice to illustrate both points: the illiterate women learned to read and write (new concept for them), and thus established new connections within the brain. The connections were not established before they learned to read and write, i.e. the s/s/c makes the decision and the brain implements it by complexifying. There is no reason to suppose that the same process would not apply to a 50-year-old as to a 15-year-old.
DAVID: If the prefrontal area is not complete, the s/s/c cannot make fully adult judgments, because it must liaise with a fully functioning prefrontal cortex to do that. This supports my theory that brain complexity comes before complex thought is developed.
The prefrontal area is never “complete” so long as it is capable of new complexities! Please explain what you mean by “fully adult judgements”. You accept that the s/s/c does the thinking and the brain does the expressing and implementing. Once the implementation/ expression has been mastered, then of course the complexity is there for subsequent use, but cometh the next new concept, cometh the next new complexification. Thought comes before the brain change that implements/expresses it.
DAVID’s comment: I present this to show the illustrations which present different areas of the brain in the study the s/s/c must interact with. The s/s/c uses the brain as a tool.
Precisely: the s/s/c uses the brain (or different parts of the brain, and not just your favourite pre-frontal cortex) as a tool to express or implement its thoughts/concepts. And if the brain has not met with a particular concept before, it adjusts in order to implement the concept. It does not make the adjustment beforehand. And it does not stop implementing new concepts at the age of 25.
TONY: So, we shouldn't allow people to be considered adults until 25?
I would take that two steps further: 1) we shouldn’t allow people to be considered responsible for their actions until 25? 2) If judgement depends on the “completion” of the pre-frontal cortex but, as Tony and I have pointed out, the pre-frontal cortex continues to complexify AFTER 25, then we shouldn’t allow people to be considered responsible for their actions at any age? Exit free will, exit responsibility, and adults who commit murder, rape etc. can blame their wretched pre-frontal cortex for their mature or immature judgement (apparently depending on age). Tony’s remaining posts highlight the general chaos of David’s materialistic dualism and the inadequacy of the tests with admirable clarity. (However, I hope eventually to continue my efforts to reconcile dualism and materialism!)
Big brain evolution: changes in sapiens skull shape;addendum
by David Turell , Thursday, February 22, 2018, 18:27 (2249 days ago) @ dhw
DAVID: No, it is the area where the s/s/c can use the brain to make decisions. s/s/c and brain must be able to interface fully in each developed/developing area.
dhw: Just to clarify, which is essential if we are to reach an understanding: the s/s/c takes the decisions and it uses whichever part of the brain it needs to express or implement the decisions. That is how they interface in dualism, as you keep agreeing. And so the development of the pre-frontal cortex does not become “complete enough to make mature decisions” (which is what you wrote above) because according to your dualism it doesn’t make decisions.
DAVID: As above, the brain must be developed enough in the prefrontal area to allow all the attributes described for the s/s/c to act.
dhw: Yes. In other words, the brain has to have the requisite means to express and implement the thoughts/feelings/decisions etc. of the s/s/c. The plastic brain is the requisite means, and each new experience establishes the new connections.
Yes. We see initial developmental change and then plasticity changes.
DAVID: If the prefrontal area is not complete, the s/s/c cannot make fully adult judgments, because it must liaise with a fully functioning prefrontal cortex to do that. This supports my theory that brain complexity comes before complex thought is developed.
dhw: The prefrontal area is never “complete” so long as it is capable of new complexities! Please explain what you mean by “fully adult judgements”. You accept that the s/s/c does the thinking and the brain does the expressing and implementing. Once the implementation/ expression has been mastered, then of course the complexity is there for subsequent use, but cometh the next new concept, cometh the next new complexification. Thought comes before the brain change that implements/expresses it.
Agreed that there is development and then further complexification.
DAVID’s comment: I present this to show the illustrations which present different areas of the brain in the study the s/s/c must interact with. The s/s/c uses the brain as a tool.dhw: Precisely: the s/s/c uses the brain (or different parts of the brain, and not just your favourite pre-frontal cortex) as a tool to express or implement its thoughts/concepts. And if the brain has not met with a particular concept before, it adjusts in order to implement the concept. It does not make the adjustment beforehand. And it does not stop implementing new concepts at the age of 25.
The prefrontal cortex happens to be the last part of the brain develop from birth.
TONY: So, we shouldn't allow people to be considered adults until 25?dhw: I would take that two steps further: 1) we shouldn’t allow people to be considered responsible for their actions until 25? 2) If judgement depends on the “completion” of the pre-frontal cortex but, as Tony and I have pointed out, the pre-frontal cortex continues to complexify AFTER 25, then we shouldn’t allow people to be considered responsible for their actions at any age? Exit free will, exit responsibility, and adults who commit murder, rape etc. can blame their wretched pre-frontal cortex for their mature or immature judgement (apparently depending on age). Tony’s remaining posts highlight the general chaos of David’s materialistic dualism and the inadequacy of the tests with admirable clarity. (However, I hope eventually to continue my efforts to reconcile dualism and materialism!)
I must use materialism type science to study how the brain and the s/s/c combine. I have presented the science finding regarding age 25 and risk taking. All sorts of so-called brain impaired crimes are defended on that basis for no good reason I can see. I think at last you understand how I think the s/s/c and brain work together.
Big brain evolution: new adult neuron research
by David Turell , Thursday, February 22, 2018, 20:02 (2248 days ago) @ David Turell
Work in mice points to new adult sensory neurons:
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/02/180222103609.htm
"Although we have known for several years that the adult brain can produce new neurons, many questions about the properties conferred by these adult-born neurons were left unanswered. What advantages could they offer that could not be offered by the neurons generated shortly after birth?
"Scientists from the Institut Pasteur and the CNRS have demonstrated that the new neurons produced in adults react preferentially to reward-related sensory stimuli and help speed up the association between sensory information and reward. Adult-born neurons therefore play an important role in both the identification of a sensory stimulus and the positive value associated with that sensory experience. The neurons generated shortly after birth are unable to perform this function.
***
"Although most neurons are generated during embryogenesis, some brain regions in mammals are capable of constantly regenerating their neurons in adulthood. The existence of these adult-born neurons has been proven, but many questions about their function and the way in which they integrate into their target areas remain unanswered.
"Research carried out by the Perception and Memory team (Institut Pasteur/CNRS), directed by Pierre-Marie Lledo, a CNRS Director of Research, has recently revealed the specific role of these neurons produced in the adult brain. This study demonstrates that assigning positive values to sensory experiences is closely based on the activity of adult-born neurons, and not the neurons formed shortly after birth. It is these new neurons that may enable individuals to anticipate the delivery of a reward.
"The scientists focused on the production of new neurons in adult mice, in particular those neurons that integrate into the olfactory bulb, the brain region responsible for analyzing odors. These new neurons are thought to play a major role in providing flexibility for learning and memorizing olfactory sensory experiences.
"The scientists from the Institut Pasteur and the CNRS observed that the new neurons were able to react differently to an odor depending on the consequences associated with that sensory experience, such as whether or not there would be a reward. They also demonstrated that olfactory learning, in which the mice had to associate an odor with positive reinforcement, became easier once the new neurons had been activated. Finally, simply activating these adult-born neurons could be assimilated with a reward-predicting odor.
"In short, this research shows that adult-born neurons are involved in the value associated with sensory stimuli rather than just the identification of the nature of a given sensory stimulus. It demonstrates that reward-motivated learning depends largely on adult neurogenesis."
Comment: This study is limited to the olfactory bulb, but may apply to the entire brain. One must assume the mouse brain acts like ours.
Big brain evolution: new adult neuron research
by David Turell , Tuesday, February 27, 2018, 14:53 (2244 days ago) @ David Turell
Another brief review of mouse brain research producing new adult neurons and how they are used:
https://cosmosmagazine.com/biology/new-neurons-in-an-adult-brain
"Although scientists have known for several years that the adult brain can produce new neurons, many questions about the properties conferred by these adult-born neurons were left unanswered.
"What advantages could they offer that are not offered by the neurons generated shortly after birth?
"Scientists from the Institut Pasteur and the CNRS in France have recently demonstrated that the new neurons produced in adults react preferentially to reward-related sensory stimuli and help speed up the association between sensory information and reward.
"Adult-born neurons therefore play an important role in both the identification of a sensory stimulus and the positive value associated with that sensory experience. The neurons generated shortly after birth are unable to perform this function.
Comment: In my view the addition of these neurons provide a new substrate for consciousness (s/s/c) to use and impart sensory reward thought.
Big brain evolution: go no-go neurons related
by David Turell , Thursday, May 31, 2018, 23:43 (2150 days ago) @ David Turell
How the cortex develops different collections of neurons is studied in go no-go neurons which control each other:
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/05/180530133030.htm
"The study, published in Nature and funded by the Wellcome Trust, also answers an evolutionary mystery about how the delicate balance between different types of brain cells might be maintained across species with vastly different brain sizes.
"The cerebral cortex is the largest region of the human brain and is responsible for many of our advanced abilities such as learning, memory and our ability to plan future actions. The cerebral cortex contains two main types of brain cells: excitatory and inhibitory neurons, which can be more simply defined as 'go' and 'no-go' neurons.
"Excitatory 'go' neurons process information and provide orders telling other neurons what to do. Inhibitory 'no-go' neurons restrict the activity of excitatory neurons so that they don't all go at the same time. Too much 'go' leads to the over-firing of neurons seen in epilepsy, while too much 'no-go' causes cognitive problems.
"The researchers have discovered how the correct balance is achieved in the number of 'go' and 'no-go' neurons by studying the brains of developing mice. Since the ratio of the two cell types in all mammals is remarkably similar, the findings are likely to apply to humans.
***
''This study fills a big gap in our understanding of how the brain is built, explaining quite simply how the balance of excitatory and inhibitory neurons in the cerebral cortex has remained constant as mammals have evolved. It is probable that this process has been critical in allowing human brains to expand.'
"By manipulating brain cells in mice during a critical period of embryonic development, the researchers demonstrated that the number of 'no-go' neurons is adjusted once the number of 'go' neurons is established.
"Co-lead author Dr Kinga Bercsenyi from the Marín laboratory at the IoPPN explains: 'If we imagine brain activity as a conversation, neurons have to be connected to each other in order to talk. During the first two weeks after birth, 'no-go' neurons can sense if they are alone and are programmed to die if they cannot find 'go' neurons that are willing to talk to them.'
"The researchers found that 'go' neurons rescue their 'no-go' cousins from death by blocking the function of a protein called PTEN. Mutations in the gene coding for PTEN have been strongly linked to autism, suggesting that when PTEN is not functioning properly not enough 'no-go' neurons die, tipping the balance of cell types and causing problems in information processing in some autistic people."
Comment: Such a controlled development of neurons could not have been developed by chance. Trial errors would have damaged functional brain evolution from continuing properly. Only design fits.
Big brain evolution: go no-go neurons related
QUOTE: Co-lead author Dr Kinga Bercsenyi from the Marín laboratory at the IoPPN explains: 'If we imagine brain activity as a conversation, neurons have to be connected to each other in order to talk.”
Yes, if my THEORY OF INTELLIGENCE is correct, this is exactly what I imagine: that our intelligence arises from the pooled intelligences of the different cell communities communicating with one another (materialism). And (dualism) it is possible that this pooled intelligence gives rise to a form of energy which transcends that of the individual cells/communities (as in ant societies) and even survives the death of its source, as images survive the death of the materials that produced them, thus explaining phenomena such as ghosts and déjà vu. Whether the energy survives as an ongoing consciousness remains a matter of faith.
NB This is part of Chapter 2 in the history of life. The source of the first intelligence remains an open question (see "Quantum Physics: conscious universe").
Big brain evolution: go no-go neurons related
by David Turell , Friday, June 01, 2018, 14:19 (2150 days ago) @ dhw
QUOTE: Co-lead author Dr Kinga Bercsenyi from the Marín laboratory at the IoPPN explains: 'If we imagine brain activity as a conversation, neurons have to be connected to each other in order to talk.”
dhw: Yes, if my THEORY OF INTELLIGENCE is correct, this is exactly what I imagine: that our intelligence arises from the pooled intelligences of the different cell communities communicating with one another (materialism). And (dualism) it is possible that this pooled intelligence gives rise to a form of energy which transcends that of the individual cells/communities (as in ant societies) and even survives the death of its source, as images survive the death of the materials that produced them, thus explaining phenomena such as ghosts and déjà vu. Whether the energy survives as an ongoing consciousness remains a matter of faith.
NB This is part of Chapter 2 in the history of life. The source of the first intelligence remains an open question (see "Quantum Physics: conscious universe").
Obviously, not for me.
Big brain evolution: changes in sapiens skull shape;addendum
by David Turell , Tuesday, February 20, 2018, 18:10 (2251 days ago) @ dhw
DAVID: Simple: a newborn has a brain which is simple and must develop full complexity, which occurs on average finishing in the prefrontal cortex by age 25. This is medically accepted. Of course new complexity appears with new uses after that.
dhw: You do not seem to see the contradiction between your two statements above. The complexity is not complete until the age of 25 (i.e. it IS complete at 25). New complexity appears with new uses after that. If you can add something new to what exists, what exists cannot have been complete.
The prefrontal cortex develops a judgmental area about one's actions future results as part of the development from birth. Can it be altered later. Of course. But the initial development takes to an average age 25. to be complete enough to make mature decisions. This is when adolescence can be considered over. Current medical theory.
DAVID: I used risk taking as an example. The judgment about the consequences of any new action by an individual is impaired or limited until the development of the prefrontal cortex is complete.
dhw: The development is never complete if it can add new complexities and uses. Most forms of human judgement are impaired or limited by a wide variety of circumstances. Only a God would be able to see the full picture of whatever we make judgements about. And if I were a dualist, I would vehemently deny that judgement depends on the pre-frontal cortex. Every statement you make about this confirms your materialism.
And I continue to insist the s/s/c must be able to interface with fully developed functional areas of the brain to provide proper thought to the living individual.
DAVID: Please accept that full brain development from birth takes to an average age 25.dhw: I am happy to accept that certain aspects of brain development are completed at around the age of 25. I am not happy to accept the claim that the brain as a whole stops developing at 25 if it continues to develop new complexities as a result of new uses. I am even less happy if a dualist informs me that judgement depends on the development of the pre-frontal cortex.
Of course the brain continues with new complexities after 25. Its plasticity shows how it must interface with the s/s/c.
DAVID: Sorry about your disbelief but this is current medical theory about the length of adolescent judgment ability in regard to understanding the consequences of their actions. I've mentioned this many times in the past. Note his attorney is using it.dhw: Defence attorneys use “diminished responsibility” of one sort or another in vast numbers of cases involving all ages, and ultimately it all ties up with the materialist argument that we do not have free will. I remain neutral, but you don’t. You have always argued that the soul/self has free will. Meanwhile, you have not responded to the logical extension of your argument: according to you, no one under the age of 25 is capable of reaching a rational conclusion because their pre-frontal cortex is not fully developed. A mass murderer over 25 has made a proper adult judgement because his pre-frontal cortex is fully developed. Is that what you believe?
Current medical theory. I accept it.
dhw: But I am not denying what current medical theory tells us. A quick google reveals that the pre-frontal cortex is responsible for regulating our behaviour, emotions, social control, problem solving, abstract thinking, thought analysis, personal expression, decision-making…Not much left for the poor old soul to do, is there? I am not going to argue with it. The problem I have is when a dualist tells me that he accepts all this, but at the same time he believes it is his soul and not his brain that is responsible for regulating his behaviour, emotions, social control etc. etc. Something doesn’t quite add up, does it?
I'll repeat. The s/s/c can only interface with a functional brain or a specific area of brain to produce functional thought for the living individual. Google accurately tells you what areas of s/s/c action the brain handles. Software, hardware.
Big brain evolution: changes in sapiens skull shape
dhw: Nobody knows why the brain enlarged, and so we propose hypotheses. We DO know that implementation causes modifications now, and so once again it is not unreasonable to propose that implementation caused modifications in the past. You yourself used that argument in relation to complexity and shrinkage, and you now acknowledge that enlargement is a modification.
DAVID: You are equating implementation with enlargement, when the only fact we have is shrinkage. I'll stop with that in my theorizing.
But you don’t stop with that! You propose that your God enlarged the material brain, and only then were pre-sapiens able to think up their new concepts and implement them. And yet in complete contradiction you also hypothesize that the material brain is NOT responsible for thinking up concepts, which are produced by the immaterial self/soul (dualism). And you also ignore the fact that there is no evidence of the brain modifying itself BEFORE implementation of concepts, whereas we know that it does modify itself as a RESULT of implementation, and enlargement is a form of modification.
dhw: …a million years ago brains must have been plastic enough to allow for lots of new neurons.
DAVID: I'm only adding to my theory about God and brain size are facts we know. If an ancient brain wanted to add many neurons and grow in volume it had to tell the skull to enlarge and the Mothers to change their pelvis size. All had to coordinated. Do you now see the reason for design?
I have always seen the reason for design, and do not dispute its logic (though I do dispute the logic of your God needing to design every single innovation, natural wonder etc. individually in order to produce the human brain). Most innovations would require changes elsewhere to accommodate them, and all changes would have been impossible without plasticity. However, none of them support your hypothesis that your God made all the changes BEFORE circumstances required or allowed them, as opposed to their taking place in RESPONSE to the conditions.
xxxxx
DAVID: …I can reach my immaterial s/s/c only through my material brain. My living 'me' is material with active thoughts that are immaterial. My living 'me' has shaped my immaterial personality. I see 'me' as both material and immaterial all the time fully interfaced. The s/s/c becomes independent and function on its own is in death or non -functionality of the brain.
Of course all our material observations and experiences shape our immaterial s/s/c, and we are a mixture of interacting material and immaterial, and the s/s/c depends on the brain for information concerning the material world, but it is the immaterial self/soul that does the THINKING as it processes, analyses, remembers, feels, makes its decisions and issues its instructions. I don’t know what you mean by self/soul/ consciousness “reaching” itself. It IS itself, and if you think its consciousness depends on the brain, you are a materialist. Dualism (= TWO entities) separates s/s/c from body (including brain), although the two interact during physical life.
Big brain evolution: changes in sapiens skull shape
by David Turell , Sunday, February 18, 2018, 15:22 (2253 days ago) @ dhw
DAVID: You are equating implementation with enlargement, when the only fact we have is shrinkage. I'll stop with that in my theorizing.
dhw: But you don’t stop with that! You propose that your God enlarged the material brain, and only then were pre-sapiens able to think up their new concepts and implement them. And yet in complete contradiction you also hypothesize that the material brain is NOT responsible for thinking up concepts, which are produced by the immaterial self/soul (dualism).
My software (s/s/c) hardware (brain) concept makes that issue entirely clear to me.
dhw: And you also ignore the fact that there is no evidence of the brain modifying itself BEFORE implementation of concepts, whereas we know that it does modify itself as a RESULT of implementation, and enlargement is a form of modification.
Again manipulating the word modification to cover over the fact that new use makes the brain shrink.
dhw: …a million years ago brains must have been plastic enough to allow for lots of new neurons.
DAVID: I'm only adding to my theory about God and brain size are facts we know. If an ancient brain wanted to add many neurons and grow in volume it had to tell the skull to enlarge and the Mothers to change their pelvis size. All had to coordinated. Do you now see the reason for design?dhw: I have always seen the reason for design, and do not dispute its logic (though I do dispute the logic of your God needing to design every single innovation, natural wonder etc. individually in order to produce the human brain). Most innovations would require changes elsewhere to accommodate them, and all changes would have been impossible without plasticity. However, none of them support your hypothesis that your God made all the changes BEFORE circumstances required or allowed them, as opposed to their taking place in RESPONSE to the conditions.
You are ignoring the point that a designer can run evolution by his plans for advancement. This removes from the equation 'circumstances required or allowed'. You are still stuck in Darwin and survival of the fittest. I propose God speciates. You are still with speciation from necessity and pressure from nature. I'm not.
xxxxxDAVID: …I can reach my immaterial s/s/c only through my material brain. My living 'me' is material with active thoughts that are immaterial. My living 'me' has shaped my immaterial personality. I see 'me' as both material and immaterial all the time fully interfaced. The s/s/c becomes independent and function on its own is in death or non -functionality of the brain.
dhw: Of course all our material observations and experiences shape our immaterial s/s/c, and we are a mixture of interacting material and immaterial, and the s/s/c depends on the brain for information concerning the material world, but it is the immaterial self/soul that does the THINKING as it processes, analyses, remembers, feels, makes its decisions and issues its instructions. I don’t know what you mean by self/soul/ consciousness “reaching” itself. It IS itself, and if you think its consciousness depends on the brain, you are a materialist. Dualism (= TWO entities) separates s/s/c from body (including brain), although the two interact during physical life.
I am firmly a dualist. My material body can only sense my s/s/c if my brain is functional. You can follow my reasoning if you accept the concept that our consciousness is a quantum state mechanism that is part of God's universal consciousness. In that way consciousness mechanism is material (quanta) construction but its thoughts are immaterial. I'm agreeing with Penrose.
Big brain evolution: changes in sapiens skull shape
DAVID: You are equating implementation with enlargement, when the only fact we have is shrinkage. I'll stop with that in my theorizing.
dhw: But you don’t stop with that! You propose that your God enlarged the material brain, and only then were pre-sapiens able to think up their new concepts and implement them. And yet in complete contradiction you also hypothesize that the material brain is NOT responsible for thinking up concepts, which are produced by the immaterial self/soul (dualism).
DAVID: My software (s/s/c) hardware (brain) concept makes that issue entirely clear to me.
It makes the second point clear. Dualism involves TWO separate entities that work together. The contradiction is with the first point. If the software (soul/self/consciousness) does the thinking and the hardware (brain) does the implementing, you cannot argue that the soul cannot THINK without the brain. Your prime evidence for your dualism is NDEs, in which the soul THINKS without the brain.
DAVID (later in the post): I am firmly a dualist. My material body can only sense my s/s/c if my brain is functional. You can follow my reasoning if you accept the concept that our consciousness is a quantum state mechanism that is part of God's universal consciousness. In that way consciousness mechanism is material (quanta) construction but its thoughts are immaterial. I'm agreeing with Penrose.
Phew! At least I was able to understand your hardware/software analogy, demonstrating the clear division between thinking soul and implementing hardware. But I have no idea what a “quantum state mechanism” is or how it works in your hypothesis. Please tell us whether you think this quantum state mechanism is part of the brain or part of the soul, and whether it survives the death of the brain in the afterlife you believe in. Do you think God’s consciousness is a quantum state mechanism, or does it exist independently of quanta? Please forgive my ignorance.
dhw: And you also ignore the fact that there is no evidence of the brain modifying itself BEFORE implementation of concepts, whereas we know that it does modify itself as a RESULT of implementation, and enlargement is a form of modification.
DAVID: Again manipulating the word modification to cover over the fact that new use makes the brain shrink.
No manipulation. Nobody knows why the brain expanded, so we hypothesize. We know that sapiens brain has stopped expanding (at least for now), that new use makes the brain complexify, and that sapiens complexification has been accompanied by shrinkage. These two processes are modifications which take place as a RESULT of new uses and not in anticipation of them. Enlargement is also a modification. It is therefore not unreasonable to propose that the so far unexplained enlargement might also have been the RESULT of new uses and not the cause.
dhw: Most innovations would require changes elsewhere to accommodate them, and all changes would have been impossible without plasticity. However, none of them support your hypothesis that your God made all the changes BEFORE circumstances required or allowed them, as opposed to their taking place in RESPONSE to the conditions.
DAVID: You are ignoring the point that a designer can run evolution by his plans for advancement. This removes from the equation 'circumstances required or allowed'. You are still stuck in Darwin and survival of the fittest. I propose God speciates. You are still with speciation from necessity and pressure from nature. I'm not.
I understand your point that your God could do anything he liked. But since you accept Darwin’s theory of common descent, and you cannot decide whether God did or didn’t control every environmental change in the history of the Earth, and since it is sheer common sense that organisms must be able to live in their environment, I humbly suggest to you that it is not unreasonable to suppose that innovations, lifestyles and natural wonders extant and extinct were/are a response to the demands and the opportunities arising from environmental conditions, as opposed to their being created in advance of those demands and opportunities. Please note, necessity and pressure are one of the driving forces – as we know from modern adaptations – but improvement is another, though of course improving chances of survival is one form of improvement.
Big brain evolution: changes in sapiens skull shape
by David Turell , Monday, February 19, 2018, 18:04 (2252 days ago) @ dhw
DAVID: My software (s/s/c) hardware (brain) concept makes that issue entirely clear to me.dhw: It makes the second point clear. Dualism involves TWO separate entities that work together. The contradiction is with the first point. If the software (soul/self/consciousness) does the thinking and the hardware (brain) does the implementing, you cannot argue that the soul cannot THINK without the brain. Your prime evidence for your dualism is NDEs, in which the soul THINKS without the brain.
My idea is that the s/s/c works in two ways and perhaps with two mechanisms, one which must interface with the brain (in life) and an other which is in the afterlife (death or non-functional brain) and independent
DAVID (later in the post): I am firmly a dualist. My material body can only sense my s/s/c if my brain is functional. You can follow my reasoning if you accept the concept that our consciousness is a quantum state mechanism that is part of God's universal consciousness. In that way consciousness mechanism is material (quanta) construction but its thoughts are immaterial. I'm agreeing with Penrose.dhw: Phew! At least I was able to understand your hardware/software analogy, demonstrating the clear division between thinking soul and implementing hardware. But I have no idea what a “quantum state mechanism” is or how it works in your hypothesis. Please tell us whether you think this quantum state mechanism is part of the brain or part of the soul, and whether it survives the death of the brain in the afterlife you believe in. Do you think God’s consciousness is a quantum state mechanism, or does it exist independently of quanta? Please forgive my ignorance.
Since quantum mechanics is the base state of the universe it represents God's universal consciousness. S/s/c quantum state discussed above. Fact: experiments such as delayed choice indicate consciousness is intimately related to quamtum states.
dhw: Most innovations would require changes elsewhere to accommodate them, and all changes would have been impossible without plasticity. However, none of them support your hypothesis that your God made all the changes BEFORE circumstances required or allowed them, as opposed to their taking place in RESPONSE to the conditions.
DAVID: You are ignoring the point that a designer can run evolution by his plans for advancement. This removes from the equation 'circumstances required or allowed'. You are still stuck in Darwin and survival of the fittest. I propose God speciates. You are still with speciation from necessity and pressure from nature. I'm not.dhw: I understand your point that your God could do anything he liked. But since you accept Darwin’s theory of common descent, and you cannot decide whether God did or didn’t control every environmental change in the history of the Earth, and since it is sheer common sense that organisms must be able to live in their environment, I humbly suggest to you that it is not unreasonable to suppose that innovations, lifestyles and natural wonders extant and extinct were/are a response to the demands and the opportunities arising from environmental conditions, as opposed to their being created in advance of those demands and opportunities. Please note, necessity and pressure are one of the driving forces – as we know from modern adaptations – but improvement is another, though of course improving chances of survival is one form of improvement.
First, I agree that common descent theory appears to be true, but not by any Darwin mechanism. I insist that God logically arranged for speciation, and that minor modifications way have occurred without His direct intervention, but through built-in guided mechanisms.
Big brain evolution: changes in sapiens skull shape
dhw: If the software (soul/self/consciousness) does the thinking and the hardware (brain) does the implementing, you cannot argue that the soul cannot THINK without the brain. Your prime evidence for your dualism is NDEs, in which the soul THINKS without the brain.
DAVID: My idea is that the s/s/c works in two ways and perhaps with two mechanisms, one which must interface with the brain (in life) and an other which is in the afterlife (death or non-functional brain) and independent
There can be no question that in life the dualist's s/s/c must interface with the brain, and if there is an afterlife, then the s/s/c will live on without the material mechanisms that have provided it with material information and with material implementation. The afterlife "experience" (NDEs) is regarded by dualists as evidence that in earthly life the s/s/c does the thinking and the brain does the implementing, as you keep agreeing. So why do you also keep insisting that the s/s/c cannot think without the brain? (You may be right – but that is MATERIALISM, which you reject. For more, see “addendum”.)
DAVID (later in the post): I am firmly a dualist. My material body can only sense my s/s/c if my brain is functional. You can follow my reasoning if you accept the concept that our consciousness is a quantum state mechanism that is part of God's universal consciousness. In that way consciousness mechanism is material (quanta) construction but its thoughts are immaterial. I'm agreeing with Penrose.
dhw: Phew! At least I was able to understand your hardware/software analogy, demonstrating the clear division between thinking soul and implementing hardware. But I have no idea what a “quantum state mechanism” is or how it works in your hypothesis. Please tell us whether you think this quantum state mechanism is part of the brain or part of the soul, and whether it survives the death of the brain in the afterlife you believe in. Do you think God’s consciousness is a quantum state mechanism, or does it exist independently of quanta? Please forgive my ignorance.
DAVID: Since quantum mechanics is the base state of the universe it represents God's universal consciousness. S/s/c quantum state discussed above. Fact: experiments such as delayed choice indicate consciousness is intimately related to quamtum states.
In dualism it is the s/s/c that does the thinking and the brain that provides information and gives material expression to thought, regardless of quantum mechanics. Fact: you have not told me whether you think this quantum mechanism is part of the brain or part of the soul, whether it survives the death of the brain, and whether your God’s consciousness is a quantum state.
xxx
DAVID: First, I agree that common descent theory appears to be true, but not by any Darwin mechanism. I insist that God logically arranged for speciation, and that minor modifications way have occurred without His direct intervention, but through built-in guided mechanisms.
I also accept the common descent theory and am sceptical about Darwin’s mechanisms. Your insistence that God logically arranged for speciation – presumably as opposed to giving organisms the means to speciate without his dabbling (direct intervention) or a 3.8-billion-year old computer programme (built-in guided mechanisms) – is on a par with an atheist’s insistence that there is no God. Of course both of you have every right to insist that your opinions are correct, but it is no way to conduct a rational debate.
Big brain evolution: changes in sapiens skull shape
by David Turell , Tuesday, February 20, 2018, 17:49 (2251 days ago) @ dhw
There can be no question that in life the dualist's s/s/c must interface with the brain, and if there is an afterlife, then the s/s/c will live on without the material mechanisms that have provided it with material information and with material implementation. The afterlife "experience" (NDEs) is regarded by dualists as evidence that in earthly life the s/s/c does the thinking and the brain does the implementing, as you keep agreeing. So why do you also keep insisting that the s/s/c cannot think without the brain? (You may be right – but that is MATERIALISM, which you reject.
You are missing the two modes of the s/s/c while you describe it! In life the s/s/c and brain are interfaced in producing thought. When the brain is non-functional the s/s/c works independently on its own. Clear?
DAVID: Since quantum mechanics is the base state of the universe it represents God's universal consciousness. S/s/c quantum state discussed above. Fact: experiments such as delayed choice indicate consciousness is intimately related to quamtum states.
dhw: In dualism it is the s/s/c that does the thinking and the brain that provides information and gives material expression to thought, regardless of quantum mechanics. Fact: you have not told me whether you think this quantum mechanism is part of the brain or part of the soul, whether it survives the death of the brain, and whether your God’s consciousness is a quantum state.
I think the s/s/c is a quantum state as is God's consciousness, since the basis of the universe is quantum mechanics. Our consciousness is part of God's.
xxxDAVID: First, I agree that common descent theory appears to be true, but not by any Darwin mechanism. I insist that God logically arranged for speciation, and that minor modifications way have occurred without His direct intervention, but through built-in guided mechanisms.
dhw: I also accept the common descent theory and am sceptical about Darwin’s mechanisms. Your insistence that God logically arranged for speciation – presumably as opposed to giving organisms the means to speciate without his dabbling (direct intervention) or a 3.8-billion-year old computer programme (built-in guided mechanisms) – is on a par with an atheist’s insistence that there is no God. Of course both of you have every right to insist that your opinions are correct, but it is no way to conduct a rational debate.
Ah, 'rational' is only if I agree with you!? I've gone so far as agree with you God might have provided a speciation mechanism in organisms, but we have found no evidence of it so far.
Big brain evolution: changes in sapiens skull shape
dhw: There can be no question that in life the dualist's s/s/c must interface with the brain, and if there is an afterlife, then the s/s/c will live on without the material mechanisms that have provided it with material information and with material implementation. The afterlife "experience" (NDEs) is regarded by dualists as evidence that in earthly life the s/s/c does the thinking and the brain does the implementing, as you keep agreeing. So why do you also keep insisting that the s/s/c cannot think without the brain? (You may be right – but that is MATERIALISM, which you reject.
DAVID: You are missing the two modes of the s/s/c while you describe it! In life the s/s/c and brain are interfaced in producing thought. When the brain is non-functional the s/s/c works independently on its own. Clear?
You are repeating exactly what I have said in my first sentence above! And in both modes, the dualist’s s/s/c THINKS. But in earthly life it interacts with the brain, which collects information and expresses or implements thought. Software/hardware, to use your favourite image. And NDEs, in which the s/s/c THINKS without a functional brain, are regarded as evidence that in this life the mind is a separate entity from the body (= dualism). Clear?
DAVID: Since quantum mechanics is the base state of the universe it represents God's universal consciousness. S/s/c quantum state discussed above.
dhw: …you have not told me whether you think this quantum mechanism is part of the brain or part of the soul, whether it survives the death of the brain, and whether your God’s consciousness is a quantum state.
DAVID: I think the s/s/c is a quantum state as is God's consciousness, since the basis of the universe is quantum mechanics. Our consciousness is part of God's.
So you now have the s/s/c as a quantum state which does the thinking and survives the death of the brain, and you have the brain as a material mechanism which gathers information and expresses or implements the thoughts of the quantum s/s/c. And God is a quantum state. How does that support your materialistic argument that the s/s/c cannot think without a functioning brain?
DAVID: First, I agree that common descent theory appears to be true, but not by any Darwin mechanism. I insist that God logically arranged for speciation, and that minor modifications way have occurred without His direct intervention, but through built-in guided mechanisms.
dhw: I also accept the common descent theory and am sceptical about Darwin’s mechanisms. Your insistence that God logically arranged for speciation – presumably as opposed to giving organisms the means to speciate without his dabbling (direct intervention) or a 3.8-billion-year old computer programme (built-in guided mechanisms) – is on a par with an atheist’s insistence that there is no God. Of course both of you have every right to insist that your opinions are correct, but it is no way to conduct a rational debate.
DAVID: Ah, 'rational' is only if I agree with you!?
No, no, no! I am simply pointing out that your insistence that your hypothesis is right does not provide any rational grounds for anyone to believe you – and you would say the same if an atheist said to you: “I insist that God does not exist”. Insistence is not a rational argument.
DAVID: I've gone so far as agree with you God might have provided a speciation mechanism in organisms, but we have found no evidence of it so far.
You do sometimes make this concession, but when pressed you insist on qualifying it with “guidelines” (as above) and ultimately with a refusal to consider (perhaps God-given) autonomy, which is the key to my whole hypothesis. I have always acknowledged that we do not have evidence that cell communities (organisms) are intelligent enough to provide the major innovations that result in speciation (broad sense). There is no evidence of a 3.8-billion-year-old computer programme or of divine dabbling either.
Big brain evolution: changes in sapiens skull shape
by David Turell , Wednesday, February 21, 2018, 15:03 (2250 days ago) @ dhw
DAVID: You are missing the two modes of the s/s/c while you describe it! In life the s/s/c and brain are interfaced in producing thought. When the brain is non-functional the s/s/c works independently on its own. Clear?
dhw: You are repeating exactly what I have said in my first sentence above! And in both modes, the dualist’s s/s/c THINKS. But in earthly life it interacts with the brain, which collects information and expresses or implements thought. Software/hardware, to use your favourite image. And NDEs, in which the s/s/c THINKS without a functional brain, are regarded as evidence that in this life the mind is a separate entity from the body (= dualism). Clear?
Accepted.
DAVID: I think the s/s/c is a quantum state as is God's consciousness, since the basis of the universe is quantum mechanics. Our consciousness is part of God's.
dhw: So you now have the s/s/c as a quantum state which does the thinking and survives the death of the brain, and you have the brain as a material mechanism which gathers information and expresses or implements the thoughts of the quantum s/s/c. And God is a quantum state. How does that support your materialistic argument that the s/s/c cannot think without a functioning brain?
Read our comments agreed to above.
DAVID: I've gone so far as agree with you God might have provided a speciation mechanism in organisms, but we have found no evidence of it so far.dhw: You do sometimes make this concession, but when pressed you insist on qualifying it with “guidelines” (as above) and ultimately with a refusal to consider (perhaps God-given) autonomy, which is the key to my whole hypothesis. I have always acknowledged that we do not have evidence that cell communities (organisms) are intelligent enough to provide the major innovations that result in speciation (broad sense). There is no evidence of a 3.8-billion-year-old computer programme or of divine dabbling either.
You are just describing your fence sitting. I see teleology and design by God.
Big brain evolution: changes in sapiens skull shape
Dhw: in both modes, the dualist’s s/s/c THINKS. But in earthly life it interacts with the brain, which collects information and expresses or implements thought. Software/hardware, to use your favourite image. And NDEs, in which the s/s/c THINKS without a functional brain, are regarded as evidence that in this life the mind is a separate entity from the body (= dualism). Clear?
DAVID: Accepted.
You have accepted this many times, and it will save us both a lot of time if you stick to it! I will keep reminding you.
DAVID: I've gone so far as agree with you God might have provided a speciation mechanism in organisms, but we have found no evidence of it so far.
dhw: You do sometimes make this concession, but when pressed you insist on qualifying it with “guidelines” (as above) and ultimately with a refusal to consider (perhaps God-given) autonomy, which is the key to my whole hypothesis. I have always acknowledged that we do not have evidence that cell communities (organisms) are intelligent enough to provide the major innovations that result in speciation (broad sense). There is no evidence of a 3.8-billion-year-old computer programme or of divine dabbling either.
DAVID: You are just describing your fence sitting. I see teleology and design by God.
This is not a description of fence-sitting: it is a clear hypothesis concerning how evolution works, which offers a possible God’s teleology and design that are different from your version of a possible God’s teleology and design.
Big brain evolution: changes in sapiens skull shape
by David Turell , Thursday, February 22, 2018, 18:08 (2249 days ago) @ dhw
Dhw: in both modes, the dualist’s s/s/c THINKS. But in earthly life it interacts with the brain, which collects information and expresses or implements thought. Software/hardware, to use your favourite image. And NDEs, in which the s/s/c THINKS without a functional brain, are regarded as evidence that in this life the mind is a separate entity from the body (= dualism). Clear?
DAVID: Accepted.
You have accepted this many times, and it will save us both a lot of time if you stick to it! I will keep reminding you.
DAVID: I've gone so far as agree with you God might have provided a speciation mechanism in organisms, but we have found no evidence of it so far.
dhw: You do sometimes make this concession, but when pressed you insist on qualifying it with “guidelines” (as above) and ultimately with a refusal to consider (perhaps God-given) autonomy, which is the key to my whole hypothesis. I have always acknowledged that we do not have evidence that cell communities (organisms) are intelligent enough to provide the major innovations that result in speciation (broad sense). There is no evidence of a 3.8-billion-year-old computer programme or of divine dabbling either.
DAVID: You are just describing your fence sitting. I see teleology and design by God.
dhw: This is not a description of fence-sitting: it is a clear hypothesis concerning how evolution works, which offers a possible God’s teleology and design that are different from your version of a possible God’s teleology and design.
I was just defining your response as agnosticism. You agree, but don't like the fence analogy..
Big brain evolution: changes in hominin brain shape
by David Turell , Saturday, March 10, 2018, 01:06 (2233 days ago) @ David Turell
A picture of brain change:
http://www.coolimba.com/engine/static/articles/22-historical-facts-you-never-knew-about...
Helps to see the actual change in shape, mainly in the front half where the pre-frontal cortex sits.
Big brain evolution: causative genes found
by David Turell , Thursday, May 31, 2018, 23:20 (2150 days ago) @ David Turell
It looks as if they appeared and activated 3 million years ago:
https://medicalxpress.com/news/2018-05-genes-humans-brain-size.html
"A set of three nearly identical genes found only in humans appear to play a critical role in the development of our large brains, according to a study led by researchers at the University of California, Santa Cruz.
"The genes appeared between 3 and 4 million years ago, just before the period when fossils show a dramatic increase in the brain sizes of human ancestors. In modern humans, the genes are involved in genetic defects associated with neurological disorders.
"They belong to an ancient family of genes known as Notch genes, first discovered in fruit flies and named for a genetic defect causing notched wings.
"'This is a family of genes that goes back hundreds of millions of years in evolutionary history and is known to play important roles in embryonic development. To find that humans have a new member of this family that is involved in brain development is extremely exciting," said senior author David Haussler,
***
"The new human-specific Notch genes were derived from NOTCH2, one of four previously known mammalian Notch genes, through a duplication event that inserted an extra partial copy of NOTCH2 into the genome. This happened in an ancient ape species that was a common ancestor of humans, chimpanzees, and gorillas. The partial duplicate was a nonfunctional "pseudogene," versions of which are still found in chimp and gorilla genomes. In the human lineage, however, this pseudogene was "revived" when additional NOTCH2 DNA was copied into its place, creating a functional gene. This new gene was then duplicated several more times, resulting in four related genes, called NOTCH2NL genes, found only in humans.
"One of the four NOTCH2NL genes appears to be a nonfunctional pseudogene, but the other three (NOTCH2NLA, NOTCH2NLB, and NOTCH2NLC) are active genes that direct the production of truncated versions of the original NOTCH2 protein. Notch proteins are involved in signaling between and within cells. In many cases, the Notch signaling pathway regulates the differentiation of stem cells in developing organs throughout the body, telling stem cells when to become, for example, mature heart cells or neurons.
***
"The NOTCH2NL genes are especially active in the pool of neural stem cells thought to generate most of the cortical neurons. By delaying their maturation, the genes allow a larger pool of these stem cells (called "radial glia") to build up in the developing brain, ultimately leading to a larger number of mature neurons in the neocortex (the outer layer of the brain in mammals; in humans, it hosts higher cognitive functions such as language and reasoning).
"This delayed development of cortical neurons fits a pattern of delayed maturation characteristic of human development, Haussler said. "One of our most distinguishing features is larger brains and delayed brain development, and now we're seeing molecular mechanisms supporting this evolutionary trend even at a very early stage of brain development," he said.
***
"A major part of the research involved careful and precise sequencing of the region of chromosome 1 where the NOTCH2NL genes are located in 8 normal individuals and 6 patients with 1q21.1 deletion/duplication syndrome. (The researchers also analyzed the genomes of three archaic humans, two Neanderthals, and one Denisovan, finding in all of them the same three active NOTCH2NL genes that are present in modern humans.)
"The sequencing results showed that the NOTCH2NL genes are variable in modern humans. The researchers identified eight different versions of NOTCH2NL, and Haussler said there are probably more. Each version has a slightly different DNA sequence, but it remains unclear what effects these differences may have.
***
"Other genes involved in human brain development seem to have arisen through a duplication process similar to the creation of NOTCH2NL. A notable example is the gene SRGAP2C, which is thought to increase the number of connections between neurons. Locations in the genome where such duplications and rearrangements occur repeatedly, known as "duplication hubs," make up about 5 percent of the human genome and seem to have been important in human evolution, Haussler said."
Comment: the bigger size requires a bigger skull and a differently shaped female pelvis, and those new genes are unknown so far. Did this occur by chance or by design?
Big brain evolution: prune or not to prune
by David Turell , Wednesday, October 10, 2018, 21:13 (2018 days ago) @ David Turell
Control of synapse connectivity is a major part of plasticity. the controls over pruning or not pruning is found:
https://medicalxpress.com/news/2018-10-synapse-refine-brain-circuits.html
"The developing brain is constantly forming new connections, or synapses, between nerve cells. Many connections are eventually lost, while others are strengthened. In 2012, Beth Stevens, Ph.D. and her lab at Boston Children's Hospital showed that microglia, immune cells that live in the brain, prune back unwanted synapses by engulfing or "eating" them. They also identified a set of "eat me" signals required to promote this process: complement proteins, best known for helping the immune system combat infection.
"In new work published in Neuron, Stevens and colleagues reveal the flip side: a "don't eat me" signal that prevents microglia from pruning useful connections away. The signal, a protein called CD47, communicates with a receptor on microglia called SIRP alpha.
"We think this is first evidence of a protective cue that microglia can read out that tells them not to prune," says Stevens. "Our findings demonstrate that synaptic protection is necessary to ensure normal brain development."
"Like complement, CD47 also plays a role in the immune system, where it is part of a group of "don't eat me" signals that prevent damage or removal of healthy cells in situations of infection or challenge by pathogens. (In fact, some cancer immunotherapies work by inhibiting CD47, encouraging the immune system to attack cancer cells.)
"'We asked, are any of these molecules expressed in the brain?" says Stevens. "Sure enough, CD47 is expressed very highly and is found throughout the brain. We think that, as seen following an immune challenge, the brain is using it as a protective cue, telling microglia not to prune specific synapse. The brain and the immune system are sharing signals in a way that we're only beginning to appreciate."
***
"The findings add fuel to the idea that the brain has a balance of opposing factors that help fine-tune its connections—a yin/yang of sorts.
"'The study is exciting because it suggests a possible cooperative interaction between 'eat me' and 'don't eat me' signals that instruct microglia what to do when they see a synapse," says Stevens. "As we start to delve deeper and identify new molecules and mechanisms by which microglia are pruning, it's important to think how all these things fit together. It's not one pathway, but a coordinated effort."
***
"Previous work in the Stevens lab showed that microglia, when given the choice, preferentially eat synapses from less active neurons compared to more active neurons. However, how microglia can tell these synapses apart remained unknown. The new study finds that in response to changes in neuronal activity, CD47 localization changes—with CD47 preferentially localized to synapses from the more active neurons. In the absence of CD47, microglia appear unable to distinguish different activity levels, as they no longer prefer to eat synapses from less active neurons.
"'We think this is the first example of a molecule regulated by neuronal activity that can put the brakes on microglial engulfment," says Stevens."
Comment: Basically this study has picked apart a major portion of a feedback loop mechanism ht controls how synapses are managed during plasticity changes as brain use changes. Feedback loops require exact relationships between molecules to complete a control loop. There is no way t his could b e worked out by chance. Only design fits.
Big brain evolution: direct brain stimulation studies
by David Turell , Sunday, October 14, 2018, 06:08 (2015 days ago) @ David Turell
What they tell us about free will:
https://mindmatters.today/2018/10/does-brain-stimulation-research-challenge-free-will/
"If an electrode is applied to a specific brain region during “awake” neurosurgery, the patient may experience a strong desire to perform a related action and may even be mistaken about whether he has done so.
***
"Stimulating the right inferior parietal regions triggered a strong intention and desire to move the contralateral hand, arm, or foot, whereas stimulating the left inferior parietal region provoked the intention to move the lips and to talk. When stimulation intensity was increased in parietal areas, participants believed they had really performed these movements, although no electromyographic activity was detected. Stimulation of the premotor region triggered overt mouth and contralateral limb movements. Yet, patients firmly denied that they had moved. Conscious intention and motor awareness thus arise from increased parietal activity before movement execution.
***
"Wilder Penfield, ... found that while he could stimulate several different types of responses—sensations, movements of limbs, memories, etc.—he could not stimulate a sense of agency. Patients still knew whether a movement was done by them or to them. A sense of will—free will—was beyond evocation by brain stimulation. Penfield, who began his career as a materialist, finished it as a passionate dualist.
***
"The classical understanding of the soul derived from Plato and Aristotle—which is, I think, correct—is that the immaterial aspect of the human soul consists of the intellect and the will. The intellect thinks abstract thoughts about universal things (mathematics, morality, etc.) and the will follows on the immaterial intellect. The will is naturally free in the sense that it is not determined by matter.
***
"The immaterial aspects of the soul, as noted, are the intellect and the will. The intellect and the will are wholly immaterial aspects of the soul because they deal with immaterial objects (abstractions, logic, etc.) The intellect considers things as universals—concepts, abstractions, complex judgments, etc. The will carries out acts in accordance with the good as the intellect defines it.
"The will and the passions interact with and modulate each other. The will constrains the passions. We may feel anger and be ready to strike out but our will (directed by our intellect) can prevent us from acting in a way that the intellect deems unwise. Sometimes our passions can override our will. A man may fall in love with a woman he knows is chronically unfaithful, despite his best judgment.
***
"Alteration of brain function can radically change passions (as any alcoholic knows). But the will, which is free and immaterial, remains, even if it is overwhelmed by the material passions. Sometimes, of course, the passions win and sometimes the will wins. But the will is spiritual and is free, and the passions are material and are not freely chosen.
***
"Penfield’s studies found that no stimulation of any sort could erase the patient’s awareness that the feeling or act was externally caused, even if the patient experienced the feeling in a very personal way. “You caused me to think/do that” was the invariable explanation they gave him during the surgery. It was in that sense that Penfield says that he could not evoke agency.
***
"In the debate about free will, we must understand that will is not, by itself, the same thing as agency (the ability to act). The will and passions work simultaneously, whether for our good or not, but the will and the passions are very different aspects of the mind. The will is spiritual and free. The passions are material and not free. They are caused by material processes in the brain and can be evoked surgically. They can, of course also can be evoked in many other ways, some of which are material substances (e.g. drugs, alcohol).
***
"will follows on the immaterial intellect as the means ... by which we apply reason to our actions. In this sense, will is not determined by the material passions. It influences them and is in turn influenced by them. But because will is not determined by matter, it remains free."
Comment: Again this is Dr. Egnor, the neurosurgeon, explaining the role of the brain in free will. He views free will as immaterial and controlling over the materially induced passions we feel, which are a result of physico-chemical changes/forces in the brain. The excerpts here do not give justice to the while article. More support for dualism.
Big brain evolution: mind/brain philosophy
by David Turell , Sunday, October 14, 2018, 18:07 (2015 days ago) @ David Turell
Dr. Egnor again:
https://mindmatters.today/2018/10/does-your-brain-construct-your-conscious-reality-part...
"Seth asks: “How does consciousness happen?”. He answers: “…somehow, within each of our brains, the combined activity of many billions of neurons—each one a tiny biological machine—is generating our conscious experience…”
"There are three fallacies in this one sentence. In my earlier post, I pointed out the fallacy of Seth’s assumption that rational thought is a material power of the brain, which it is not. In this post, I’ll discuss Seth’s mereological fallacy, a fundamental fallacy which is endemic in neuroscience.
"The mereological fallacy is the confusion of the part for the whole. It is the nonsensical attribution of abilities to the part that can only be abilities of the whole. It is the mereological fallacy to say that my mouth speaks. Actually, I speak, using my mouth. It is the mereological fallacy to say that my feet walk. Actually, I walk, using my feet.
"This fallacy is employed incessantly in neuroscience. Neuroscientists commonly claim that the brain or a part of the brain understands, or imagines, or sees, or wills. For example, we are told, variously, that “the amygdala simultaneously comforts and aggravates”; elsewhere, it “attaches emotional significance to events and memories” while the “hippocampus, meanwhile, reminds us which courses of action are congruent with our mood” and the “ prefrontal cortex calms the amygdala, helping us regulate our emotions” A large crowd, it would seem, and each has a different agenda…
"But of course, the brain and its parts do none of those things. The brain understands nothing, imagines nothing, sees nothing (it’s dark in the skull and the brain has no eyes anyway!). It wills nothing. We understand, we imagine, we see, and we will, using our brains.
***
"Despite denials, many if not most neuroscientists do actually believe that the brain or parts of it have human powers, or at least that human powers—powers of the whole human being—are located in some fashion in brain centers or “modules.” It is undeniably true that the normal exercise of some powers by human beings—memory or vision or movement, etc.—is dependent on function in certain regions of the brain. That is, activity in certain brain regions may be necessary, and even at times sufficient, for the exercise of certain human abilities. My speech area in my left frontal lobe must be working properly in order for me to be able to speak normally. But that does not mean that my left frontal lobe “speaks” or that my speech is “located” in that part of my brain. I speak and my speech is an act rather than a location.
"Surely, the materialist would continue, such talk of brains doing “people” things is, even so, a harmless metaphor. But it’s not harmless if most neuroscientists believe the mereological fallacy, to at least some extent, and incorporate it into their research. For example, one of the hotter topics in neuroscience is ‘the binding problem’. Here is an abstract from Neurobiology of Attention:
***
"While the scientific study of the interconnections between brain regions is good and useful science, the dilemma of “what account[s] for perception of a unified world” is a false dilemma created entirely by the mereological fallacy. Perceptions are not occurring in scattered brain regions, so explaining “unification” is unnecessary. Our brain “modules” (or whatever jargon is currently fashionable) perceive nothing because perception is something only whole persons do.
***
"In neuroscience, entire research avenues are devoted to gibberish because neuroscientists accept the mereological fallacy and base their scientific investigations on logical nonsense. Studying regions of the brain to understand the binding problem is like studying Lincoln’s mouth to understand the Gettysburg address. Studying Lincoln’s mouth may have some scientific value (to a dentist), but it is a waste of time if you want to study his speech, which is given by him, not by his mouth."
Comment: More of a dualistic view from a pediatric neurosurgeon. He feels the mind is an immaterial whole which resides in the brain and uses it.
Big brain evolution: mind/brain philosophy
DAVID: Dr. Egnor again:
https://mindmatters.today/2018/10/does-your-brain-construct-your-conscious-reality-part...
QUOTE: "Seth asks: “How does consciousness happen?”. He answers: “…somehow, within each of our brains, the combined activity of many billions of neurons—each one a tiny biological machine—is generating our conscious experience…”
"There are three fallacies in this one sentence. In my earlier post, I pointed out the fallacy of Seth’s assumption that rational thought is a material power of the brain, which it is not. In this post, I’ll discuss Seth’s mereological fallacy, a fundamental fallacy which is endemic in neuroscience.
"The mereological fallacy is the confusion of the part for the whole. It is the nonsensical attribution of abilities to the part that can only be abilities of the whole. It is the mereological fallacy to say that my mouth speaks. Actually, I speak, using my mouth. It is the mereological fallacy to say that my feet walk. Actually, I walk, using my feet.”
We have discussed this subject over and over again. What Egnor calls the “mereological fallacy” is his repudiation of “emergence”, though he doesn’t use the term. I remain neutral on the subject of materialism versus dualism, but I cannot accept his dismissal or his complete distortion of the argument as a “fallacy”. I don’t know of any materialist who attributes the abilities of the whole to the part. The argument is that the parts combine to make the whole, which is greater than the sum of its parts. (I like to use the ant colony as an analogy.) Of course I speak using my mouth. But what am “I”? The dualist says “I” am a mixture of immaterial mind and material body. The materialist says that “mind” is what emerges from interaction between billions of neurons, and “I” am therefore the product of my interacting materials. Calling it a “fallacy”, and manufacturing silly examples, does not make it a fallacy.
Big brain evolution: mind/brain philosophy
by David Turell , Monday, October 15, 2018, 15:08 (2014 days ago) @ dhw
DAVID: Dr. Egnor again:
https://mindmatters.today/2018/10/does-your-brain-construct-your-conscious-reality-part...QUOTE: "Seth asks: “How does consciousness happen?”. He answers: “…somehow, within each of our brains, the combined activity of many billions of neurons—each one a tiny biological machine—is generating our conscious experience…”
"There are three fallacies in this one sentence. In my earlier post, I pointed out the fallacy of Seth’s assumption that rational thought is a material power of the brain, which it is not. In this post, I’ll discuss Seth’s mereological fallacy, a fundamental fallacy which is endemic in neuroscience.
"The mereological fallacy is the confusion of the part for the whole. It is the nonsensical attribution of abilities to the part that can only be abilities of the whole. It is the mereological fallacy to say that my mouth speaks. Actually, I speak, using my mouth. It is the mereological fallacy to say that my feet walk. Actually, I walk, using my feet.”dhw: We have discussed this subject over and over again. What Egnor calls the “mereological fallacy” is his repudiation of “emergence”, though he doesn’t use the term. I remain neutral on the subject of materialism versus dualism, but I cannot accept his dismissal or his complete distortion of the argument as a “fallacy”. I don’t know of any materialist who attributes the abilities of the whole to the part. The argument is that the parts combine to make the whole, which is greater than the sum of its parts. (I like to use the ant colony as an analogy.) Of course I speak using my mouth. But what am “I”? The dualist says “I” am a mixture of immaterial mind and material body. The materialist says that “mind” is what emerges from interaction between billions of neurons, and “I” am therefore the product of my interacting materials. Calling it a “fallacy”, and manufacturing silly examples, does not make it a fallacy.
'Emergence' is as fuzzy a concept as anything we have discussed. Emergence means somehow or other mind appears from the use of the brain. By naming the concept as emergence, what have we done?: given something we cannot explain a grand name that does not advance our knowledge in any way. Note my bold of your comment about materialists: I would note, as for neurological studies of the brain, Egnor is exactly pointing out that those scientists are dividing the brain into parts and implying exact use of the part as if separate modules. It is Egnor who says look at the whole. Egnor's article says we cannot explain mind from brain studies , and never will.
Big brain evolution: mind/brain philosophy
dhw: We have discussed this subject over and over again. What Egnor calls the “mereological fallacy” is his repudiation of “emergence”, though he doesn’t use the term. I remain neutral on the subject of materialism versus dualism, but I cannot accept his dismissal or his complete distortion of the argument as a “fallacy”. I don’t know of any materialist who attributes the abilities of the whole to the part. The argument is that the parts combine to make the whole, which is greater than the sum of its parts. (I like to use the ant colony as an analogy.) Of course I speak using my mouth. But what am “I”? The dualist says “I” am a mixture of immaterial mind and material body. The materialist says that “mind” is what emerges from interaction between billions of neurons, and “I” am therefore the product of my interacting materials. Calling it a “fallacy”, and manufacturing silly examples, does not make it a fallacy.
DAVID: 'Emergence' is as fuzzy a concept as anything we have discussed. Emergence means somehow or other mind appears from the use of the brain. By naming the concept as emergence, what have we done?: given something we cannot explain a grand name that does not advance our knowledge in any way. Note my bold of your comment about materialists: I would note, as for neurological studies of the brain, Egnor is exactly pointing out that those scientists are dividing the brain into parts and implying exact use of the part as if separate modules. It is Egnor who says look at the whole. Egnor's article says we cannot explain mind from brain studies , and never will.
I am not backing materialism over dualism, and I agree that we cannot explain mind from brain studies. What I disagree with is the distortion of the argument. A materialist does not attribute the abilities of the whole to the part. You yourself have pointed out that different parts of the brain are associated with different abilities, but neither you nor anyone else I know goes round saying: “My hippocampus remembers”, any more than we say “my mouth speaks”, or “my feet walk”. I am simply objecting to Egnor setting up these straw men in order to distort materialism so that he can dismiss it as a “mereological fallacy”. The materialist self is a just as much a "whole" as the dualist self, but materialism attributes all its interacting parts and their qualities to materials. This, in my view, is no more and no less "fuzzy" than dualism's concept of an immaterial soul that interacts with materials, which is why I remain neutral.
Big brain evolution: mind/brain philosophy
by David Turell , Tuesday, October 16, 2018, 18:02 (2013 days ago) @ dhw
dhw: We have discussed this subject over and over again. What Egnor calls the “mereological fallacy” is his repudiation of “emergence”, though he doesn’t use the term. I remain neutral on the subject of materialism versus dualism, but I cannot accept his dismissal or his complete distortion of the argument as a “fallacy”. I don’t know of any materialist who attributes the abilities of the whole to the part. The argument is that the parts combine to make the whole, which is greater than the sum of its parts. (I like to use the ant colony as an analogy.) Of course I speak using my mouth. But what am “I”? The dualist says “I” am a mixture of immaterial mind and material body. The materialist says that “mind” is what emerges from interaction between billions of neurons, and “I” am therefore the product of my interacting materials. Calling it a “fallacy”, and manufacturing silly examples, does not make it a fallacy.
DAVID: 'Emergence' is as fuzzy a concept as anything we have discussed. Emergence means somehow or other mind appears from the use of the brain. By naming the concept as emergence, what have we done?: given something we cannot explain a grand name that does not advance our knowledge in any way. Note my bold of your comment about materialists: I would note, as for neurological studies of the brain, Egnor is exactly pointing out that those scientists are dividing the brain into parts and implying exact use of the part as if separate modules. It is Egnor who says look at the whole. Egnor's article says we cannot explain mind from brain studies , and never will.
dhw: I am not backing materialism over dualism, and I agree that we cannot explain mind from brain studies. What I disagree with is the distortion of the argument. A materialist does not attribute the abilities of the whole to the part. You yourself have pointed out that different parts of the brain are associated with different abilities, but neither you nor anyone else I know goes round saying: “My hippocampus remembers”, any more than we say “my mouth speaks”, or “my feet walk”. I am simply objecting to Egnor setting up these straw men in order to distort materialism so that he can dismiss it as a “mereological fallacy”. The materialist self is a just as much a "whole" as the dualist self, but materialism attributes all its interacting parts and their qualities to materials. This, in my view, is no more and no less "fuzzy" than dualism's concept of an immaterial soul that interacts with materials, which is why I remain neutral.
And so this ends with my declaration that I am a dualist.
Big brain evolution: human neurons are different
by David Turell , Thursday, October 18, 2018, 20:08 (2011 days ago) @ David Turell
New research shows how our neurons can be compartmentalized by how their dendrites work:
https://medicalxpress.com/news/2018-10-electrical-properties-dendrites-brain-unique.html
"Using hard-to-obtain samples of human brain tissue, MIT neuroscientists have now discovered that human dendrites have different electrical properties from those of other species. Their studies reveal that electrical signals weaken more as they flow along human dendrites, resulting in a higher degree of electrical compartmentalization, meaning that small sections of dendrites can behave independently from the rest of the neuron.
"These differences may contribute to the enhanced computing power of the human brain, the researchers say.
"'It's not just that humans are smart because we have more neurons and a larger cortex. From the bottom up, neurons behave differently," says Mark Harnett, ..."In human neurons, there is more electrical compartmentalization, and that allows these units to be a little bit more independent, potentially leading to increased computational capabilities of single neurons."
"Dendrites can be thought of as analogous to transistors in a computer, performing simple operations using electrical signals. Dendrites receive input from many other neurons and carry those signals to the cell body. If stimulated enough, a neuron fires an action potential—an electrical impulse that then stimulates other neurons. Large networks of these neurons communicate with each other to generate thoughts and behavior.
***
"Dendrites in the cortex of the human brain are much longer than those in rats and most other species, because the human cortex has evolved to be much thicker than that of other species. In humans, the cortex makes up about 75 percent of the total brain volume, compared to about 30 percent in the rat brain.
"Although the human cortex is two to three times thicker than that of rats, it maintains the same overall organization, consisting of six distinctive layers of neurons. Neurons from layer 5 have dendrites long enough to reach all the way to layer 1, meaning that human dendrites have had to elongate as the human brain has evolved, and electrical signals have to travel that much farther.
***
"The researchers found that because human dendrites cover longer distances, a signal flowing along a human dendrite from layer 1 to the cell body in layer 5 is much weaker when it arrives than a signal flowing along a rat dendrite from layer 1 to layer 5.
"They also showed that human and rat dendrites have the same number of ion channels, which regulate the current flow, but these channels occur at a lower density in human dendrites as a result of the dendrite elongation. They also developed a detailed biophysical model that shows that this density change can account for some of the differences in electrical activity seen between human and rat dendrites, Harnett says.
"The question remains, how do these differences affect human brainpower? Harnett's hypothesis is that because of these differences, which allow more regions of a dendrite to influence the strength of an incoming signal, individual neurons can perform more complex computations on the information.
"'If you have a cortical column that has a chunk of human or rodent cortex, you're going to be able to accomplish more computations faster with the human architecture versus the rodent architecture," he says.
"There are many other differences between human neurons and those of other species, Harnett adds, making it difficult to tease out the effects of dendritic electrical properties. In future studies, he hopes to explore further the precise impact of these electrical properties, and how they interact with other unique features of human neurons to produce more computing power."
Comment: our brains are not just bigger and more complex. They have special neurons with special dendrites. If they act as transistors, that would increase 'computing' power increasing the brain's capacity for thought. If we are not owners of simple enlarged ape brains, how did that happen? By design is the only answer, as existing apes prove our consciousness capacity is not needed for survival.
Big brain evolution: human neurons are different
by David Turell , Friday, October 19, 2018, 19:50 (2010 days ago) @ David Turell
Another article on our specialized neurons which gives a better description:'
https://www.newscientist.com/article/2182987-your-brain-is-like-100-billion-mini-comput...
"Brain cells, or neurons, communicate by firing electrical impulses down their length, which researchers can detect and measure by putting microscopic electrodes inside them. Most such studies have been done on rodent neurons kept alive in a dish, where the cells can live for several hours. But Mark Harnett at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in Cambridge wanted to see how human neurons compared with those of mice, so he used live tissue obtained from surgeons who were removing small chunks of brain from people with epilepsy.
"While people have recorded signals from inside human neurons before, it has always been inside the main “trunk” of their tree-like structure. Harnett’s team used thinner electrodes to record activity inside the fine branches, known as dendrites, at the end of the trunk.
"Each neuron may have about 50 dendrites, and each dendrite has hundreds of synapses, or connection points with other neurons. It’s signals running across these synapses and into the dendrite that make it more or less likely that the dendrite itself will fire an electrical signal along its length.
"Compared with mice, the dendrites of human neurons turn out to have fewer ion channels, molecules studded in the cell’s outer membrane that let electricity flow along the dendrite.
While this might sound bad, it could give greater computing powers to each brain cell.
"Imagine a mouse neuron: if a signal starts down one dendrite, there are so many ion channels to conduct electricity that the signal will probably continue into the main trunk of the neuron. In a human neuron, by contrast, it’s less certain that the signal will conduct into the main trunk: whether it does will probably depend on activity in other dendrites, says Harnett.
"This lets the thousands of synapses on each neuron’s dendrites collectively determine the final “decision” on whether the main branch should fire. “They’re looking for specific patterns of input to come together to produce [a signal],” says Harnett."
Comment: Especially designed neurons found only in the human brain. Not by chance.
Big brain evolution: human neurons are different
Under "Birds sleep"
DAVID: This ability in birds and dolphins cannot be developed by chance attempts. I can only conceive of the phenomenon as designed. If this happens in dolphins, I assume it is true for whales, manatees and other sea going mammals. It adds to the complexity of land to sea conversions. Why bother?
Under "Dandelion Seeds"
DAVID:It is not possible that the exact design of the filaments occurred by chance. Only design fits.
Under "Mantis shrimp punch"
DAVID: Since this provided food for the shrimp, how did they survive before the claw was developed? More than likely when the shrimp appeared they were designed this way.
Under "Insect hibernation"
DAVID: This process saves insects over the hard time of winter. It could not have developed stepwise by chance or the insects would not have survived. with the necessary complex metabolic changes involved, Only design explains this.
On and on and on...It appears that your God designed everything, although according to you, all he really wanted to produce was the brain of Homo sapiens. Apparently he couldn’t have done it without bird sleep, dandelion seed, shrimp punches, and insect hibernation. Or maybe, just maybe, all these organisms figured out their own ways to survive? And so we come to the biggie on this thread:
QUOTE: “Large networks of these neurons communicate with each other to generate thoughts and behavior.”
DAVID: our brains are not just bigger and more complex. They have special neurons with special dendrites. If they act as transistors, that would increase 'computing' power increasing the brain's capacity for thought. If we are not owners of simple enlarged ape brains, how did that happen? By design is the only answer, as existing apes prove our consciousness capacity is not needed for survival.
In passing, please note the above quote, which specifies that the networks generate thoughts and behaviour. This is the case for materialism, which you profess not to believe in.
Bacteria prove that multicellularity, the dog’s nose, the camel's hump, the weaverbird’s nest the monarch butterfly’s migration and the human brain are not necessary for life to survive. You also have your God specially designing bird sleep, dandelion seed, shrimp punching and insects hibernating. So why do you keep using the same old "not needed" and the same "by design" arguments to single out the human brain? They apply to every organ and organism of the multicellular world.
Big brain evolution: human neurons are different
by David Turell , Tuesday, October 23, 2018, 15:19 (2006 days ago) @ dhw
Under "Birds sleep"
DAVID: This ability in birds and dolphins cannot be developed by chance attempts. I can only conceive of the phenomenon as designed. If this happens in dolphins, I assume it is true for whales, manatees and other sea going mammals. It adds to the complexity of land to sea conversions. Why bother?Under "Dandelion Seeds"
DAVID:It is not possible that the exact design of the filaments occurred by chance. Only design fits.Under "Mantis shrimp punch"
DAVID: Since this provided food for the shrimp, how did they survive before the claw was developed? More than likely when the shrimp appeared they were designed this way.Under "Insect hibernation"
DAVID: This process saves insects over the hard time of winter. It could not have developed stepwise by chance or the insects would not have survived. with the necessary complex metabolic changes involved, Only design explains this.dhw: On and on and on...It appears that your God designed everything, although according to you, all he really wanted to produce was the brain of Homo sapiens. Apparently he couldn’t have done it without bird sleep, dandelion seed, shrimp punches, and insect hibernation. Or maybe, just maybe, all these organisms figured out their own ways to survive? And so we come to the biggie on this thread:
QUOTE: “Large networks of these neurons communicate with each other to generate thoughts and behavior.”
DAVID: our brains are not just bigger and more complex. They have special neurons with special dendrites. If they act as transistors, that would increase 'computing' power increasing the brain's capacity for thought. If we are not owners of simple enlarged ape brains, how did that happen? By design is the only answer, as existing apes prove our consciousness capacity is not needed for survival.
dhw: In passing, please note the above quote, which specifies that the networks generate thoughts and behaviour. This is the case for materialism, which you profess not to believe in.
Behavior can be viewed in a way different than your inference. Remember behavior is not automatic but the result of free will thinking.
dhw: Bacteria prove that multicellularity, the dog’s nose, the camel's hump, the weaverbird’s nest the monarch butterfly’s migration and the human brain are not necessary for life to survive. You also have your God specially designing bird sleep, dandelion seed, shrimp punching and insects hibernating. So why do you keep using the same old "not needed" and the same "by design" arguments to single out the human brain? They apply to every organ and organism of the multicellular world.
And how did life jump from ever present bacteria to complex forms? Not by chance.
Big brain evolution: human neurons are different
dhw: On and on and on...It appears that your God designed everything, although according to you, all he really wanted to produce was the brain of Homo sapiens. Apparently he couldn’t have done it without bird sleep, dandelion seed, shrimp punches, and insect hibernation. Or maybe, just maybe, all these organisms figured out their own ways to survive? And so we come to the biggie on this thread:
QUOTE: “Large networks of these neurons communicate with each other to generate thoughts and behavior.”
DAVID: our brains are not just bigger and more complex. They have special neurons with special dendrites. If they act as transistors, that would increase 'computing' power increasing the brain's capacity for thought. If we are not owners of simple enlarged ape brains, how did that happen? By design is the only answer, as existing apes prove our consciousness capacity is not needed for survival.
dhw: In passing, please note the above quote, which specifies that the networks generate thoughts and behaviour. This is the case for materialism, which you profess not to believe in.
DAVID: Behavior can be viewed in a way different than your inference. Remember behavior is not automatic but the result of free will thinking.
The quote brackets thoughts and behaviour, and materialism casts doubt on the very concept of free will. But I made the remark in passing, as we have covered this subject in our discussions on materialism versus dualism.
dhw: Bacteria prove that multicellularity, the dog’s nose, the camel's hump, the weaverbird’s nest the monarch butterfly’s migration and the human brain are not necessary for life to survive. You also have your God specially designing bird sleep, dandelion seed, shrimp punching and insects hibernating. So why do you keep using the same old "not needed" and the same "by design" arguments to single out the human brain? They apply to every organ and organism of the multicellular world.
DAVID: And how did life jump from ever present bacteria to complex forms? Not by chance.
I asked why you keep trotting out the same old “not needed” and “by design” arguments to single out the human brain, when the same arguments apply to every other multicellular organism and natural wonder you can think of. You respond by changing the subject.
Big brain evolution: human neurons are different
by David Turell , Wednesday, October 24, 2018, 18:48 (2005 days ago) @ dhw
dhw: On and on and on...It appears that your God designed everything, although according to you, all he really wanted to produce was the brain of Homo sapiens. Apparently he couldn’t have done it without bird sleep, dandelion seed, shrimp punches, and insect hibernation. Or maybe, just maybe, all these organisms figured out their own ways to survive? And so we come to the biggie on this thread:
QUOTE: “Large networks of these neurons communicate with each other to generate thoughts and behavior.”
DAVID: our brains are not just bigger and more complex. They have special neurons with special dendrites. If they act as transistors, that would increase 'computing' power increasing the brain's capacity for thought. If we are not owners of simple enlarged ape brains, how did that happen? By design is the only answer, as existing apes prove our consciousness capacity is not needed for survival.
dhw: In passing, please note the above quote, which specifies that the networks generate thoughts and behaviour. This is the case for materialism, which you profess not to believe in.
DAVID: Behavior can be viewed in a way different than your inference. Remember behavior is not automatic but the result of free will thinking.
dhw: The quote brackets thoughts and behaviour, and materialism casts doubt on the very concept of free will. But I made the remark in passing, as we have covered this subject in our discussions on materialism versus dualism.
When research is quoted by Darwinist scientists, of course materialism appears. My point is the specificity of the neurons functions as attesting to human uniqueness
dhw: Bacteria prove that multicellularity, the dog’s nose, the camel's hump, the weaverbird’s nest the monarch butterfly’s migration and the human brain are not necessary for life to survive. You also have your God specially designing bird sleep, dandelion seed, shrimp punching and insects hibernating. So why do you keep using the same old "not needed" and the same "by design" arguments to single out the human brain? They apply to every organ and organism of the multicellular world.DAVID: And how did life jump from ever present bacteria to complex forms? Not by chance.
dhw: I asked why you keep trotting out the same old “not needed” and “by design” arguments to single out the human brain, when the same arguments apply to every other multicellular organism and natural wonder you can think of. You respond by changing the subject.
Subject not changed if the discussion is viewed in totality. Our brain is demonstrably beyond any need to drive its appearance. It is you who constantly revert to stresses and environmental changes as causing evolution, while I think it is planned. Environment plays a small role, if any to explain whales, bats, etc.
Big brain evolution: new human brain area found
by David Turell , Tuesday, December 04, 2018, 19:27 (1963 days ago) @ David Turell
Not found in other primates, so this creates a biological gap in evolution, not a fossil gap:
https://www.sciencealert.com/a-hidden-region-of-the-human-brain-was-revealed-while-maki...
"It turns out we humans may have an extra type of thinky bit that isn't found in other primates. A previously unknown brain structure was identified while scientists carefully imaged parts of the human brain for an upcoming atlas on brain anatomy.
"Neuroscientist George Paxinos and his team at Neuroscience Research Australia (NeuRA) have named their discovery the endorestiform nucleus - because it is located within (endo) the inferior cerebellar peduncle (also called the restiform body). It's found at the base of the brain, near where the brain meets the spinal cord.
"This area is involved in receiving sensory and motor information from our bodies to refine our posture, balance and movements.
"'The inferior cerebellar peduncle is like a river carrying information from the spinal cord and brainstem to the cerebellum," Paxinos told ScienceAlert.
"'The endorestiform nucleus is a group of neurons, and it is like an island in this river."
***
"Paxinos confirmed the existence of this brain structure while using a relatively new brain staining technique he developed to make images of the brain tissues clearer (and surely also prettier!) for the latest neuroanatomy atlas he has been working on.
"These stains target cell products actively being made - chemicals in the brain such as neurotransmitters, providing a map of brain tissues. This helps to differentiate the neuron groups by their function - rather than just the traditional way of separating them by how the cells look - revealing what is known as the chemoarchitecture of the brain.
"'The endorestiform nucleus is all too evident by its dense staining for [the enzyme] acetylcholinesterase, all the more evident because the surrounding areas are negative," Paxinos explained.
"'It was nearly the case the nucleus discovered me, than the other way around."
"In fact, Paxinos had been receiving clues that the endorestiform nucleus existed for decades. In a procedure called a therapeutic anterolateral cordotomy - a surgery to achieve relief from extreme and incurable pain by cutting spinal pathways - he and his colleagues had noticed that the long fibres from the spine seemed to end around where the endorestiform nucleus was found.
***
"The location of this elusive brain bit leads Paxinos to suspect it may be involved in fine motor control - something also backed up by the fact that this structure has yet to be identified in other animals, including marmosets or rhesus monkeys.
"'I cannot imagine a chimpanzee playing the guitar as dexterously as us, even if they liked to make music," Paxinos pointed out.
"Humans have brains at least twice as big as chimpanzees (1,300 grams vs 600 grams, or 2.9 lbs vs 1.3 lbs), and a larger percentage of our brain neuronal pathways that signal for movement make direct contact with motor neurons - 20 percent compared to 5 percent in other primates.
"So, the endorestiform nucleus may be another unique feature in our nervous system, although it's too soon to tell just yet. Paxinos is set to do some work in chimpanzees soon.
"In order to discover what function the endorestiform nucleus might serve, we may have to wait for higher resolution MRIs capable of studying it in a living person."
Comment: The real significance of this finding is that it is an area not found in any other primate. It is not plasticity of an existing area, but truly a biological gap, not a bony gap in the evolution of our brain. Does anyone think dhw's cell communities can perform this advance? Only a designing mind fits the issue.
Big brain evolution: sex and personality
by David Turell , Wednesday, December 05, 2018, 01:29 (1963 days ago) @ David Turell
There is a big fight on the Darwin side, but some scientists who think Drwin is misapplied are
staying silent:
https://quillette.com/2018/11/30/the-new-evolution-deniers/
The philosopher Daniel Dennett has described evolution as a sort of “universal acid” that “eats through just about every traditional concept, and leaves in its wake a revolutionized world-view, with most of the old landmarks still recognizable, but transformed in fundamental ways.” Fearing this corrosive idea, opposition in the US to evolution mainly came from Right-wing evangelical Christians who believed God created life in its present form, as described in Genesis.
***
"... when scientists began applying their knowledge of the evolutionary underpinnings of animal behavior to humans, the advancing universal acid began to threaten beliefs held sacrosanct by the Left. The group that most fervently opposed, and still opposes, evolutionary explanations for behavioral sex differences in humans were/are social justice activists. Evolutionary explanations for human behavior challenge their a priori commitment to “Blank Slate” psychology—the belief that male and female brains in humans start out identical and that all behavior, sex-linked or otherwise, is entirely the result of differences in socialization.
"This stance is maintained by the belief that evolutionary explanations for sex-linked behavioral differences are ...the fatalistic notion that biology alone directly determines our behavior. Blank Slate psychology, however, is universally rejected by experts, as the evidence for innate sex-linked personality differences in humans is overwhelmingly strong. But experts also universally reject that this view demands we embrace biological essentialism, because the environment does play a role, and observed sex differences are simply averages and overlap tremendously between the sexes. Sex no more determines one’s personality than it determines one’s height. Sex certainly influences these traits, but it does not determine them.
***
"Sex-linked personality differences are very well documented in our closest primate relatives, too, and the presence of sexual dimorphism (i.e. size differences between males and females) in primates, and mammals generally, dramatically intensifies these differences, especially in traits like aggression, female choosiness, territoriality, grooming behavior, and parental care. (my bold)
"Given that humans are sexually dimorphic and exhibit many of the typical sex-linked behavioral traits that any objective observer would predict, based on the mammalian trends, the claim that our behavioral differences have arisen purely via socialization is dubious at best. ... the more evidenced and straightforward explanation is that we exhibit these classic sex-linked behavioral traits because we inherited them from our closest primate ancestors.
***
"I’ve been privately contacted by close, like-minded colleagues warning me that my public feuds with social justice activists on social media could be occupational suicide, and that I should disengage and delete my comments immediately. My experience is anything but unique, and the problem is intensifying.
***
"The formula for each of these articles is straightforward. First, they list a multitude of intersex conditions. Second, they detail the genes, hormones, and complex developmental processes leading to these conditions.
***
"What these articles leave out is the fact that the final result of sex development in humans are unambiguously male or female over 99.98 percent of the time. Thus, the claim that “2 sexes is overly simplistic” is misleading, because intersex conditions correspond to less than 0.02 percent of all births, and intersex people are not a third sex. Intersex is simply a catch-all category for sex ambiguity and/or a mismatch between sex genotype and phenotype, regardless of its etiology. Furthermore, the claim that “sex is a spectrum” is also misleading, as a spectrum implies a continuous distribution, and maybe even an amodal one (one in which no specific outcome is more likely than others). Biological sex in humans, however, is clear-cut over 99.98 percent of the time. (my bold)
***
"We need to acknowledge that trans issues and ideology are complex, and concern one of the most marginalized communities in the world. Because of this, we must give these issues the respect they deserve by approaching them with nuance and compassion instead of crudeness and cruelty. But we must not jettison truth in this process. If social justice activists require scientists to reject evolution and the reality of biological sex to be considered good allies, then we can never be good allies.
***
"But it seems clear to me that academia now is not as it was advertised a decade ago when I started down this path. It is no longer a refuge for outspoken, free-thinking intellectuals. Instead, it seems one must now choose between living a zipper-lipped life as an academic scientist, or living a life as a fulfilled intellectual. Currently, one cannot do both."
Comment: Politically correct liberal ideation is stifling proper intelligent discourse. I fully accept that the underlying sex affects how certain female and male characteristics and behaviors appear as personality develops from birth. Let's not argue about 'blank slate'as noted in this article: the infant brain is not a sexual blank slate.
Big brain evolution: new human brain area found
Quote: 'I cannot imagine a chimpanzee playing the guitar as dexterously as us, even if they liked to make music," Paxinos pointed out. (David’s bold)
"Humans have brains at least twice as big as chimpanzees (1,300 grams vs 600 grams, or 2.9 lbs vs 1.3 lbs), and a larger percentage of our brain neuronal pathways that signal for movement make direct contact with motor neurons - 20 percent compared to 5 percent in other primates.”
DAVID: The real significance of this finding is that it is an area not found in any other primate. It is not plasticity of an existing area, but truly a biological gap, not a bony gap in the evolution of our brain. Does anyone think dhw's cell communities can perform this advance? Only a designing mind fits the issue.
As regards the guitar playing, any new activity requires changes to the brain for its implementation. And I don’t know of anybody who expects chimpanzee brains and human brains to be the same. So what does this prove?
As regards new areas, we would need to know the whole history of brain evolution, starting with the very first brains, to establish when new areas formed in pre-chimpanzee and then pre-human brains. Just as we would need to know what new areas formed to create every organ that distinguishes us from bacteria. But yes, every new organ and every new part of an organ requires the coalition and cooperation of cell communities – whether your God guided them or not. It’s the same issue: are cells intelligent enough to innovate? You say no, and I say maybe.
Big brain evolution: new human brain area found
by David Turell , Wednesday, December 05, 2018, 15:33 (1963 days ago) @ dhw
Quote: 'I cannot imagine a chimpanzee playing the guitar as dexterously as us, even if they liked to make music," Paxinos pointed out. (David’s bold)
"Humans have brains at least twice as big as chimpanzees (1,300 grams vs 600 grams, or 2.9 lbs vs 1.3 lbs), and a larger percentage of our brain neuronal pathways that signal for movement make direct contact with motor neurons - 20 percent compared to 5 percent in other primates.”
DAVID: The real significance of this finding is that it is an area not found in any other primate. It is not plasticity of an existing area, but truly a biological gap, not a bony gap in the evolution of our brain. Does anyone think dhw's cell communities can perform this advance? Only a designing mind fits the issue.
dhw: As regards the guitar playing, any new activity requires changes to the brain for its implementation. And I don’t know of anybody who expects chimpanzee brains and human brains to be the same. So what does this prove?
As regards new areas, we would need to know the whole history of brain evolution, starting with the very first brains, to establish when new areas formed in pre-chimpanzee and then pre-human brains. Just as we would need to know what new areas formed to create every organ that distinguishes us from bacteria. But yes, every new organ and every new part of an organ requires the coalition and cooperation of cell communities – whether your God guided them or not. It’s the same issue: are cells intelligent enough to innovate? You say no, and I say maybe.
Neat dodge. This is a demonstrated biologic gap, not a bony gap where it can be used as an excuse that we simply haven't found the fossils to fill the gap. This gap supports my design and designer argument.
Big brain evolution: new human brain area found
Dhw: As regards new areas, we would need to know the whole history of brain evolution, starting with the very first brains, to establish when new areas formed in pre-chimpanzee and then pre-human brains. Just as we would need to know what new areas formed to create every organ that distinguishes us from bacteria. But yes, every new organ and every new part of an organ requires the coalition and cooperation of cell communities – whether your God guided them or not. It’s the same issue: are cells intelligent enough to innovate? You say no, and I say maybe.
DAVID: Neat dodge. This is a demonstrated biologic gap, not a bony gap where it can be used as an excuse that we simply haven't found the fossils to fill the gap. This gap supports my design and designer argument.
Neat dodge. It doesn’t matter what sort of gap it is; changes to any part of the body always require the coalition and cooperation of cell communities, whether God guides them or not.
Big brain evolution: new human brain area found
by David Turell , Thursday, December 06, 2018, 18:21 (1962 days ago) @ dhw
Dhw: As regards new areas, we would need to know the whole history of brain evolution, starting with the very first brains, to establish when new areas formed in pre-chimpanzee and then pre-human brains. Just as we would need to know what new areas formed to create every organ that distinguishes us from bacteria. But yes, every new organ and every new part of an organ requires the coalition and cooperation of cell communities – whether your God guided them or not. It’s the same issue: are cells intelligent enough to innovate? You say no, and I say maybe.
DAVID: Neat dodge. This is a demonstrated biologic gap, not a bony gap where it can be used as an excuse that we simply haven't found the fossils to fill the gap. This gap supports my design and designer argument.
dhw: Neat dodge. It doesn’t matter what sort of gap it is; changes to any part of the body always require the coalition and cooperation of cell communities, whether God guides them or not.
Neat dodge. There is no cooperation by cells if the are redesigned and made into a new construction by a designer. The cells become what they are designed to become. You and I explain gaps very differently.
Big brain evolution: new human brain area found
Dhw: As regards new areas, we would need to know the whole history of brain evolution, starting with the very first brains, to establish when new areas formed in pre-chimpanzee and then pre-human brains. Just as we would need to know what new areas formed to create every organ that distinguishes us from bacteria. But yes, every new organ and every new part of an organ requires the coalition and cooperation of cell communities – whether your God guided them or not. It’s the same issue: are cells intelligent enough to innovate? You say no, and I say maybe.
DAVID: Neat dodge. This is a demonstrated biologic gap, not a bony gap where it can be used as an excuse that we simply haven't found the fossils to fill the gap. This gap supports my design and designer argument.
dhw: Neat dodge. It doesn’t matter what sort of gap it is; changes to any part of the body always require the coalition and cooperation of cell communities, whether God guides them or not.
DAVID: Neat dodge. There is no cooperation by cells if the are redesigned and made into a new construction by a designer. The cells become what they are designed to become. You and I explain gaps very differently.
Neat dodge. Your “if” is the big question! The cell communities must still cooperate, whether newly designed by your God or by themselves. The question is when the cooperation begins. If conditions required an additional capacity for "receiving sensory and motor information from our bodies to refine our posture, balance and movements”, then I suggest the cell communities would have responded to that requirement by cooperating to provide the new capacity, just like pre-baleen cell communities replacing teeth with baleens as an improved method of feeding. But you believe your God fiddled with the cell communities of both the pre-baleen whale and the human brain beforehand, to make them cooperate in a new way. It’s the same question as always. Theistic version: did your God preprogramme/dabble the restructuring of the cell communities before change was required, or did he give them the means to restructure themselves in response to changing conditions?
Big brain evolution: new human brain area found
by David Turell , Friday, December 07, 2018, 15:28 (1961 days ago) @ dhw
Dhw: As regards new areas, we would need to know the whole history of brain evolution, starting with the very first brains, to establish when new areas formed in pre-chimpanzee and then pre-human brains. Just as we would need to know what new areas formed to create every organ that distinguishes us from bacteria. But yes, every new organ and every new part of an organ requires the coalition and cooperation of cell communities – whether your God guided them or not. It’s the same issue: are cells intelligent enough to innovate? You say no, and I say maybe.
DAVID: Neat dodge. This is a demonstrated biologic gap, not a bony gap where it can be used as an excuse that we simply haven't found the fossils to fill the gap. This gap supports my design and designer argument.
dhw: Neat dodge. It doesn’t matter what sort of gap it is; changes to any part of the body always require the coalition and cooperation of cell communities, whether God guides them or not.
DAVID: Neat dodge. There is no cooperation by cells if the are redesigned and made into a new construction by a designer. The cells become what they are designed to become. You and I explain gaps very differently.
dhw: Neat dodge. Your “if” is the big question! The cell communities must still cooperate, whether newly designed by your God or by themselves. The question is when the cooperation begins. If conditions required an additional capacity for "receiving sensory and motor information from our bodies to refine our posture, balance and movements”, then I suggest the cell communities would have responded to that requirement by cooperating to provide the new capacity, just like pre-baleen cell communities replacing teeth with baleens as an improved method of feeding. But you believe your God fiddled with the cell communities of both the pre-baleen whale and the human brain beforehand, to make them cooperate in a new way. It’s the same question as always. Theistic version: did your God preprogramme/dabble the restructuring of the cell communities before change was required, or did he give them the means to restructure themselves in response to changing conditions?
It all comes down to whether the brain cells decided to form a new area on their own and by their design to fit a future need they perceived or God designed it. I'm with God. I do not believe cells can imagine the future and design for it in advance,
Big brain evolution: new human brain area found
DAVID: Neat dodge. There is no cooperation by cells if the are redesigned and made into a new construction by a designer. The cells become what they are designed to become. You and I explain gaps very differently.
dhw: Neat dodge. Your “if” is the big question! The cell communities must still cooperate, whether newly designed by your God or by themselves. The question is when the cooperation begins. If conditions required an additional capacity for "receiving sensory and motor information from our bodies to refine our posture, balance and movements”, then I suggest the cell communities would have responded to that requirement by cooperating to provide the new capacity, just like pre-baleen cell communities replacing teeth with baleens as an improved method of feeding. But you believe your God fiddled with the cell communities of both the pre-baleen whale and the human brain beforehand, to make them cooperate in a new way. It’s the same question as always. Theistic version: did your God preprogramme/dabble the restructuring of the cell communities before change was required, or did he give them the means to restructure themselves in response to changing conditions?
DAVID: It all comes down to whether the brain cells decided to form a new area on their own and by their design to fit a future need they perceived or God designed it. I'm with God. I do not believe cells can imagine the future and design for it in advance.
That is not what it comes down to at all! You persist in claiming that all evolutionary changes are either divinely preprogrammed or dabbled in advance of any need for them! I don’t know how often you want me to repeat that my hypothesis is that the changes are a RESPONSE to changing conditions. And I have explained it in the section I have now bolded, which for some reason you have completely ignored. You pride yourself on your use of science as a basis for your hypotheses. I wonder how many scientists would agree with you that God took out pre-baleen teeth and popped in a few million years later to give the suction-feeders baleens. (See the baleen thread)
DAVID: (under “New found plant defences”) [...] How did Pseudomonas bacteria learn to mimic jasmonic acid? Trial and error? Did God bother to design this? At times the findings have no apparent explanation.
I like your question about whether your God would bother, and once more you are confronted with the fact that you can’t find an explanation. How about the hypothesis that cells/cell communities have their own form of intelligence (possibly God-given) to work out their own ways to survive and/or to improve their chances of survival?
Big brain evolution: new human brain area found
by David Turell , Saturday, December 08, 2018, 21:50 (1959 days ago) @ dhw
DAVID: Neat dodge. There is no cooperation by cells if the are redesigned and made into a new construction by a designer. The cells become what they are designed to become. You and I explain gaps very differently.
dhw: Neat dodge. Your “if” is the big question! The cell communities must still cooperate, whether newly designed by your God or by themselves. The question is when the cooperation begins. If conditions required an additional capacity for "receiving sensory and motor information from our bodies to refine our posture, balance and movements”, then I suggest the cell communities would have responded to that requirement by cooperating to provide the new capacity, just like pre-baleen cell communities replacing teeth with baleens as an improved method of feeding. But you believe your God fiddled with the cell communities of both the pre-baleen whale and the human brain beforehand, to make them cooperate in a new way. It’s the same question as always. Theistic version: did your God preprogramme/dabble the restructuring of the cell communities before change was required, or did he give them the means to restructure themselves in response to changing conditions?
DAVID: It all comes down to whether the brain cells decided to form a new area on their own and by their design to fit a future need they perceived or God designed it. I'm with God. I do not believe cells can imagine the future and design for it in advance.
dhw: That is not what it comes down to at all! You persist in claiming that all evolutionary changes are either divinely preprogrammed or dabbled in advance of any need for them! I don’t know how often you want me to repeat that my hypothesis is that the changes are a RESPONSE to changing conditions. And I have explained it in the section I have now bolded, which for some reason you have completely ignored. You pride yourself on your use of science as a basis for your hypotheses. I wonder how many scientists would agree with you that God took out pre-baleen teeth and popped in a few million years later to give the suction-feeders baleens. (See the baleen thread)
I am a believing scientist just like 40% of physicians. I know your theories but I don't believe they are possible in the way I view God..
DAVID: (under “New found plant defences”) [...] How did Pseudomonas bacteria learn to mimic jasmonic acid? Trial and error? Did God bother to design this? At times the findings have no apparent explanation.dhw: I like your question about whether your God would bother, and once more you are confronted with the fact that you can’t find an explanation. How about the hypothesis that cells/cell communities have their own form of intelligence (possibly God-given) to work out their own ways to survive and/or to improve their chances of survival?
I not disappointed at not seeing a possible God move. Remember I don't live in his mind but you are there all the time. I make an attempt to explain what I can, if i see something logical as a reason.
Big brain evolution: new human brain area found
DAVID: It all comes down to whether the brain cells decided to form a new area on their own and by their design to fit a future need they perceived or God designed it. I'm with God. I do not believe cells can imagine the future and design for it in advance.
dhw: That is not what it comes down to at all! You persist in claiming that all evolutionary changes are either divinely preprogrammed or dabbled in advance of any need for them! I don’t know how often you want me to repeat that my hypothesis is that the changes are a RESPONSE to changing conditions. […] You pride yourself on your use of science as a basis for your hypotheses. I wonder how many scientists would agree with you that God took out pre-baleen teeth and popped in a few million years later to give the suction-feeders baleens. (See the baleen thread)
DAVID: I am a believing scientist just like 40% of physicians. I know your theories but I don't believe they are possible in the way I view God.
I still wonder how many of the 40% would agree with you that your God took out pre-baleen teeth and popped in a few million years later to give suction-feeders baleens. And of course with your fixed views on God’s purpose and method you will reject any other theories. On that subject, see the new thread on “Divine purposes and methods”.
DAVID: (under “New found plant defences”) [...] How did Pseudomonas bacteria learn to mimic jasmonic acid? Trial and error? Did God bother to design this? At times the findings have no apparent explanation.
dhw: I like your question about whether your God would bother, and once more you are confronted with the fact that you can’t find an explanation. How about the hypothesis that cells/cell communities have their own form of intelligence (possibly God-given) to work out their own ways to survive and/or to improve their chances of survival?
DAVID: I not disappointed at not seeing a possible God move. Remember I don't live in his mind but you are there all the time. I make an attempt to explain what I can, if i see something logical as a reason.
You have already entered his mind when you tell us that his sole purpose for creating life and evolution was to produce H. sapiens so that we would think about him and have a relationship with him. You say the new found plant defences have no apparent explanation. I offer you a possible explanation which includes your God as its possible source, but you won’t even consider it.
Big brain evolution: new human brain area found
by David Turell , Sunday, December 09, 2018, 15:10 (1959 days ago) @ dhw
DAVID: (under “New found plant defences”) [...] How did Pseudomonas bacteria learn to mimic jasmonic acid? Trial and error? Did God bother to design this? At times the findings have no apparent explanation.
dhw: I like your question about whether your God would bother, and once more you are confronted with the fact that you can’t find an explanation. How about the hypothesis that cells/cell communities have their own form of intelligence (possibly God-given) to work out their own ways to survive and/or to improve their chances of survival?
DAVID: I not disappointed at not seeing a possible God move. Remember I don't live in his mind but you are there all the time. I make an attempt to explain what I can, if i see something logical as a reason.
dhw: You have already entered his mind when you tell us that his sole purpose for creating life and evolution was to produce H. sapiens so that we would think about him and have a relationship with him. You say the new found plant defences have no apparent explanation. I offer you a possible explanation which includes your God as its possible source, but you won’t even consider it.
My analysis pattern about God differs from yours. I identified God's purpose from the unlikely ending of evolution in human beings. That is about as far as I ever went in thought until you asked me for possible motives. Very true, I'd n ever thought about motives. So I cooked up some for you, but I know it is all guess work. I've even said the chances for a relationship from God's standpoint are 50/50, which is a quote from Adler I accept, since he as a religious expert, doing lots more thought than I've given to the subject.. 50/50, as you will recognize from our cell discussions, means it is an open issue. All of your ruminations about God's purposes are logical and possible, but don't fit my frame of belief. Doesn't mean I am right, but it is what I am most comfortable with. Not surprising, faith offers comfort.
My major consideration has always been the complexity of the design in living organisms. Design requires a designing mind. An absolutely logical point, which cannot be refuted, as all our experience shows. No motives involved in that view. No humanizing either.
That you are not satisfied with your position re' God is evidenced by this website of yours. Is it comfortable? Who has participated here? My memory of the visitors are theists and atheists, and Romansh as a sort-of agnostic. Do you have a breakdown? I know you have learned how much of Darwin was incorrect, and lots of biochemistry. Does it help?
Big brain evolution: our special gene is identified
by David Turell , Wednesday, January 09, 2019, 00:10 (1928 days ago) @ David Turell
The gene will enlarge a ferret fetus brain size. Chimps don't have it:
https://medicalxpress.com/news/2019-01-gene-humans-cerebral-cortex-enlarge.html
"The human neocortex supports advanced cognitive skills such as reasoning and language. But how did the human neocortex become so big? The answer may lie in genes that are unique to humans, such as ARHGAP11B.
"Researchers at the Max Planck Institute of Molecular Cell Biology and Genetics in Dresden found that this human-specific gene, when introduced into the developing brain of ferrets, can cause an enlargement of their neocortex. ARHGAP11B causes neural progenitor cells, which are cells that produce neurons, to make more of themselves for a longer period of time. The result is an expanded neocortex.
"The human neocortex is roughly three times bigger than that of our closest relatives, the chimpanzees, and is the seat of many of the higher cognitive functions that are unique to humans, such as our speech or the ability to learn. A key question for scientists is how in human evolution the neocortex became so big.
"In a 2015 study, the team around Wieland Huttner, research group leader at the Max Planck Institute of Molecular Cell Biology and Genetics, found that under the influence of the human-specific gene ARHGAP11B, mice produced much more neural progenitor cells and could even undergo folding of their normally unfolded neocortex. The results suggested that the gene ARHGAP11B plays a key role in the evolutionary expansion of the human neocortex.
"There are two types of neural progenitors in the mammalian neocortex: apical and basal. A subtype of the latter, called basal radial glial cells, are driving neocortex growth in human development. Unfortunately, mice have very few of them, which makes mice unsuitable to test whether the human-specific gene ARHGAP11B – via its effects on basal radial glial cells – can indeed cause an enlargement of the neocortex.
"A team of researchers from the research group of Wieland Huttner now investigated what ARHGAP11B would bring about in a ferret brain. Ferrets have a larger neocortex than mice and possess more basal radial glial cells. The first author of the study, Nereo Kalebic, explains what he was able to observe: "In ferrets, ARHGAP11B noticeably increased the number of basal radial glial cells. It also extended the time window during which the basal radial glial cells produced neurons. As a result, these ferret brains contained more neurons and thus had a bigger neocortex." These results suggest that ARHGAP11B may have a similar role in the developing human brain. This study also provides the first evidence of a human-specific gene increasing the number of basal radial glial cells in a folded neocortex."
Comment: I don't believe it is luck/chance that we have this gene. Why not coded by god?
Big brain evolution: our special gene is identified
DAVID’s comment: I don't believe it is luck/chance that we have this gene. Why not coded by god?
Or why not developed by cooperating cell communities using their (possibly God-given) intelligence in the process Shapiro calls “natural genetic engineering”?
Big brain evolution: our special gene is identified
by David Turell , Wednesday, January 09, 2019, 14:21 (1928 days ago) @ dhw
DAVID’s comment: I don't believe it is luck/chance that we have this gene. Why not coded by God?
dhw: Or why not developed by cooperating cell communities using their (possibly God-given) intelligence in the process Shapiro calls “natural genetic engineering”?
Shapiro's research is all based on brainless bacteria, which have never evolved into anything m ore. Cells and bacteria can make adaptions to change, not march on in evolution. They may edit DNA to that degree, no more. Your hypothesis for speciation is a monster extrapolation.
Big brain evolution: our special gene is identified
DAVID’s comment: I don't believe it is luck/chance that we have this gene. Why not coded by God?
dhw: Or why not developed by cooperating cell communities using their (possibly God-given) intelligence in the process Shapiro calls “natural genetic engineering”?
DAVID: Shapiro's research is all based on brainless bacteria, which have never evolved into anything m ore. Cells and bacteria can make adaptions to change, not march on in evolution. They may edit DNA to that degree, no more. Your hypothesis for speciation is a monster extrapolation.
Of course bacteria have remained bacteria, but I do not accept that cells cannot march on. ALL organisms are composed of cells, and every single evolutionary change is accomplished by new cellular structures, whether autonomous or preprogrammed or dabbled. I keep agreeing that we do not know to what extent cells are capable of innovating, but the extrapolation is hardly more monstrous than the hypothesis you have proposed under “Evolution: a different view with loss of DNA segments”.
Under “Brain complexity: detecting one trillion scents”
DAVID’s comment: This type of gene alteration in cooperative design allows for the enormous number of scents we learn to recognize. Note memory has to be involved. This has to be a designed system.
Thank you for this and for all the other articles you have posted today. If the human sense of smell is this complex, imagine what dogs’ are like. Theirs is said to be at least 1,000 times more efficient than ours! I like the expression “cooperative design”, since cell cooperation is integral to the whole process, and cell memory is another important factor for those who advocate autonomous cellular intelligence.
Under “Biological complexity: plant growth…”
QUOTE: "Dr Mähönen's team combined individual cell lineage tracing and molecular genetics to show early-stage xylem cells, which had not yet differentiated, take over as the organiser and direct adjacent vascular cells to divide and function as stem cells: "We showed that this secondary development is a tightly controlled process and revealed a dynamic nature of the organiser.”
DAVID: Automaticity in growth by feedback loops to control transcription factors, hormones and microRNA. This is how cells work in everyday projects.
Even plants require a dynamic organiser, and in other posts we have seen how they communicate with one another. The ability to cope with changing conditions and potential threats suggests a form of intelligence – nothing like our own, but nevertheless entailing the processing and communication of information and the making of decisions. Unquestionably much of this is automatic, just as it is in humans whose perceptions and implementation of decisions involve automatic processes, but that does not mean the dynamic organiser is an automaton.
Big brain evolution: our special gene is identified
by David Turell , Thursday, January 10, 2019, 19:29 (1926 days ago) @ dhw
dhw: Thank you for this and for all the other articles you have posted today. If the human sense of smell is this complex, imagine what dogs’ are like. Theirs is said to be at least 1,000 times more efficient than ours! I like the expression “cooperative design”, since cell cooperation is integral to the whole process, and cell memory is another important factor for those who advocate autonomous cellular intelligence.
I still view it as implanted intelligence from intelligent information. From the outside no different than your proposal.
Under “Biological complexity: plant growth…”
QUOTE: "Dr Mähönen's team combined individual cell lineage tracing and molecular genetics to show early-stage xylem cells, which had not yet differentiated, take over as the organiser and direct adjacent vascular cells to divide and function as stem cells: "We showed that this secondary development is a tightly controlled process and revealed a dynamic nature of the organiser.”DAVID: Automaticity in growth by feedback loops to control transcription factors, hormones and microRNA. This is how cells work in everyday projects.
dhw: Even plants require a dynamic organiser, and in other posts we have seen how they communicate with one another. The ability to cope with changing conditions and potential threats suggests a form of intelligence – nothing like our own, but nevertheless entailing the processing and communication of information and the making of decisions. Unquestionably much of this is automatic, just as it is in humans whose perceptions and implementation of decisions involve automatic processes, but that does not mean the dynamic organiser is an automaton.
Struggle with automaticity all you want, but this is a study in early development: "focused on the early (primary) stage of vascular development" is a quote from the article. In early growth of any embryonic stage there must be automaticity to produce the expected adults! Otherwise there would be a plethora of aberrant forms born or produced as plants.
Big brain evolution: our special gene is identified
dhw: Thank you for this and for all the other articles you have posted today. If the human sense of smell is this complex, imagine what dogs’ are like. Theirs is said to be at least 1,000 times more efficient than ours! I like the expression “cooperative design”, since cell cooperation is integral to the whole process, and cell memory is another important factor for those who advocate autonomous cellular intelligence.
DAVID: I still view it as implanted intelligence from intelligent information. From the outside no different than your proposal.
Perhaps one day you will define what you mean by “intelligent information”. Either cells/cell communities are automatons whose decisions have been preprogrammed, or they make their decisions autonomously. The result is the same either way, which is why you keep acknowledging that the odds in favour/against are 50/50. If your 50/50 hypothesis is worth considering, then so is Shapiro’s.
Under “Biological complexity: plant growth…”
QUOTE: "Dr Mähönen's team combined individual cell lineage tracing and molecular genetics to show early-stage xylem cells, which had not yet differentiated, take over as the organiser and direct adjacent vascular cells to divide and function as stem cells: "We showed that this secondary development is a tightly controlled process and revealed a dynamic nature of the organiser.”
DAVID: Automaticity in growth by feedback loops to control transcription factors, hormones and microRNA. This is how cells work in everyday projects.
dhw: Even plants require a dynamic organiser, and in other posts we have seen how they communicate with one another. The ability to cope with changing conditions and potential threats suggests a form of intelligence – nothing like our own, but nevertheless entailing the processing and communication of information and the making of decisions. Unquestionably much of this is automatic, just as it is in humans whose perceptions and implementation of decisions involve automatic processes, but that does not mean the dynamic organiser is an automaton.
DAVID: Struggle with automaticity all you want, but this is a study in early development: "focused on the early (primary) stage of vascular development" is a quote from the article. In early growth of any embryonic stage there must be automaticity to produce the expected adults! Otherwise there would be a plethora of aberrant forms born or produced as plants.
Agreed. Once a successful pattern of behaviour has been established, it will be repeated automatically so long as external conditions remain the same. I had seized on the expression “dynamic organiser”, which I suggest is essential if an organism – whether animal or vegetable – is to survive changes in existing conditions, as I have specified in my comment, now bolded.
DAVID (re dragonflies): from uncommon descent website: "The question that it raises is, how do the insects “know” that they should migrate over several generations? When a larva becomes a pupa, the body completely dissolves and is reconstituted as an adult. Where and how exactly does the information survive? Reside?" I couldn't phrase the dilemma any better and remember it is the same for monarchs. These insects could not have worked this out stepwise. Only design fits. Obviously the genes survive the metamorphosis in the liquid phase.
If you mean design as opposed to chance, I agree. There is no way the repeated generational and migration pattern can have arisen by chance. But this only brings us back to our usual discussion: what was the original method of design? Cellular intelligence, your own divine, 3.8 byo programme, divine dabbling? In all cases, the pattern has to be passed on somehow. Through the genes and cell memory (see my first comment above)?
Big brain evolution: our special gene is identified
by David Turell , Friday, January 11, 2019, 15:31 (1926 days ago) @ dhw
DAVID: I still view it as implanted intelligence from intelligent information. From the outside no different than your proposal.
dhw: Perhaps one day you will define what you mean by “intelligent information”. Either cells/cell communities are automatons whose decisions have been preprogrammed, or they make their decisions autonomously.
Described over and over: 'Int-inf' is a complete set of instructions for cells to respond to all stimuli they must deal with.
dhw: The result is the same either way, which is why you keep acknowledging that the odds in favour/against are 50/50. If your 50/50 hypothesis is worth considering, then so is Shapiro’s.
Shapiro describes the int-inf ability of bacteria to edit their DNA to a small degree. 50/50 is that one must interpret cell-process research as observers. All that is seen is molecular reactions creating logical responses which obviously could be mandated by instructions in the genome. Since cells function with new proteins created at high speed the processes are automatic. If a new stimulus is encountered, since the maintenance of life is at high speed, proper responses are automatic.
DAVID (re dragonflies): from uncommon descent website: "The question that it raises is, how do the insects “know” that they should migrate over several generations? When a larva becomes a pupa, the body completely dissolves and is reconstituted as an adult. Where and how exactly does the information survive? Reside?" I couldn't phrase the dilemma any better and remember it is the same for monarchs. These insects could not have worked this out stepwise. Only design fits. Obviously the genes survive the metamorphosis in the liquid phase.dhw: If you mean design as opposed to chance, I agree. There is no way the repeated generational and migration pattern can have arisen by chance. But this only brings us back to our usual discussion: what was the original method of design? Cellular intelligence, your own divine, 3.8 byo programme, divine dabbling? In all cases, the pattern has to be passed on somehow. Through the genes and cell memory (see my first comment above)?
Design dominates in our discussion. Design comes from a designing mind. Where is your designer?
Big brain evolution: our special gene is identified
I have combined this post with "Evolution: a different view..." to avoid repetition.
dhw: Perhaps one day you will define what you mean by “intelligent information”.
DAVID: Described over and over: 'Int-inf' is a complete set of instructions for cells to respond to all stimuli they must deal with.
Thank you. This, then, is the 3.8 byo programme implanted in and passed on by the first cells for every single undabbled innovation, ecosystem, lifestyle and natural wonder in life’s history, anticipating every single environmental change with every single solution to every single problem. But my suggestion of possibly implanted intelligence is seen as a “monstrous extrapolation”!
dhw: [re cellular intelligence] If your 50/50 hypothesis is worth considering, then so is Shapiro’s.
DAVID: Shapiro describes the int-inf ability of bacteria to edit their DNA to a small degree. 50/50 is that one must interpret cell-process research as observers. […] If a new stimulus is encountered, since the maintenance of life is at high speed, proper responses are automatic.
Shapiro concludes that the ability of bacteria to solve problems indicates intelligence. As a doctor, you know it takes generations of bacteria to solve some problems, and millions die before they work out ways of countering measures devised to kill them. This is not “high speed”. Meanwhile, what happened to your God’s instructions?
DAVID (re dragonflies): […] These insects could not have worked this out stepwise. Only design fits. Obviously the genes survive the metamorphosis in the liquid phase.
dhw: If you mean design as opposed to chance, I agree. […] But this only brings us back to our usual discussion: what was the original method of design? […]
DAVID: Design dominates in our discussion. Design comes from a designing mind. Where is your designer?
Design doesn’t dominate, since we both accept it. What dominates is your insistence that your God personally preprogrammes or dabbles every design, whereas I suggest the alternative that if exists, he may have designed the mechanism which enables cell communities to do their own designing.
DAVID: The deletion idea from Behe is simply the reserve [dhw: reverse?] of that possibility, in that info is simply taken out of the process. One or the other is very likely a correct analysis.
“Simply”? It means that the first cells contained the DNA for every single life form in history – insects, birds, reptiles, mammals – not to mention all the bits that got discarded during speciation: teeth, sexual organs, spikes, fins, legs, trunks, human pelvises, whale pelvises….You call that simple?
DAVID: The issue is the need for rapid-fire mutations to make hominins so quickly!
dhw: Right, nothing to do with chance and nothing to do with the size of the group – your initial objections. Now it is speed. I have summarized your explanation (divine dabbling, preprogramming or deletion). As you well know, my own hypothesis (as unproven as yours), is the perhaps God-given, autonomous ability of cells/cell communities to restructure themselves in order to improve their chances of survival when faced with new conditions.
DAVID: Again avoiding the point of small group size. To go from ape to erectus takes massive mutational changes. If as suspected 10,000 erectus existed and previous antecedent hominins were in similar amounts, and if we use the known helpful mutations rates which are slow, and if we assume a new generation every 18-20 years how did erectus and sapiens appear so quickly in geologic time of six-eight million years?
Once again, nothing to do with group size, and everything to do with speed. 6 million divided by 20 = 300,000 generations. I am not talking about helpful chance mutations but about the ability of cell communities described above, so how the heck would anyone know how many generations are needed? There is no precedent.
DAVID: Based also on the fact that apes didn't need to bother to change, what drove human development? Not chance or natural forces, because it is demonstrably too fast for those influences.
Chance again! You agree that the groups were small, and I proposed that they were localized, probably because of changes to local conditions, whereas the rest of the ape family were not affected. Why do you think this hypothesis is less likely than your God fiddling with the anatomy of a few apes and then telling them to go and live on the ground even though they would have been happy to stay in the trees?
DAVID: …you know fully well I support a mechanism with guidelines, semi-autonomous. (dhw’s bold)
dhw: If your God preprogrammed or dabbled the changes that led to speciation, do please tell us which half of the process was autonomous, i.e. was the independently intelligent decision-making of the organisms concerned.
DAVID: I believe organismal modification is adaptations within existing species, never leading to speciation, therefore within God's guidelines for each species.
Once more: If your God provided the first cells with complete instructions for all undabbled innovations, ecosystems, lifestyles and natural wonders, please tell us which half of the “semi-autonomous” evolutionary process was autonomous. i.e. was the independent, intelligent decision-making of the organisms concerned.
Big brain evolution: our special gene is identified
by David Turell , Saturday, January 12, 2019, 18:42 (1925 days ago) @ dhw
dhw: [re cellular intelligence] If your 50/50 hypothesis is worth considering, then so is Shapiro’s.
DAVID: Shapiro describes the int-inf ability of bacteria to edit their DNA to a small degree. 50/50 is that one must interpret cell-process research as observers. […] If a new stimulus is encountered, since the maintenance of life is at high speed, proper responses are automatic.
dhw: Shapiro concludes that the ability of bacteria to solve problems indicates intelligence. As a doctor, you know it takes generations of bacteria to solve some problems, and millions die before they work out ways of countering measures devised to kill them. This is not “high speed”. Meanwhile, what happened to your God’s instructions?
Missed my point: I was referring to immediate stimuli of daily living. The antibiotic appears, and if it is totally effective, all bacteria die. But there will always be a small group with enough immunity to survive and adapt to the antibiotic by adopting an existing metabolic path answer or using gene transfer. Bacteria do this automatically, God's instructions used.
DAVID: The deletion idea from Behe is simply the reserve [dhw: reverse?] of that possibility, in that info is simply taken out of the process. One or the other is very likely a correct analysis.dhw: “Simply”? It means that the first cells contained the DNA for every single life form in history – insects, birds, reptiles, mammals – not to mention all the bits that got discarded during speciation: teeth, sexual organs, spikes, fins, legs, trunks, human pelvises, whale pelvises….You call that simple?
Simple for God.
DAVID: Again avoiding the point of small group size. To go from ape to erectus takes massive mutational changes. If as suspected 10,000 erectus existed and previous antecedent hominins were in similar amounts, and if we use the known helpful mutations rates which are slow, and if we assume a new generation every 18-20 years how did erectus and sapiens appear so quickly in geologic time of six-eight million years?dhw: Once again, nothing to do with group size, and everything to do with speed. 6 million divided by 20 = 300,000 generations. I am not talking about helpful chance mutations but about the ability of cell communities described above, so how the heck would anyone know how many generations are needed? There is no precedent.
The precedent is the human rate of mutations is known and is slow and less than 20 % cause an advance. "
https://www.bionews.org.uk/page_91833
"The team at the Sanger Institute have now accurately calculated the mutation rate. They sequenced the same piece of DNA - just over 10,000,000 letters from the Y chromosome - from two men separated by 13 generations, whose common ancestor lived 200 years ago. They counted the difference between the two sequences and found only four mutations. From their data they were able to calculate the mutation rate.
''These four mutations gave us the exact mutation rate - one in 30 million nucleotide each generation - that we had expected', says Dr Tyler-Smith."
DAVID: Based also on the fact that apes didn't need to bother to change, what drove human development? Not chance or natural forces, because it is demonstrably too fast for those influences.dhw: Chance again! You agree that the groups were small, and I proposed that they were localized, probably because of changes to local conditions, whereas the rest of the ape family were not affected. Why do you think this hypothesis is less likely than your God fiddling with the anatomy of a few apes and then telling them to go and live on the ground even though they would have been happy to stay in the trees?
Again avoiding the speed of the change. It has to be by design.
DAVID: I believe organismal modification is adaptations within existing species, never leading to speciation, therefore within God's guidelines for each species.dhw: Once more: If your God provided the first cells with complete instructions for all undabbled innovations, ecosystems, lifestyles and natural wonders, please tell us which half of the “semi-autonomous” evolutionary process was autonomous. i.e. was the independent, intelligent decision-making of the organisms concerned.
It is a concept. You, in a silly way, want exactitude. Semi-autonomous means within prescribed limits of design.
Big brain evolution: our special gene is identified
dhw: Shapiro concludes that the ability of bacteria to solve problems indicates intelligence. As a doctor, you know it takes generations of bacteria to solve some problems, and millions die before they work out ways of countering measures devised to kill them. This is not “high speed”. Meanwhile, what happened to your God’s instructions?
DAVID: Missed my point: I was referring to immediate stimuli of daily living. The antibiotic appears, and if it is totally effective, all bacteria die. But there will always be a small group with enough immunity to survive and adapt to the antibiotic by adopting an existing metabolic path answer or using gene transfer. Bacteria do this automatically, God's instructions used.
Initially you repeat what I wrote: There is no totally effective antibiotic and so all bacteria don’t die. A small group finds a remedy and passes it on. “Adopting an existing metabolic path answer” is a fine sounding phrase which apparently means that God’s automatic survival programme failed miserably at first, but then clicked in later. It apparently takes time for your God’s “high speed” technology to work. Alternatively, perhaps some bacteria use their intelligence to find a suitable means of solving a new problem which some of their less intelligent buddies were unable to solve.
DAVID: The deletion idea from Behe is simply the reserve [dhw: reverse?] of that possibility, in that info is simply taken out of the process. One or the other is very likely a correct analysis.
dhw: “Simply”? It means that the first cells contained the DNA for every single life form in history – insects, birds, reptiles, mammals – not to mention all the bits that got discarded during speciation: teeth, sexual organs, spikes, fins, legs, trunks, human pelvises, whale pelvises….You call that simple?
DAVID: Simple for God.
Any reason why he couldn’t "simply" have invented a single mechanism (the intelligent cell combining with other intelligent cells) capable of inventing all the above? Too difficult?
DAVID: Again avoiding the point of small group size. To go from ape to erectus takes massive mutational changes. If as suspected 10,000 erectus existed and previous antecedent hominins were in similar amounts, and if we use the known helpful mutations rates which are slow, and if we assume a new generation every 18-20 years how did erectus and sapiens appear so quickly in geologic time of six-eight million years?
dhw: Once again, nothing to do with group size, and everything to do with speed. 6 million divided by 20 = 300,000 generations. I am not talking about helpful chance mutations but about the ability of cell communities described above, so how the heck would anyone know how many generations are needed? There is no precedent.
DAVID: The precedent is the human rate of mutations is known and is slow and less than 20 % cause an advance.
"https://www.bionews.org.uk/page_91833
"The team at the Sanger Institute have now accurately calculated the mutation rate. They sequenced the same piece of DNA - just over 10,000,000 letters from the Y chromosome - from two men separated by 13 generations, whose common ancestor lived 200 years ago. They counted the difference between the two sequences and found only four mutations. From their data they were able to calculate the mutation rate.
''These four mutations gave us the exact mutation rate - one in 30 million nucleotide each generation - that we had expected', says Dr Tyler-Smith."
And do you really think that 200 years and 13 separate generations under stable conditions provide an accurate guide to a process that went on under ever changing conditions for 6-8 million years and 300-400,000 generations?
dhw: You agree that the groups were small, and I proposed that they were localized, probably because of changes to local conditions, whereas the rest of the ape family were not affected. Why do you think this hypothesis is less likely than your God fiddling with the anatomy of a few apes and then telling them to go and live on the ground even though they would have been happy to stay in the trees?
DAVID: Again avoiding the speed of the change. It has to be by design.
Speed dealt with above. So why do you think localized response to changing conditions is less likely than your God fiddling with the anatomy of a few apes and making them abandon their happy life in the trees?
dhw: […] please tell us which half of the “semi-autonomous” evolutionary process was autonomous. i.e. was the independent, intelligent decision-making of the organisms concerned.
DAVID: It is a concept. You, in a silly way, want exactitude. Semi-autonomous means within prescribed limits of design.
“Prescribed limits” restrict what can and can’t be done. A man in prison can’t autonomously decide to go for a walk in the country. I never imagined that a prototype ant could turn itself into an eagle or an elephant. But I can imagine cell communities over billions of years using their perhaps God-given intelligence to invent new ways of coping with or exploiting new conditions. And so I’m quite happy to accept the idea that cell communities autonomously restructure themselves, independently designing their own adaptations and innovations within limits prescribed by the environment and their own capabilities. Did you have any other “prescribed limits” in mind?
Big brain evolution: our special gene is identified
by David Turell , Sunday, January 13, 2019, 19:32 (1923 days ago) @ dhw
DAVID: Missed my point: I was referring to immediate stimuli of daily living. The antibiotic appears, and if it is totally effective, all bacteria die. But there will always be a small group with enough immunity to survive and adapt to the antibiotic by adopting an existing metabolic path answer or using gene transfer. Bacteria do this automatically, God's instructions used.
Initially you repeat what I wrote: There is no totally effective antibiotic and so all bacteria don’t die. A small group finds a remedy and passes it on. .. Alternatively, perhaps some bacteria use their intelligence to find a suitable means of solving a new problem which some of their less intelligent buddies were unable to solve.
Successful bacteria use alternative pathways as research shows. The intelligence is in automatically switching.
DAVID: The deletion idea from Behe is simply the reserve [dhw: reverse?] of that possibility, in that info is simply taken out of the process. One or the other is very likely a correct analysis.dhw: “Simply”? It means that the first cells contained the DNA for every single life form in history – insects, birds, reptiles, mammals – not to mention all the bits that got discarded during speciation: teeth, sexual organs, spikes, fins, legs, trunks, human pelvises, whale pelvises….You call that simple?
DAVID: Simple for God.
dhw: Any reason why he couldn’t "simply" have invented a single mechanism (the intelligent cell combining with other intelligent cells) capable of inventing all the above? Too difficult?
And lose control of changes? Not likely.
dhw: Once again, nothing to do with group size, and everything to do with speed. 6 million divided by 20 = 300,000 generations. I am not talking about helpful chance mutations but about the ability of cell communities described above, so how the heck would anyone know how many generations are needed? There is no precedent.DAVID: The precedent is the human rate of mutations is known and is slow and less than 20 % cause an advance.
"https://www.bionews.org.uk/page_91833"The team at the Sanger Institute have now accurately calculated the mutation rate. They sequenced the same piece of DNA - just over 10,000,000 letters from the Y chromosome - from two men separated by 13 generations, whose common ancestor lived 200 years ago. They counted the difference between the two sequences and found only four mutations. From their data they were able to calculate the mutation rate.
''These four mutations gave us the exact mutation rate - one in 30 million nucleotide each generation - that we had expected', says Dr Tyler-Smith."dhw: And do you really think that 200 years and 13 separate generations under stable conditions provide an accurate guide to a process that went on under ever changing conditions for 6-8 million years and 300-400,000 generations?
The scientists are sure of it. Note the bold of their comment you ignored.
DAVID: Again avoiding the speed of the change. It has to be by design.
dhw: Speed dealt with above. So why do you think localized response to changing conditions is less likely than your God fiddling with the anatomy of a few apes and making them abandon their happy life in the trees?
Marked changing conditions cause extinctions as you know. Less marked change in conditions requires the appearance of chance lucky coordinated multiple mutations or design for the change. I'll pick design every time.
dhw: […] please tell us which half of the “semi-autonomous” evolutionary process was autonomous. i.e. was the independent, intelligent decision-making of the organisms concerned.DAVID: It is a concept. You, in a silly way, want exactitude. Semi-autonomous means within prescribed limits of design.
“Prescribed limits” restrict what can and can’t be done. A man in prison can’t autonomously decide to go for a walk in the country. I never imagined that a prototype ant could turn itself into an eagle or an elephant. But I can imagine cell communities over billions of years using their perhaps God-given intelligence to invent new ways of coping with or exploiting new conditions. And so I’m quite happy to accept the idea that cell communities autonomously restructure themselves, independently designing their own adaptations and innovations within limits prescribed by the environment and their own capabilities. Did you have any other “prescribed limits” in mind?
You understand my concept based on the first sentence. God controls developing evolution. Your intelligent cells respond automatically to stimuli and the genome info they contain and use it intelligently provided by design.
Big brain evolution: our special gene is identified
DAVID: … there will always be a small group with enough immunity to survive and adapt to the antibiotic by adopting an existing metabolic path answer or using gene transfer. Bacteria do this automatically, God's instructions used.
Dhw: Alternatively, perhaps some bacteria use their intelligence to find a suitable means of solving a new problem which some of their less intelligent buddies were unable to solve.
DAVID: Successful bacteria use alternative pathways as research shows. The intelligence is in automatically switching.
What does this mean? You say your God provided a programme with complete instructions to solve every problem, and bacteria are automatons. So why don’t they automatically switch on your God’s instructions? Are you saying your God provided them with multiple choice instructions, and so automatically some bacteria chose the wrong answer and some chose the right answer while none of them knew what they were doing?
DAVID: The deletion idea from Behe is simply the reserve [dhw: reverse?] of that possibility, in that info is simply taken out of the process. One or the other is very likely a correct analysis.
dhw: “Simply”? It means that the first cells contained the DNA for every single life form in history – insects, birds, reptiles, mammals – not to mention all the bits that got discarded during speciation: teeth, sexual organs, spikes, fins, legs, trunks, human pelvises, whale pelvises….You call that simple?
DAVID: Simple for God.
dhw: Any reason why he couldn’t "simply" have invented a single mechanism (the intelligent cell combining with other intelligent cells) capable of inventing all the above? Too difficult?
DAVID: And lose control of changes? Not likely.
Why do you assume your God wanted to maintain control? Perhaps he wanted to see what would happen if he set the wheels in motion…And to anticipate your usual response, a control freak is just as “human” as an experimental scientist.
QUOTE: ''These four mutations gave us the exact mutation rate - one in 30 million nucleotide each generation - that we had expected', says Dr Tyler-Smith." (David’s bold)
DAVID: The scientists are sure of it. Note the bold of their comment you ignored.
Since when did you accept the beliefs of scientists because they are sure they are right? Ah well, good news for Shapiro and Dawkins. Meanwhile, your scientists are sure that by examining the mutation rate over 200 years between 13 generations of one H. sapiens family under stable conditions, they know exactly what mutation rate was possible throughout 6-8 million years between 300 and 400 thousand generations of apes, hominins and hominids living in all kinds of environments. Sorry, but I’m not sure.
dhw: […] why do you think localized response to changing conditions is less likely than your God fiddling with the anatomy of a few apes and making them abandon their happy life in the trees?
DAVID: Marked changing conditions cause extinctions as you know.
But some species survive, and new conditions may lead to new developments.
DAVID: Less marked change in conditions requires the appearance of chance lucky coordinated multiple mutations or design for the change. I'll pick design every time.
So will I. You keep harping on about chance mutations as the only alternative to design (and I can’t help wondering what mutations your Sanger scientists were talking about).You know perfectly well that my alternative is that intelligent cell communities (possibly designed by your God) do their own designing. Again: why do you think an intelligent response to local conditions is less likely than your God fiddling around with some apes before making them leave their happy home?
dhw: […] please tell us which half of the “semi-autonomous” evolutionary process was autonomous. i.e. was the independent, intelligent decision-making of the organisms concerned.
DAVID: It is a concept. You, in a silly way, want exactitude. Semi-autonomous means within prescribed limits of design.
dhw: […] I’m quite happy to accept the idea that cell communities autonomously restructure themselves, independently designing their own adaptations and innovations within limits prescribed by the environment and their own capabilities. Did you have any other “prescribed limits” in mind?
DAVID: You understand my concept based on the first sentence. God controls developing evolution. Your intelligent cells respond automatically to stimuli and the genome info they contain and use it intelligently provided by design.
I asked you what you meant by semi-autonomous, and your only answer was “within prescribed limits”. Apart from environment and restricted capabilities, what other limits are you thinking of? It is no answer to repeat your belief (stated as fact) that God is in total control (= no degree of autonomy), and that cells are automatons (= no degree of autonomy), and I don’t understand what you mean by cells use info “intelligently provided by design”. Either cells/cell communities autonomously process info intelligently and make their own decisions (within prescribed limits described above), or they merely follow instructions and are automatons. But the invitation remains open: what do you mean by semi-autonomy?
Big brain evolution: our special gene is identified
by David Turell , Tuesday, January 15, 2019, 01:30 (1922 days ago) @ dhw
DAVID: Successful bacteria use alternative pathways as research shows. The intelligence is in automatically switching.
dhw: What does this mean? You say your God provided a programme with complete instructions to solve every problem, and bacteria are automatons. So why don’t they automatically switch on your God’s instructions? Are you saying your God provided them with multiple choice instructions, and so automatically some bacteria chose the wrong answer and some chose the right answer while none of them knew what they were doing?
No, God gave bacteria alternate pathways and the ability to switch pathways when necessary depending on nutrients available. Intelligent instructons.
DAVID: And lose control of changes? Not likely.dhw: Why do you assume your God wanted to maintain control? Perhaps he wanted to see what would happen if he set the wheels in motion…And to anticipate your usual response, a control freak is just as “human” as an experimental scientist.
Why do you assume He would give up total control? Your 'wanted to see what would happen" is totally a human thought for God as usual in your thinking.
QUOTE: ''These four mutations gave us the exact mutation rate - one in 30 million nucleotide each generation - that we had expected', says Dr Tyler-Smith." (David’s bold)
DAVID: The scientists are sure of it. Note the bold of their comment you ignored.
dhw: Since when did you accept the beliefs of scientists because they are sure they are right? Ah well, good news for Shapiro and Dawkins. Meanwhile, your scientists are sure that by examining the mutation rate over 200 years between 13 generations of one H. sapiens family under stable conditions, they know exactly what mutation rate was possible throughout 6-8 million years between 300 and 400 thousand generations of apes, hominins and hominids living in all kinds of environments. Sorry, but I’m not sure.
Good for you. You admit to skepticism when the scientists take a position that attacks your pet theories. The issue still is small population, long generation change times and the need for massive beneficiary mutations all coordinated to work together. Short geologic time!
dhw: […] why do you think localized response to changing conditions is less likely than your God fiddling with the anatomy of a few apes and making them abandon their happy life in the trees?DAVID: Marked changing conditions cause extinctions as you know.
dhw: But some species survive, and new conditions may lead to new developments. But not the changes needed to make a human
DAVID: Less marked change in conditions requires the appearance of chance lucky coordinated multiple mutations or design for the change. I'll pick design every time.
dhw: So will I. You keep harping on about chance mutations as the only alternative to design (and I can’t help wondering what mutations your Sanger scientists were talking about).You know perfectly well that my alternative is that intelligent cell communities (possibly designed by your God) do their own designing. Again: why do you think an intelligent response to local conditions is less likely than your God fiddling around with some apes before making them leave their happy home?
Your usual response of cell committees figuring out how to make a human. Ha!
DAVID: You understand my concept based on the first sentence. God controls developing evolution. Your intelligent cells respond automatically to stimuli and the genome info they contain and use it intelligently provided by design.dhw: I asked you what you meant by semi-autonomous, and your only answer was “within prescribed limits”. Apart from environment and restricted capabilities, what other limits are you thinking of? It is no answer to repeat your belief (stated as fact) that God is in total control (= no degree of autonomy), and that cells are automatons (= no degree of autonomy), and I don’t understand what you mean by cells use info “intelligently provided by design”. Either cells/cell communities autonomously process info intelligently and make their own decisions (within prescribed limits described above), or they merely follow instructions and are automatons. But the invitation remains open: what do you mean by semi-autonomy?
Absolute limits in phenotype and physiology alterations so exactly the needed advance in evolution is obtained.
Big brain evolution: our special gene is identified
dhw: You say your God provided a programme with complete instructions to solve every problem, and bacteria are automatons. So why don’t they automatically switch on your God’s instructions? Are you saying your God provided them with multiple choice instructions, and so automatically some bacteria chose the wrong answer and some chose the right answer while none of them knew what they were doing?
DAVID: No, God gave bacteria alternate pathways and the ability to switch pathways when necessary depending on nutrients available. Intelligent instructions.
We're not talking about available nutrients, but about the antibiotics that kill millions of bacteria which you say have been given instructions to solve the new problem. Alternative pathways = multiple choice. So did millions of dead bacteria NOT have God’s instructions, or did they automatically choose the wrong ones, while their mates automatically chose the right ones?
DAVID: And lose control of changes? Not likely.
dhw: Why do you assume your God wanted to maintain control? Perhaps he wanted to see what would happen if he set the wheels in motion…And to anticipate your usual response, a control freak is just as “human” as an experimental scientist.
DAVID: Why do you assume He would give up total control? Your 'wanted to see what would happen" is totally a human thought for God as usual in your thinking.
I don’t assume anything! I offer alternatives to YOUR assumptions. It is you who assume your God wanted and had total control! And I repeat, your believed-in control freak is no less human than my hypothetical experimental scientist.
QUOTE: ''These four mutations gave us the exact mutation rate - one in 30 million nucleotide each generation - that we had expected', says Dr Tyler-Smith."
DAVID: The scientists are sure of it.
dhw: Since when did you accept the beliefs of scientists because they are sure they are right? Ah well, good news for Shapiro and Dawkins.
DAVID: Good for you. You admit to skepticism when the scientists take a position that attacks your pet theories.
I ask for open-mindedness, whereas you actively believe scientists when they seem to support you, as above, and you are sceptical when they don’t, as with Shapiro & Co. You have fixed beliefs, and I offer alternative hypotheses.
DAVID: The issue still is small population, long generation change times and the need for massive beneficiary mutations all coordinated to work together. Short geologic time!
Small population is irrelevant, since the mutations must take place in individuals. Your scientists’ conclusions are based on two individuals from 13 generations of one family over 200 years of stable conditions - a speck of sand in the “hourglass” of 6-8 million years and three to four hundred thousand generations of apes, hominins and hominids living in ever changing conditions, especially if the beneficial mutations are not by chance but are coordinated by intelligent, cooperating cell communities.
dhw: […] why do you think localized response to changing conditions is less likely than your God fiddling with the anatomy of a few apes and making them abandon their happy life in the trees?
DAVID: Less marked change in conditions requires the appearance of chance lucky coordinated multiple mutations or design for the change. I'll pick design every time.
dhw: So will I. You harp on about chance mutations as the only alternative to design […] My alternative is that intelligent cell communities (possibly God-designed) do their own designing. Nothing to do with chance. Again: why do you think an intelligent response to local conditions is less likely than your God fiddling with some apes’ pelvises before making them leave their happy home?
DAVID: Your usual response of cell committees figuring out how to make a human. Ha!
Why ha? You also believe in common descent, so you believe in a gradual accumulation of innovations over 3.5+ thousand million years of evolution from single cells to ALL the different life forms before apes, hominins, hominids and homos. But you insist that your God preprogrammed or dabbled every single one rather than perhaps creating a mechanism that would do it autonomously. And you still haven’t told me why you think an intelligent response to local conditions (using perhaps God-given intelligence to adjust to those conditions) is less likely that your God fiddling with ape anatomies before forcing them to leave their happy home in the trees.
dhw: I asked you what you meant by semi-autonomous, and your only answer was “within prescribed limits”. Apart from environment and restricted capabilities, what other limits are you thinking of? Either cells/cell communities autonomously process info intelligently and make their own decisions (within prescribed limits described above), or they merely follow instructions and are automatons. But the invitation remains open: what do you mean by semi-autonomy?
DAVID: Absolute limits in phenotype and physiology alterations so exactly the needed advance in evolution is obtained.
This = restricted capabilities. I can accept that organisms have evolved to meet the needs imposed by (or to exploit the opportunities offered by) a changing environment. Now please tell me which half of the process is autonomous.
Big brain evolution: our special gene is identified
by David Turell , Tuesday, January 15, 2019, 18:00 (1922 days ago) @ dhw
DAVID: No, God gave bacteria alternate pathways and the ability to switch pathways when necessary depending on nutrients available. Intelligent instructions.
dhw: We're not talking about available nutrients, but about the antibiotics that kill millions of bacteria which you say have been given instructions to solve the new problem. Alternative pathways = multiple choice. So did millions of dead bacteria NOT have God’s instructions, or did they automatically choose the wrong ones, while their mates automatically chose the right ones?
Research indicates some bacteria can pick up resistance by lateral transfer of genes, or by minor alteration of their metabolism to different pathways. Poll the bacteria who lived and those who died to answer your provocative query.
dhw: Since when did you accept the beliefs of scientists because they are sure they are right? Ah well, good news for Shapiro and Dawkins.DAVID: Good for you. You admit to skepticism when the scientists take a position that attacks your pet theories.
dhw: I ask for open-mindedness, whereas you actively believe scientists when they seem to support you, as above, and you are sceptical when they don’t, as with Shapiro & Co. You have fixed beliefs, and I offer alternative hypotheses.
To suit your fixed hypotheses.
dhw: Small population is irrelevant, since the mutations must take place in individuals. Your scientists’ conclusions are based on two individuals from 13 generations of one family over 200 years of stable conditions - a speck of sand in the “hourglass” of 6-8 million years and three to four hundred thousand generations of apes, hominins and hominids living in ever changing conditions, especially if the beneficial mutations are not by chance but are coordinated by intelligent, cooperating cell communities.
Of course individual mutations in a small number population. How many mutations can happen in a small number of people? And designed by cell committees as bigger heads demand bigger pelvic outlets in different individuals in the birth process.
DAVID: Less marked change in conditions requires the appearance of chance lucky coordinated multiple mutations or design for the change. I'll pick design every time.
dhw: So will I. You harp on about chance mutations as the only alternative to design […] My alternative is that intelligent cell communities (possibly God-designed) do their own designing. Nothing to do with chance. Again: why do you think an intelligent response to local conditions is less likely than your God fiddling with some apes’ pelvises before making them leave their happy home?DAVID: Your usual response of cell committees figuring out how to make a human. Ha!
dhw: Why ha? You also believe in common descent, so you believe in a gradual accumulation of innovations over 3.5+ thousand million years of evolution from single cells to ALL the different life forms before apes, hominins, hominids and homos.
I don't believe in gradual accumulation of small changes. That is Darwinism which you can't seem to leave behind. Note the Giraffe gap or the Cambrian! I think God creates species de novo in an evolving order.
dhw: I asked you what you meant by semi-autonomous, and your only answer was “within prescribed limits”. Apart from environment and restricted capabilities, what other limits are you thinking of? Either cells/cell communities autonomously process info intelligently and make their own decisions (within prescribed limits described above), or they merely follow instructions and are automatons. But the invitation remains open: what do you mean by semi-autonomy?DAVID: Absolute limits in phenotype and physiology alterations so exactly the needed advance in evolution is obtained.
dhw: This = restricted capabilities. I can accept that organisms have evolved to meet the needs imposed by (or to exploit the opportunities offered by) a changing environment. Now please tell me which half of the process is autonomous.
Minor adaptations within current species, nothing more. See arrival of species thru God as stated above.
Big brain evolution: our special gene is identified
by David Turell , Tuesday, January 15, 2019, 18:30 (1922 days ago) @ David Turell
DAVID: No, God gave bacteria alternate pathways and the ability to switch pathways when necessary depending on nutrients available. Intelligent instructions.
dhw: We're not talking about available nutrients, but about the antibiotics that kill millions of bacteria which you say have been given instructions to solve the new problem. Alternative pathways = multiple choice. So did millions of dead bacteria NOT have God’s instructions, or did they automatically choose the wrong ones, while their mates automatically chose the right ones?
Research indicates some bacteria can pick up resistance by lateral transfer of genes, or by minor alteration of their metabolism to different pathways. Poll the bacteria who lived and those who died to answer your provocative query.
dhw: Since when did you accept the beliefs of scientists because they are sure they are right? Ah well, good news for Shapiro and Dawkins.DAVID: Good for you. You admit to skepticism when the scientists take a position that attacks your pet theories.
dhw: I ask for open-mindedness, whereas you actively believe scientists when they seem to support you, as above, and you are sceptical when they don’t, as with Shapiro & Co. You have fixed beliefs, and I offer alternative hypotheses.
To suit your fixed hypotheses.
dhw: Small population is irrelevant, since the mutations must take place in individuals. Your scientists’ conclusions are based on two individuals from 13 generations of one family over 200 years of stable conditions - a speck of sand in the “hourglass” of 6-8 million years and three to four hundred thousand generations of apes, hominins and hominids living in ever changing conditions, especially if the beneficial mutations are not by chance but are coordinated by intelligent, cooperating cell communities.
Of course individual mutations in a small number population. How many mutations can happen in a small number of people? And designed by cell committees as bigger heads demand bigger pelvic outlets in different individuals in the birth process.
DAVID: Less marked change in conditions requires the appearance of chance lucky coordinated multiple mutations or design for the change. I'll pick design every time.
dhw: So will I. You harp on about chance mutations as the only alternative to design […] My alternative is that intelligent cell communities (possibly God-designed) do their own designing. Nothing to do with chance. Again: why do you think an intelligent response to local conditions is less likely than your God fiddling with some apes’ pelvises before making them leave their happy home?DAVID: Your usual response of cell committees figuring out how to make a human. Ha!
dhw: Why ha? You also believe in common descent, so you believe in a gradual accumulation of innovations over 3.5+ thousand million years of evolution from single cells to ALL the different life forms before apes, hominins, hominids and homos.
I don't believe in gradual accumulation of small changes. That is Darwinism which you can't seem to leave behind. Note the Giraffe gap or the Cambrian! I think God creates species de novo in an evolving order. Gould worried about the gaps as did Darwin, so he and Niles Eldredge invented a fanciful punctuated equilibrium idea of isolated species coming up with new species as they came out of isolation, with a reference to environmental forcing as possible but not provable reason. All theory with no proofs. So much for defending Darwin!
dhw: I asked you what you meant by semi-autonomous, and your only answer was “within prescribed limits”. Apart from environment and restricted capabilities, what other limits are you thinking of? Either cells/cell communities autonomously process info intelligently and make their own decisions (within prescribed limits described above), or they merely follow instructions and are automatons. But the invitation remains open: what do you mean by semi-autonomy?DAVID: Absolute limits in phenotype and physiology alterations so exactly the needed advance in evolution is obtained.
dhw: This = restricted capabilities. I can accept that organisms have evolved to meet the needs imposed by (or to exploit the opportunities offered by) a changing environment. Now please tell me which half of the process is autonomous.
Minor adaptations within current species, nothing more. See arrival of species thru God as stated above.
Big brain evolution: our special gene is identified
dhw: [..] did millions of dead bacteria NOT have God’s instructions, or did they automatically choose the wrong ones, while their mates automatically chose the right ones?
DAVID: Research indicates some bacteria can pick up resistance by lateral transfer of genes, or by minor alteration of their metabolism to different pathways. Poll the bacteria who lived and those who died to answer your provocative query.
They can’t transfer resistance until they have found the way to resist! Clearly they have to change their metabolism if they are to solve the new problem posed by new drugs. How do they do it? You tell us your God gave them a complete list of instructions to solve every problem. Millions of them never got those instructions (“pathways”), or they automatically chose the wrong ones while a few of their mates chose the right ones. Alternatively, there were no such instructions in the first place, and the clever guys worked out the solution and then passed it on to their buddies.
dhw: Since when did you accept the beliefs of scientists because they are sure they are right? Ah well, good news for Shapiro and Dawkins.
DAVID: Good for you. You admit to skepticism when the scientists take a position that attacks your pet theories.
dhw: I ask for open-mindedness, whereas you actively believe scientists when they seem to support you, as above, and you are sceptical when they don’t, as with Shapiro & Co. You have fixed beliefs, and I offer alternative hypotheses.
DAVID: To suit your fixed hypotheses.
I offer alternative hypotheses to suit my fixed hypotheses? What does that mean? I don’t claim to know the answers, and so I offer a variety of possible alternatives. You reject them all because you have fixed beliefs.
dhw: Small population is irrelevant, since the mutations must take place in individuals. Your scientists’ conclusions are based on two individuals from 13 generations of one family over 200 years of stable conditions - a speck of sand in the “hourglass” of 6-8 million years and three to four hundred thousand generations of apes, hominins and hominids living in ever changing conditions, especially if the beneficial mutations are not by chance but are coordinated by intelligent, cooperating cell communities.
DAVID: Of course individual mutations in a small number population. How many mutations can happen in a small number of people? And designed by cell committees as bigger heads demand bigger pelvic outlets in different individuals in the birth process.
Theoretically you only need two (one male and one female) for successful mutations to be passed on. And then you will get expanding groups, and over millions of years and generations you will get more mutations, and so on. Hence transitional forms (e.g. "Little Foot").
DAVID: Your usual response of cell committees figuring out how to make a human. Ha!
dhw: Why ha? You also believe in common descent, so you believe in a gradual accumulation of innovations over 3.5+ thousand million years of evolution from single cells to ALL the different life forms before apes, hominins, hominids and homos.
DAVID: I don't believe in gradual accumulation of small changes. That is Darwinism which you can't seem to leave behind. Note the Giraffe gap or the Cambrian! I think God creates species de novo in an evolving order.
I did not say small changes; I said innovations covering all the different life forms through 3.5+ billion years of life. If you believe that your God created species de novo, then you have finally renounced common descent and embraced Creationism. You may be surprised to hear that I can accept the logic of Creationism as a hypothetical explanation of the gaps in the fossil record. But of course from my point of view, it raises more questions than it answers, which is why I offer a number of alternative explanations of life’s history. None are proven, and none are beliefs. I am an agnostic.
dhw: Now please tell me which half of the process is autonomous.
DAVID: Minor adaptations within current species, nothing more. See arrival of species thru God as stated above.
Thank you for this more fruitful answer. However, it begs the question of a borderline between what you consider to be major and minor, because in my view of evolution, adaptation to new conditions is a driving force for evolutionary change. In your own favourite example of the whale, we have several instances of physiological change coinciding with environmental change: e.g. legs to fins, teeth to no teeth (and also no teeth to baleens). You claim that your God preprogrammed or dabbled them all in preparation for a change of environment. I suggest they were the consequence of organisms (cell communities) autonomously adapting to new conditions. I would regard legs to fins as major, and teeth to no teeth as minor, but both follow the same process. I have a similar problem finding a borderline between adaptation and innovation, but that is the acknowledged difficulty with my hypothesis: we do not know the extent to which cell communities can change their own structures and functions. Meanwhile, perhaps you could comment on the whale example (especially loss of teeth) and give an example or two of cell communities (organisms) acting autonomously through minor adaptations.
Big brain evolution: our special gene is identified
by David Turell , Wednesday, January 16, 2019, 22:20 (1920 days ago) @ dhw
DAVID: Research indicates some bacteria can pick up resistance by lateral transfer of genes, or by minor alteration of their metabolism to different pathways. Poll the bacteria who lived and those who died to answer your provocative query.
dhw: They can’t transfer resistance until they have found the way to resist! Clearly they have to change their metabolism if they are to solve the new problem posed by new drugs. How do they do it? You tell us your God gave them a complete list of instructions to solve every problem. Millions of them never got those instructions (“pathways”), or they automatically chose the wrong ones while a few of their mates chose the right ones.
To have gene transfer some existing bacteria have to carry the gene at the time of the insult. I've told you in the past resistance varies and since antibiotics are part of nature from molds and other bacteria these defenses exist to some degree everywhere.
dhw: I ask for open-mindedness, whereas you actively believe scientists when they seem to support you, as above, and you are sceptical when they don’t, as with Shapiro & Co. You have fixed beliefs, and I offer alternative hypotheses.DAVID: To suit your fixed hypotheses.
dhw: I offer alternative hypotheses to suit my fixed hypotheses? What does that mean? I don’t claim to know the answers, and so I offer a variety of possible alternatives. You reject them all because you have fixed beliefs.
Based on analyses from what I have been trained in and what I have lea rned.
dhw: Small population is irrelevant, since the mutations must take place in individuals. Your scientists’ conclusions are based on two individuals from 13 generations of one family over 200 years of stable conditions - a speck of sand in the “hourglass” of 6-8 million years and three to four hundred thousand generations of apes, hominins and hominids living in ever changing conditions, especially if the beneficial mutations are not by chance but are coordinated by intelligent, cooperating cell communities.DAVID: Of course individual mutations in a small number population. How many mutations can happen in a small number of people? And designed by cell committees as bigger heads demand bigger pelvic outlets in different individuals in the birth process.
dhw: Theoretically you only need two (one male and one female) for successful mutations to be passed on. And then you will get expanding groups, and over millions of years and generations you will get more mutations, and so on. Hence transitional forms (e.g. "Little Foot").
You are now getting into Haldane's dilemma ab out populatgon size and timing available. Never solved.
DAVID: I don't believe in gradual accumulation of small changes. That is Darwinism which you can't seem to leave behind. Note the Giraffe gap or the Cambrian! I think God creates species de novo in an evolving order.dhw: I did not say small changes; I said innovations covering all the different life forms through 3.5+ billion years of life. If you believe that your God created species de novo, then you have finally renounced common descent and embraced Creationism. You may be surprised to hear that I can accept the logic of Creationism as a hypothetical explanation of the gaps in the fossil record.
dhw: Now please tell me which half of the process is autonomous.
DAVID: Minor adaptations within current species, nothing more. See arrival of species thru God as stated above.
dhw: Thank you for this more fruitful answer. However, it begs the question of a borderline between what you consider to be major and minor, because in my view of evolution, adaptation to new conditions is a driving force for evolutionary change. In your own favourite example of the whale, we have several instances of physiological change coinciding with environmental change: e.g. legs to fins, teeth to no teeth (and also no teeth to baleens). You claim that your God preprogrammed or dabbled them all in preparation for a change of environment. I suggest they were the consequence of organisms (cell communities) autonomously adapting to new conditions. I would regard legs to fins as major, and teeth to no teeth as minor, but both follow the same process. I have a similar problem finding a borderline between adaptation and innovation, but that is the acknowledged difficulty with my hypothesis: we do not know the extent to which cell communities can change their own structures and functions. Meanwhile, perhaps you could comment on the whale example (especially loss of teeth) and give an example or two of cell communities (organisms) acting autonomously through minor adaptations.
The major gaps before the sudden appearances in the fossil record tell us stepwise small adaptations aren't the way it happens. Think Gould and punc. inc. and Darwin's own prediction that the steps have to be found to validate him. They haven't more than 150 years later. You are still almost totally Darwinist in your thinking. Directed design is the best fit to the problem. Survival in never pushing it.
Big brain evolution: our special gene is identified
DAVID: You admit to skepticism when the scientists take a position that attacks your pet theories. (dhw’s bold)
dhw: I ask for open-mindedness, whereas you actively believe scientists when they seem to support you, as above, and you are sceptical when they don’t, as with Shapiro & Co. You have fixed beliefs, and I offer alternative hypotheses.
DAVID: To suit your fixed hypotheses.
dhw: I offer alternative hypotheses to suit my fixed hypotheses? What does that mean? I don’t claim to know the answers, and so I offer a variety of possible alternatives. You reject them all because you have fixed beliefs.
DAVID: Based on analyses from what I have been trained in and what I have learned.
But you admit to scepticism when other equally trained and learned scientists “take a position that attacks your pet theories”! In some cases (design) your conclusions are humanly logical, but in others you admit that you can’t find a humanly logical explanation for your conclusions, and so you simply know God did things your way and his logic is different from ours.
dhw: Theoretically you only need two (one male and one female) for successful mutations to be passed on. And then you will get expanding groups, and over millions of years and generations you will get more mutations, and so on. Hence transitional forms (e.g. "Little Foot").
DAVID: You are now getting into Haldane's dilemma about population size and timing available. Never solved.
You and your fellow Creationists claim that the dilemma is solved if we accept that your intelligent God directed all the mutations. If so, I can claim that the dilemma is solved if intelligent cell communities (possibly created by your God) directed all the mutations. Of course neither of these hypotheses is proven.
dhw: Now please tell me which half of the process is autonomous.
DAVID: Minor adaptations within current species, nothing more.
dhw: Thank you for this more fruitful answer. However, it begs the question of a borderline between what you consider to be major and minor, because in my view of evolution, adaptation to new conditions is a driving force for evolutionary change. In your own favourite example of the whale, we have several instances of physiological change coinciding with environmental change: e.g. legs to fins, teeth to no teeth (and also no teeth to baleens). You claim that your God preprogrammed or dabbled them all in preparation for a change of environment. I suggest they were the consequence of organisms (cell communities) autonomously adapting to new conditions. I would regard legs to fins as major, and teeth to no teeth as minor, but both follow the same process. I have a similar problem finding a borderline between adaptation and innovation, but that is the acknowledged difficulty with my hypothesis: we do not know the extent to which cell communities can change their own structures and functions. Meanwhile, perhaps you could comment on the whale example (especially loss of teeth) and give an example or two of cell communities (organisms) acting autonomously through minor adaptations.
DAVID: The major gaps before the sudden appearances in the fossil record tell us stepwise small adaptations aren't the way it happens.
Under “Little Foot” you wrote “God used an evolutionary method requiring little steps and big jumps/gaps as history of evolution teaches us.” The point I have raised above is the difficulty of setting a borderline between adaptation (little steps) and innovation (big steps).
DAVID: Think Gould and punc. inc. and Darwin's own prediction that the steps have to be found to validate him. They haven't more than 150 years later. You are still almost totally Darwinist in your thinking. Directed design is the best fit to the problem. Survival in never pushing it.
I have repeatedly told you that I accept punctuated equilibrium, and I have repeatedly pointed out that NOBODY has yet explained the major innovations required for speciation. I don’t know how often you want me to repeat all the alternative explanations I have offered, or to repeat that NONE of them answer all our questions. And I don’t know how you can possibly stick to your dogma that survival “never pushes evolution”, when even your own unproven hypothesis claims that your God deliberately designed one innovation after another to enable organisms to survive under new conditions, and their purpose was to enable life forms to survive until he could produce the only life form he actually wanted to produce, which was you and me. The difference between us here is that you have the innovations/adaptations being designed (by your God) in anticipation of their being needed for survival under new conditions, whereas I have them being designed (by intelligent cell communities) in response to their being needed for survival under new conditions. In both cases, survival is the prime reason for each innovation.
Big brain evolution: our special gene is identified
by David Turell , Thursday, January 17, 2019, 20:05 (1919 days ago) @ dhw
dhw: Now please tell me which half of the process is autonomous.
DAVID: The major gaps before the sudden appearances in the fossil record tell us stepwise small adaptations aren't the way it happens.dhw: Under “Little Foot” you wrote “God used an evolutionary method requiring little steps and big jumps/gaps as history of evolution teaches us.” The point I have raised above is the difficulty of setting a borderline between adaptation (little steps) and innovation (big steps).
Explained in that thread.
DAVID: Think Gould and punc. inc. and Darwin's own prediction that the steps have to be found to validate him. They haven't more than 150 years later. You are still almost totally Darwinist in your thinking. Directed design is the best fit to the problem. Survival in never pushing it.dhw: I have repeatedly told you that I accept punctuated equilibrium, and I have repeatedly pointed out that NOBODY has yet explained the major innovations required for speciation. I don’t know how often you want me to repeat all the alternative explanations I have offered, or to repeat that NONE of them answer all our questions. And I don’t know how you can possibly stick to your dogma that survival “never pushes evolution”, when even your own unproven hypothesis claims that your God deliberately designed one innovation after another to enable organisms to survive under new conditions, and their purpose was to enable life forms to survive until he could produce the only life form he actually wanted to produce, which was you and me. The difference between us here is that you have the innovations/adaptations being designed (by your God) in anticipation of their being needed for survival under new conditions, whereas I have them being designed (by intelligent cell communities) in response to their being needed for survival under new conditions. In both cases, survival is the prime reason for each innovation.
And that response to natural demands for survival is pure Darwin.
Big brain evolution: our neurons differ from apes
by David Turell , Monday, January 21, 2019, 19:07 (1916 days ago) @ David Turell
Latest study comparison:
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-019-00198-7?utm_source=Nature+Briefing&utm_c...
"Over the decades, neuroscientists have discovered many subtle and significant differences in the anatomy — the hardware — of the brains of humans and other primates. But the latest study looked instead at differences in brain signals.
“There is a clear difference in behaviour and psychology between humans and non-human primates,” says Mark Harnett from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in Cambridge who studies how the biophysics of neurons affect neural computation. “Now we see this difference in the brain’s biology — it’s a tremendously valuable study.”
***
"The data were collected from nearly 750 neurons from the two brain regions from the five monkeys and seven humans. They comprise a long series of firing spikes or silences from single neurons recorded over several hours. The researchers searched the data for the two properties: they defined robustness as the level of synchrony, or near synchrony, in both the firing of neurons and the frequent repetition of similar patterns of spikes, and efficiency as having more combinations of patterns in the activity.
"They found that in both species, the signals in the amygdala were more robust than those in the cingulate cortex. But those in the cingulate cortex were more efficient. Both regions in humans were less robust and more efficient than those in monkeys — so humans have sacrificed some robustness for increased efficiency.
"It makes sense, says Paz. The more robust a signal, the less ambiguous or error-prone it is. “If I see a tiger, I want all of my amygdala neurons to shout, ‘Run away fast!’” But in higher species, such as primates, the brain evolved more flexible areas — the cortex — to allow for more considered responses to the animals’ environments, says Paz.
***
"The researchers' robustness–efficiency trade-off hypothesis is an important one that needs to be explored in further studies, says neuroscientist Christopher Petkov of Newcastle University, UK. Direct comparisons between monkey and human data sets are challenging because it is hard to know whether the two species were in comparable states of mind when the data were collected, he notes. But such comparisons are “immensely valuable”.
"Paz says that the long recording times in his current study probably ironed out any differences in mind states, but that he is planning new studies that will collect data from neurons while monkeys and humans carry out similar tasks that could track a particular state of mind, such as anxiousness."
Comment: Not only are our brains much bigger, but the neuron networks and their function is different, perhaps more efficient.
Big brain evolution: early research on cerebellum
by David Turell , Tuesday, January 22, 2019, 21:29 (1914 days ago) @ David Turell
Not much research has been done on humans and not much is known about apes:
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-cerebellum-is-your-little-brain-mdash-an...
"For the longest time the cerebellum, a dense, fist-size formation located at the base of the brain, never got much respect from neuroscientists.
"For about two centuries the scientific community believed the cerebellum (Latin for “little brain”), which contains approximately half of the brain’s neurons, was dedicated solely to the control of movement. In recent decades, however, the tide has started to turn, as researchers have revealed details of the structure’s role in cognition, emotional processing and social behavior.
***
"One of the strongest pieces of evidence for the cerebellum’s broader repertoire emerged around two decades ago, when Jeremy Schmahmann, a neurologist at Massachusetts General Hospital, described cerebellar cognitive affective syndrome after discovering behavioral changes such as impairments in abstract reasoning and regulating emotion in individuals whose cerebella had been damaged. Since then this line of study has expanded. There has been human neuroimaging work showing the cerebellum is involved in cognitive processing and emotional control—and investigations in animals have revealed, among other things, that the structure is important for the normal development of social and cognitive capacities. Researchers have also linked altered cerebellar function to addiction, autism and schizophrenia.
"Although many of these findings suggested the cerebellum played an important part both in reward-related and social behavior, a clear neural mechanism to explain this link was lacking. New research, published this week in Science, demonstrates that a pathway directly tying the cerebellum to the ventral tegmental area (VTA)—one of the brain’s key pleasure centers—can control these two processes.
"Earlier investigations in his lab had hinted there might be unexpected connections between the cerebellum and other parts of the brain. Specifically, while examining the brain circuits underlying dystonia—a movement disorder that causes uncontrollable muscle contractions—in mice, Khodakhah’s team discovered the cerebellum directly communicated with the basal ganglia (involved in movement, motivation and reward functions) to control complex movements. It was previously thought that to coordinate such actions, the two brain areas communicated via the cortex, the region responsible for higher-order tasks such as planning and decision-making.
"Earlier investigations in his lab had hinted there might be unexpected connections between the cerebellum and other parts of the brain. Specifically, while examining the brain circuits underlying dystonia—a movement disorder that causes uncontrollable muscle contractions—in mice, Khodakhah’s team discovered the cerebellum directly communicated with the basal ganglia (involved in movement, motivation and reward functions) to control complex movements. It was previously thought that to coordinate such actions, the two brain areas communicated via the cortex, the region responsible for higher-order tasks such as planning and decision-making.
***
“'This [study] is one of the most clear and interesting demonstrations that the cerebellum is indeed involved in the control of high-level, nonmotor functions,” says Egidio D’Angelo, a neurophysiologist at the University of Pavia in Italy who was not part of the work."
Comment: Most of the human brain enlargement has not been in the cerebellum but in the frontal and pre-frontal lobes, and so my guess is that the ape cerebellums will be found to be quite similar to the human.
Big brain evolution: our mutation rate is slowing
by David Turell , Tuesday, January 22, 2019, 22:39 (1914 days ago) @ David Turell
New research shows our rate is now slower than chumps, so there will be more convergence between our DNA's:
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2019/01/190122114851.htm
"Over the past million years or so, the human mutation rate has been slowing down so that significantly fewer new mutations now occur in humans per year than in our closest primate relatives. This is the conclusion of researchers from Aarhus University, Denmark, and Copenhagen Zoo in a new study in which they have found new mutations in chimpanzees, gorillas and orangutans, and compared these with corresponding studies in humans.
"Using whole-genome sequencing of families, it is possible to discover new mutations by finding genetic variants that are only present in the child and not in the parents.
***
"'Over the past six years, several large studies have done this for humans, so we have extensive knowledge about the number of new mutations that occur in humans every year. Until now, however, there have not been any good estimates of mutation rates in our closest primate relatives," says Søren Besenbacher from Aarhus University.
"The study has looked at ten families with father, mother and offspring: seven chimpanzee-families, two gorilla families and one orangutan family. In all the families, researchers found more mutations than would be expected on the basis of the number of mutations that would typically arise in human families with parents of similar age. This means that the annual mutation rate is now about one-third lower in humans than in apes.
"The higher rates in apes have an impact on the length of time estimated to have passed since the common ancestor of humans and chimpanzees lived. This is because a higher mutation rate means that the number of genetic differences between humans and chimpanzees will accumulate over a shorter period.
"If the new mutation rates for apes are applied, the researchers estimate that the species formation (speciation) that separated humans from chimpanzees took place around 6.6 million years ago. If the mutation rate for humans is applied, speciation should have been around 10 million years ago.
"'The times of speciation we can now calculate on the basis of the new rate fit in much better with the speciation times we would expect from the dated fossils of human ancestors that we know of," explains Mikkel Heide Schierup from Aarhus University.
"The reduction in the human mutation rate demonstrated in the study could also mean that we have to move our estimate for the split between Neanderthals and humans closer to the present."
Comment: We recently had a discussion about human mutation rate and the affect of a small population size affecting the speed of evolution of humans. I couldn't locate it and have placed this here as also appropriate. If our rate is getting so slow, perhaps it might be seen as supporting my contention that evolution is over with us as the end point.
Big brain evolution: our mutation rate is slowing
DAVID’s comment: We recently had a discussion about human mutation rate and the affect of a small population size affecting the speed of evolution of humans. I couldn't locate it and have placed this here as also appropriate. If our rate is getting so slow, perhaps it might be seen as supporting my contention that evolution is over with us as the end point.
Even if we are the end point, that does not mean that we were the one and only purpose from the very beginning, which is the “contention” that causes all the contortions in your logic. But let’s meet in, say, a thousand million years’ time, and see what evolution has produced.
Big brain evolution: our mutation rate is slowing
by David Turell , Wednesday, January 23, 2019, 15:39 (1914 days ago) @ dhw
DAVID’s comment: We recently had a discussion about human mutation rate and the affect of a small population size affecting the speed of evolution of humans. I couldn't locate it and have placed this here as also appropriate. If our rate is getting so slow, perhaps it might be seen as supporting my contention that evolution is over with us as the end point.
dhw: Even if we are the end point, that does not mean that we were the one and only purpose from the very beginning, which is the “contention” that causes all the contortions in your logic. But let’s meet in, say, a thousand million years’ time, and see what evolution has produced.
No contortions, just logic. Facts tell us life started with simple forms and reached the most complex in H. sapiens by evolution. And that final form has consciousness which exists in no other organism and can recognize a non-apparent God might exist. Full logical circle. It presents a purposeful non-human God.
Big brain evolution: our mutation rate is slowing
dhw: Even if we are the end point, that does not mean that we were the one and only purpose from the very beginning, which is the “contention” that causes all the contortions in your logic. But let’s meet in, say, a thousand million years’ time, and see what evolution has produced.
DAVID: No contortions, just logic. Facts tell us life started with simple forms and reached the most complex in H. sapiens by evolution. And that final form has consciousness which exists in no other organism and can recognize a non-apparent God might exist. Full logical circle. It presents a purposeful non-human God.
I’d hesitate to say that in a thousand million years’ time humans will still be the “final form”, but otherwise all agreed, except that there is no full logical circle. Firstly, evolution neither proves nor disproves the existence of your God. Secondly, of course if he exists he is purposeful and non-human, but the fact that we are the most complex does not mean we were the one and only purpose from the very beginning. And thirdly, you have left out the fact that even you cannot explain the logic behind your personal hypothesis that an always-in-control God had one purpose from the very beginning, namely to specially design H. sapiens, but chose to spend 3.5+ billion years specially designing millions of other life forms, lifestyles and natural wonders so that the life forms could eat one another until he did the only thing he wanted to do.
Big brain evolution: our mutation rate is slowing
by David Turell , Thursday, January 24, 2019, 20:19 (1912 days ago) @ dhw
dhw: Even if we are the end point, that does not mean that we were the one and only purpose from the very beginning, which is the “contention” that causes all the contortions in your logic. But let’s meet in, say, a thousand million years’ time, and see what evolution has produced.
DAVID: No contortions, just logic. Facts tell us life started with simple forms and reached the most complex in H. sapiens by evolution. And that final form has consciousness which exists in no other organism and can recognize a non-apparent God might exist. Full logical circle. It presents a purposeful non-human God.
dhw: I’d hesitate to say that in a thousand million years’ time humans will still be the “final form”, but otherwise all agreed, except that there is no full logical circle. Firstly, evolution neither proves nor disproves the existence of your God. Secondly, of course if he exists he is purposeful and non-human, but the fact that we are the most complex does not mean we were the one and only purpose from the very beginning. And thirdly, you have left out the fact that even you cannot explain the logic behind your personal hypothesis that an always-in-control God had one purpose from the very beginning, namely to specially design H. sapiens, but chose to spend 3.5+ billion years specially designing millions of other life forms, lifestyles and natural wonders so that the life forms could eat one another until he did the only thing he wanted to do.
I have given you a full and logical explanation. I fully accept God's choice of method without question. What is illogical is that you do not find it logical. But you don't accept God unreservedly but constantly entertain alternate hypotheses as to his thought patterns and intentions, most of which are patterns of human thought.
Big brain evolution: our mutation rate is slowing
dhw: Even if we are the end point, that does not mean that we were the one and only purpose from the very beginning, which is the “contention” that causes all the contortions in your logic.
[…]
DAVID: I have given you a full and logical explanation. I fully accept God's choice of method without question. What is illogical is that you do not find it logical. But you don't accept God unreservedly but constantly entertain alternate hypotheses as to his thought patterns and intentions, most of which are patterns of human thought.
Choice of method to do what? You yourself cannot understand why, if your God has full control and his sole purpose was to produce H. sapiens, his method of fulfilling his purpose was to spend 3.5+ billion years specially designing millions of other life forms, lifestyles and natural wonders simply so that the organisms could eat one another until 3.5+ billion years had passed. That is what is illogical, and it is this illogical hypothesis that you “fully accept”. All our hypotheses are patterns of human thought, and yours is based on the premise that because humans are so clever, your God couldn’t possibly have wanted to do anything else besides creating us. If that isn’t a human pattern of thought, I don’t know what is.
Big brain evolution: our mutation rate is slowing
by David Turell , Friday, January 25, 2019, 21:15 (1911 days ago) @ dhw
dhw: Even if we are the end point, that does not mean that we were the one and only purpose from the very beginning, which is the “contention” that causes all the contortions in your logic.
[…]
DAVID: I have given you a full and logical explanation. I fully accept God's choice of method without question. What is illogical is that you do not find it logical. But you don't accept God unreservedly but constantly entertain alternate hypotheses as to his thought patterns and intentions, most of which are patterns of human thought.dhw: Choice of method to do what? You yourself cannot understand why, if your God has full control and his sole purpose was to produce H. sapiens, his method of fulfilling his purpose was to spend 3.5+ billion years specially designing millions of other life forms, lifestyles and natural wonders simply so that the organisms could eat one another until 3.5+ billion years had passed. That is what is illogical, and it is this illogical hypothesis that you “fully accept”. All our hypotheses are patterns of human thought, and yours is based on the premise that because humans are so clever, your God couldn’t possibly have wanted to do anything else besides creating us. If that isn’t a human pattern of thought, I don’t know what is.
You still want to pursue 'illogical' God thoughts and procedures. You accept that God could have produced us in six days and rested on the seventh. So why did He evolve us? I accept history that we evolved and since I accept God as existing, I accept He did it His way. You, without accepting God, have concluded God made an illogical judgment. Your problem not mine. Of course both of us as limited humans used human reasoning. At least mine is not embellished.
Big brain evolution: our mutation rate is slowing
DAVID: I fully accept God's choice of method without question.
dhw: Choice of method to do what? You yourself cannot understand why, if your God has full control and his sole purpose was to produce H. sapiens, his method of fulfilling his purpose was to spend 3.5+ billion years specially designing millions of other life forms, lifestyles and natural wonders simply so that the organisms could eat one another until 3.5+ billion years had passed. That is what is illogical, and it is this illogical hypothesis that you “fully accept”. All our hypotheses are patterns of human thought, and yours is based on the premise that because humans are so clever, your God couldn’t possibly have wanted to do anything else besides creating us. If that isn’t a human pattern of thought, I don’t know what is. (See below for the bold.)
DAVID: You still want to pursue 'illogical' God thoughts and procedures. You accept that God could have produced us in six days and rested on the seventh.
What? Why on earth are you bringing Genesis into it? And how can I possibly accept it when I don’t even accept that there is a God in the first place (50/50 for me). And yet again, I am not pursuing “illogical God thoughts and procedures”. I am pursuing the illogicality of your interpretation of his thoughts and procedures.
DAVID: So why did He evolve us?
Why did he evolve us is the question you keep asking me, but when I answer it, you complain that I am endowing him with human thoughts. When I ask you the same question, I’m told it was so that we would think about him, have a relationship with him, and admire his works. But these apparently are not human thoughts.
DAVID: I accept history that we evolved and since I accept God as existing, I accept He did it His way. You, without accepting God, have concluded God made an illogical judgment.
Yet again, no, no, no. I have concluded that your interpretation of God’s way is illogical, and so have you but you try to gloss it over by misrepresenting the argument, as now bolded above. So please don’t tell me that I am questioning your God’s logic.
DAVID: Your problem not mine. Of course both of us as limited humans used human reasoning. At least mine is not embellished.
As regards “embellishment”, this exchange under “Emergence” sums it up.
DAVID: I have agreed that God watches with interest as He evolves everyone, but with involved interest as a creator, not a spectator.
dhw: If God exists, then of course he is the creator, but what makes you think a creator cannot also be a spectator watching the spectacle he creates?
DAVID: Of course He is a spectator to His creation, but there is no evidence He desired a spectacle for His 'enjoyment', one of your favorite humanizing suppositions about God. I'm simply in interpreting what history shows us.
Of course there’s no evidence of what he desires (assuming he even exists). Where is your evidence for the illogical hypotheses bolded above? You harp on about purpose, and you agree that he watches the spectacle with interest. Then let’s drop the word “enjoyment”. Now please tell me why you think he finds it interesting.
Big brain evolution: our mutation rate is slowing
by David Turell , Saturday, January 26, 2019, 15:13 (1911 days ago) @ dhw
DAVID: I accept history that we evolved and since I accept God as existing, I accept He did it His way. You, without accepting God, have concluded God made an illogical judgment.
dhw: Yet again, no, no, no. I have concluded that your interpretation of God’s way is illogical, and so have you but you try to gloss it over by misrepresenting the argument, as now bolded above. So please don’t tell me that I am questioning your God’s logic.
You have not accepted the history of God's actions as not only representing God's actions but his decision to do it that way. Why is it illogical to conclude He decided to use that method as factual history presents? Accepting God is fully in charge opens your issue of immediate creation or why He waited. Could it be He is limited in what He can create? Possible, but it is an unprovable speculation. That He is so powerful He should have taken six days is also speculation, but in this case we know it didn't happen that way , so the best view is simply accept the history and conclude it was God's decision to use Evolution, and that leaves the all-powerful concept of God intact. I am using an Occam approach of a simple explanation based on fact. Evolution happened. God used it. Nothing illogical.
DAVID: Your problem not mine. Of course both of us as limited humans used human reasoning. At least mine is not embellished.As regards “embellishment”, this exchange under “Emergence” sums it up.
DAVID: I have agreed that God watches with interest as He evolves everyone, but with involved interest as a creator, not a spectator.
dhw: If God exists, then of course he is the creator, but what makes you think a creator cannot also be a spectator watching the spectacle he creates?
DAVID: Of course He is a spectator to His creation, but there is no evidence He desired a spectacle for His 'enjoyment', one of your favorite humanizing suppositions about God. I'm simply in interpreting what history shows us.
dhw: Of course there’s no evidence of what he desires (assuming he even exists). Where is your evidence for the illogical hypotheses bolded above? You harp on about purpose, and you agree that he watches the spectacle with interest. Then let’s drop the word “enjoyment”. Now please tell me why you think he finds it interesting.
We have free will, which means we humans might do the unexpected, even by Him. I'm in no position to know if God sees the future and can predict our actions. We are in the position to blow ourselves up, and He will have to start again.
Big brain evolution: our mutation rate is slowing
DAVID: I accept history that we evolved and since I accept God as existing, I accept He did it His way. You, without accepting God, have concluded God made an illogical judgment.
dhw: Yet again, no, no, no. I have concluded that your interpretation of God’s way is illogical, and so have you but you try to gloss it over by misrepresenting the argument, as now bolded above. So please don’t tell me that I am questioning your God’s logic.
DAVID: You have not accepted the history of God's actions as not only representing God's actions but his decision to do it that way. Why is it illogical to conclude He decided to use that method as factual history presents?
And yet again, no, no, no, I have not accepted your interpretation of the factual history or of God’s method. The factual history is confined to the existence of past and present organisms including ourselves as the latest known species.
DAVID: Accepting God is fully in charge opens your issue of immediate creation or why He waited. Could it be He is limited in what He can create? Possible, but it is an unprovable speculation. That He is so powerful He should have taken six days is also speculation, but in this case we know it didn't happen that way, so the best view is simply accept the history and conclude it was God's decision to use Evolution, and that leaves the all-powerful concept of God intact.
All our speculations are unprovable. You cannot explain why he waited 3.5+ billion years to do the only thing he wanted to do. If the reason was limited power, then he is not all powerful. But if he is all powerful, then it makes no sense to say he only wanted one thing, was perfectly capable of doing it, but didn’t do it. The best view is to accept the limitations of the factual history as above, and look for possible explanations that do make sense. I have offered you several theistic explanations, all of which you have agreed are logical (I’ll repeat them if you want me to), but you refuse to consider them.
DAVID: I am using an Occam approach of a simple explanation based on fact. Evolution happened. God used it. Nothing illogical.
If God exists, of course he used evolution, and the question is how he used it, and what he used it for. There is nothing simple about an answer which even you find inexplicable.
DAVID: I have agreed that God watches with interest as He evolves everyone, but with involved interest as a creator, not a spectator.
dhw: If God exists, then of course he is the creator, but what makes you think a creator cannot also be a spectator watching the spectacle he creates?
DAVID: Of course He is a spectator to His creation, but there is no evidence He desired a spectacle for His 'enjoyment', one of your favorite humanizing suppositions about God. I'm simply in interpreting what history shows us.
dhw: Of course there’s no evidence of what he desires (assuming he even exists). Where is your evidence for the illogical hypotheses bolded above? You harp on about purpose, and you agree that he watches the spectacle with interest. Then let’s drop the word “enjoyment”. Now please tell me why you think he finds it interesting.
DAVID: We have free will, which means we humans might do the unexpected, even by Him. I'm in no position to know if God sees the future and can predict our actions. We are in the position to blow ourselves up, and He will have to start again.
But the spectacle began long, long before we even existed. Are you saying that he didn’t watch what you believe to have been all his special designs with interest? If you think he might be interested in the “unexpected”, wouldn’t it also be interesting for him to give evolution itself a free rein to see what unexpected forms of life might evolve? Why would he specially design 3.5+ billion years' worth of innovations, lifestyles and natural wonders if they were of no interest to him?
Big brain evolution: our mutation rate is slowing
by David Turell , Sunday, January 27, 2019, 19:32 (1909 days ago) @ dhw
DAVID: You have not accepted the history of God's actions as not only representing God's actions but his decision to do it that way. Why is it illogical to conclude He decided to use that method as factual history presents?
dhw: And yet again, no, no, no, I have not accepted your interpretation of the factual history or of God’s method. The factual history is confined to the existence of past and present organisms including ourselves as the latest known species.
Your objection is illogical. I start with the premise God runs evolution. To evolve us He used that method so it must be His choice of action. You don't start with my premise so you keep disagreeing.
dhw: All our speculations are unprovable. You cannot explain why he waited 3.5+ billion years to do the only thing he wanted to do. If the reason was limited power, then he is not all powerful. But if he is all powerful, then it makes no sense to say he only wanted one thing, was perfectly capable of doing it, but didn’t do it. The best view is to accept the limitations of the factual history as above, and look for possible explanations that do make sense. I have offered you several theistic explanations, all of which you have agreed are logical (I’ll repeat them if you want me to), but you refuse to consider them.
Once again you have accepted a Biblical version of an all-powerful God. I don't have to explain why He chose evolution. With unlimited power, He always could have made a choice.
DAVID: I am using an Occam approach of a simple explanation based on fact. Evolution happened. God used it. Nothing illogical.dhw: If God exists, of course he used evolution, and the question is how he used it, and what he used it for. There is nothing simple about an answer which even you find inexplicable.
I have explained it to my satisfaction. God made a choice of methods, as history shows.
DAVID: I have agreed that God watches with interest as He evolves everyone, but with involved interest as a creator, not a spectator.dhw: If God exists, then of course he is the creator, but what makes you think a creator cannot also be a spectator watching the spectacle he creates?
DAVID: Of course He is a spectator to His creation, but there is no evidence He desired a spectacle for His 'enjoyment', one of your favorite humanizing suppositions about God. I'm simply in interpreting what history shows us.
dhw: Of course there’s no evidence of what he desires (assuming he even exists). Where is your evidence for the illogical hypotheses bolded above? You harp on about purpose, and you agree that he watches the spectacle with interest. Then let’s drop the word “enjoyment”. Now please tell me why you think he finds it interesting.
DAVID: We have free will, which means we humans might do the unexpected, even by Him. I'm in no position to know if God sees the future and can predict our actions. We are in the position to blow ourselves up, and He will have to start again.
dhw: But the spectacle began long, long before we even existed. Are you saying that he didn’t watch what you believe to have been all his special designs with interest? If you think he might be interested in the “unexpected”, wouldn’t it also be interesting for him to give evolution itself a free rein to see what unexpected forms of life might evolve? Why would he specially design 3.5+ billion years' worth of innovations, lifestyles and natural wonders if they were of no interest to him?
Back to your same unanserable questions. I'm sure He watches everything He created, like an artist enjoying his own paintings
Big brain evolution: our mutation rate is slowing
DAVID: You have not accepted the history of God's actions as not only representing God's actions but his decision to do it that way. Why is it illogical to conclude He decided to use that method as factual history presents?
dhw: And yet again, no, no, no, I have not accepted your interpretation of the factual history or of God’s method. The factual history is confined to the existence of past and present organisms including ourselves as the latest known species.
DAVID: Your objection is illogical. I start with the premise God runs evolution. To evolve us He used that method so it must be His choice of action. You don't start with my premise so you keep disagreeing.
It is not a fact that God even exists, but for the sake of argument I have accepted your basic premise that he does and that he created life and the mechanisms for evolution. So of course evolution is his choice of method, but again and again I ask “method to do what?” and your answer is that 1) he is in full control, 2) he specially designed millions of life forms, lifestyles and natural wonders over 3.5+ billion years, and 3) this was his method of designing 4) the only thing he wanted to design, which was H. sapiens. It is the combination of these four fixed beliefs that is illogical.
dhw: All our speculations are unprovable. You cannot explain why he waited 3.5+ billion years to do the only thing he wanted to do. If the reason was limited power, then he is not all powerful. But if he is all powerful, then it makes no sense to say he only wanted one thing, was perfectly capable of doing it, but didn’t do it. The best view is to accept the limitations of the factual history as above, and look for possible explanations that do make sense. I have offered you several theistic explanations, all of which you have agreed are logical (I’ll repeat them if you want me to), but you refuse to consider them.
DAVID: Once again you have accepted a Biblical version of an all-powerful God. I don't have to explain why He chose evolution. With unlimited power, He always could have made a choice.
I have not accepted ANY version. It is you who keep insisting that only one version is correct, and that is why your combined hypotheses are illogical. I have offered you two alternatives in which your God is NOT in full control (his purpose was to create a self-aware being but he didn’t know how to do it; or the self-aware being came late on in his thinking). But if he is in full control, with unlimited power, then (another theistic alternative) it was not his one and only purpose from the beginning to produce H. sapiens, but he chose to create a process that would run itself and produce an ever changing and often unexpected spectacle.
DAVID: Of course He is a spectator to His creation, but there is no evidence He desired a spectacle for His 'enjoyment', one of your favorite humanizing suppositions about God. I'm simply in interpreting what history shows us.
dhw: Of course there’s no evidence of what he desires (assuming he even exists). Where is your evidence for the illogical hypotheses bolded above? You harp on about purpose, and you agree that he watches the spectacle with interest. Then let’s drop the word “enjoyment”. Now please tell me why you think he finds it interesting.
DAVID: We have free will, which means we humans might do the unexpected, even by Him. I'm in no position to know if God sees the future and can predict our actions. We are in the position to blow ourselves up, and He will have to start again.
dhw: But the spectacle began long, long before we even existed. Are you saying that he didn’t watch what you believe to have been all his special designs with interest? If you think he might be interested in the “unexpected”, wouldn’t it also be interesting for him to give evolution itself a free rein to see what unexpected forms of life might evolve? Why would he specially design 3.5+ billion years' worth of innovations, lifestyles and natural wonders if they were of no interest to him?
DAVID: Back to your same unanserable questions. I'm sure He watches everything He created, like an artist enjoying his own paintings.
Thank you for the image. It is you are now using the word “enjoy”. Since you are sure, perhaps you will stop ridiculing the idea that the history of evolution is that of a spectacle in itself, as opposed to serving no purpose other than to provide 3.5+ billion years of food until your God could specially design the only thing he wanted to design.
Big brain evolution: our mutation rate is slowing
by David Turell , Monday, January 28, 2019, 14:58 (1909 days ago) @ dhw
DAVID: Your objection is illogical. I start with the premise God runs evolution. To evolve us He used that method so it must be His choice of action. You don't start with my premise so you keep disagreeing.
dhw: It is not a fact that God even exists, but for the sake of argument I have accepted your basic premise that he does and that he created life and the mechanisms for evolution. So of course evolution is his choice of method, but again and again I ask “method to do what?” and your answer is that 1) he is in full control, 2) he specially designed millions of life forms, lifestyles and natural wonders over 3.5+ billion years, and 3) this was his method of designing 4) the only thing he wanted to design, which was H. sapiens. It is the combination of these four fixed beliefs that is illogical.
None of them is illogical if they are based on my initial premise that God's initial purpose was to create humans. Your (4) is unrealistic. God knew He had lots of designing to do if He used evolution to create humans. I don't understand the bolded question. To me it is clear God wanted to create humans as an end goal. You don't accept that so we differ and will continue. You obviously don't view God as I do as an agnostic.
DAVID: Once again you have accepted a Biblical version of an all-powerful God. I don't have to explain why He chose evolution. With unlimited power, He always could have made a choice.
dhw: I have not accepted ANY version. It is you who keep insisting that only one version is correct, and that is why your combined hypotheses are illogical. I have offered you two alternatives in which your God is NOT in full control (his purpose was to create a self-aware being but he didn’t know how to do it; or the self-aware being came late on in his thinking). But if he is in full control, with unlimited power, then (another theistic alternative) it was not his one and only purpose from the beginning to produce H. sapiens, but he chose to create a process that would run itself and produce an ever changing and often unexpected spectacle.
Another example that you do not view God as I do.
dhw: But the spectacle began long, long before we even existed. Are you saying that he didn’t watch what you believe to have been all his special designs with interest? If you think he might be interested in the “unexpected”, wouldn’t it also be interesting for him to give evolution itself a free rein to see what unexpected forms of life might evolve? Why would he specially design 3.5+ billion years' worth of innovations, lifestyles and natural wonders if they were of no interest to him?
DAVID: Back to your same unanswerable questions. I'm sure He watches everything He created, like an artist enjoying his own paintings.
dhw: Thank you for the image. It is you are now using the word “enjoy”. Since you are sure, perhaps you will stop ridiculing the idea that the history of evolution is that of a spectacle in itself, as opposed to serving no purpose other than to provide 3.5+ billion years of food until your God could specially design the only thing he wanted to design.
You still want God equivalent to a human spectator. Of course I have to comment about Him in human equivalents when you raise questions about Him in a human way.
Big brain evolution: our mutation rate is slowing
DAVID: Your objection is illogical. I start with the premise God runs evolution. To evolve us He used that method so it must be His choice of action. You don't start with my premise so you keep disagreeing.
dhw: It is not a fact that God even exists, but for the sake of argument I have accepted your basic premise that he does and that he created life and the mechanisms for evolution. So of course evolution is his choice of method, but again and again I ask BBB“method to do what?” and your answer is that 1) he is in full control, 2) he specially designed millions of life forms, lifestyles and natural wonders over 3.5+ billion years, and 3) this was his method of designing 4) the only thing he wanted to design, which was H. sapiens. It is the combination of these four fixed beliefs that is illogical.
DAVID: None of them is illogical if they are based on my initial premise that God's initial purpose was to create humans. Your (4) is unrealistic.
My 4) is your initial premise. And if 4) is true, then 2) and 3) are “unrealistic” or in my terms “illogical” if you insist on 1).
DAVID: God knew He had lots of designing to do if He used evolution to create humans. I don't understand the bolded question. To me it is clear God wanted to create humans as an end goal. You don't accept that so we differ and will continue. You obviously don't view God as I do as an agnostic.
My agnosticism has nothing to do with it. I have given you different theistic alternatives – not beliefs but hypotheses – all of which remove the illogicality which over and over again you have recognized (you yourself don’t understand why your always-in-control God “chose” to spend 3.5+ billion years designing anything but the one thing he wanted to design). But you then try to gloss over this problem by claiming to know what God wanted and what he knew, and that the illogicality can be ignored because I am an agnostic!
dhw: Are you saying that he didn’t watch what you believe to have been all his special designs with interest? If you think he might be interested in the “unexpected”, wouldn’t it also be interesting for him to give evolution itself a free rein to see what unexpected forms of life might evolve? Why would he specially design 3.5+ billion years' worth of innovations, lifestyles and natural wonders if they were of no interest to him?
DAVID: Back to your same unanswerable questions. I'm sure He watches everything He created, like an artist enjoying his own paintings.
dhw: Thank you for the image. It is you are now using the word “enjoy”. Since you are sure, perhaps you will stop ridiculing the idea that the history of evolution is that of a spectacle in itself, as opposed to serving no purpose other than to provide 3.5+ billion years of food until your God could specially design the only thing he wanted to design.
DAVID: You still want God equivalent to a human spectator. Of course I have to comment about Him in human equivalents when you raise questions about Him in a human way.
So you are sure he watches everything he created, like an artist enjoying his own paintings, but despite your certainty I should not suggest that he watches everything he created, like an artist enjoying his own paintings. Curiouser and curiouser.
xxxx
Big brain evolution: our mutation rate is slowing
by David Turell , Tuesday, January 29, 2019, 18:14 (1908 days ago) @ dhw
dhw: It is not a fact that God even exists, but for the sake of argument I have accepted your basic premise that he does and that he created life and the mechanisms for evolution. So of course evolution is his choice of method, but again and again I ask BBB“method to do what?” and your answer is that 1) he is in full control, 2) he specially designed millions of life forms, lifestyles and natural wonders over 3.5+ billion years, and 3) this was his method of designing 4) the only thing he wanted to design, which was H. sapiens. It is the combination of these four fixed beliefs that is illogical.
DAVID: None of them is illogical if they are based on my initial premise that God's initial purpose was to create humans. Your (4) is unrealistic.
dhw: My 4) is your initial premise. And if 4) is true, then 2) and 3) are “unrealistic” or in my terms “illogical” if you insist on 1).
The only way God could get to humans if He wished to evolve them was to design all predecessors first! That is totally logical.
DAVID: God knew He had lots of designing to do if He used evolution to create humans. I don't understand the bolded question. To me it is clear God wanted to create humans as an end goal. You don't accept that so we differ and will continue. You obviously don't view God as I do as an agnostic.dhw: My agnosticism has nothing to do with it. I have given you different theistic alternatives – not beliefs but hypotheses – all of which remove the illogicality which over and over again you have recognized (you yourself don’t understand why your always-in-control God “chose” to spend 3.5+ billion years designing anything but the one thing he wanted to design). But you then try to gloss over this problem by claiming to know what God wanted and what he knew, and that the illogicality can be ignored because I am an agnostic!
The issue comes back to the same point. I have no way of knowing why God chose to evolve. But I and you should accept the history, without saying God is illogical, which is what you always do by telling me I am illogical..
dhw: Are you saying that he didn’t watch what you believe to have been all his special designs with interest? If you think he might be interested in the “unexpected”, wouldn’t it also be interesting for him to give evolution itself a free rein to see what unexpected forms of life might evolve? Why would he specially design 3.5+ billion years' worth of innovations, lifestyles and natural wonders if they were of no interest to him?DAVID: Back to your same unanswerable questions. I'm sure He watches everything He created, like an artist enjoying his own paintings.
dhw: Thank you for the image. It is you are now using the word “enjoy”. Since you are sure, perhaps you will stop ridiculing the idea that the history of evolution is that of a spectacle in itself, as opposed to serving no purpose other than to provide 3.5+ billion years of food until your God could specially design the only thing he wanted to design.
DAVID: You still want God equivalent to a human spectator. Of course I have to comment about Him in human equivalents when you raise questions about Him in a human way.
dhw: So you are sure he watches everything he created, like an artist enjoying his own paintings, but despite your certainty I should not suggest that he watches everything he created, like an artist enjoying his own paintings. Curiouser and curiouser.
You keep saying He wanted to do it as a spectacle. That term and human desire is my objection to your thinking about God. He views it as fulfilling His purpose.
Big brain evolution: our mutation rate is slowing
DAVID: The only way God could get to humans if He wished to evolve them was to design all predecessors first! That is totally logical.
So your God, who according to you is always in control, said to himself: “I only want to specially design humans, but I want to specially design them by spending 3.5+ billion years specially designing millions of other life forms, lifestyles and natural wonders to eat one another and then in most cases to go extinct. Then I can say that instead of my specially designing humans (although according to one of my faithful, I did actually specially design their brains and their pelvises), they have evolved from trilobites, dinosaurs, whales, cuttlefish monarch butterflies and all my other special designs.”
DAVID: […] I have no way of knowing why God chose to evolve. But I and you should accept the history, without saying God is illogical, which is what you always do by telling me I am illogical.
You have no way of knowing why your God should have inflicted the above procedure on himself, but you insist that the above were his thoughts. Yes, you and I should accept historical facts (which are confined to the bush of life and humans being the last species we know of). However, if for argument’s sake I accept the premise that God exists, I am challenging your next non-historical premise, which is that his sole purpose was to design humans but he chose first to spend 3.5+ billion years designing millions of other life forms etc., as above. You don’t know why, but you insist that your interpretation of goal and method is correct. I’m not attacking your God’s logic, which none of us can know, but YOUR logic! And I have suggested several alternative interpretations of your God’s logic which you have agreed are all logical, unlike your own. One of these is that since evolution reveals a constantly changing spectacle of life forms, maybe your God’s purpose was to create a constantly changing spectacle of life forms. Hence the next exchange:
DAVID: I'm sure He watches everything He created, like an artist enjoying his own paintings.
dhw: Thank you for the image. It is you who are now using the word “enjoy”. Since you are sure, perhaps you will stop ridiculing the idea that the history of evolution is that of a spectacle in itself, as opposed to serving no purpose other than to provide 3.5+ billion years of food until your God could specially design the only thing he wanted to design.
DAVID: [..] You keep saying He wanted to do it as a spectacle. That term and human desire is my objection to your thinking about God. He views it as fulfilling His purpose.
Then let’s drop the word “spectacle”. You are sure that he watches everything he created, like an artist enjoying his own paintings. So it can hardly be beyond the bounds of possibility that what he created actually fulfilled his purpose of creating something he wanted to enjoy.
Big brain evolution: our mutation rate is slowing
by David Turell , Wednesday, January 30, 2019, 17:44 (1907 days ago) @ dhw
DAVID: The only way God could get to humans if He wished to evolve them was to design all predecessors first! That is totally logical.
dhw: So your God, who according to you is always in control, said to himself: “I only want to specially design humans, but I want to specially design them by spending 3.5+ billion years specially designing millions of other life forms, lifestyles and natural wonders to eat one another and then in most cases to go extinct. Then I can say that instead of my specially designing humans (although according to one of my faithful, I did actually specially design their brains and their pelvises), they have evolved from trilobites, dinosaurs, whales, cuttlefish monarch butterflies and all my other special designs.”
I don't think God did all the inventive human thinking you imply about His thought processes. I repeat: I accept the history and believe God made that choice of operation.
DAVID: […] I have no way of knowing why God chose to evolve. But I and you should accept the history, without saying God is illogical, which is what you always do by telling me I am illogical.dhw: You have no way of knowing why your God should have inflicted the above procedure on himself, but you insist that the above were his thoughts.
Why inflicted? God can do it anyway He wants. Don't apply thoughts to me that don't exist! Your suppositions about God are all human thought. "God did it the hard way" is your thinking, again totally a human interpretation. He did it all stepwise. Start a universe and evolve its form. Create and evolve the Earth perfect for life. Create life and the evolve humans. All an evolutionary pattern as science shows us. No direct perfect finish line at the start of each stage.
dhw: Yes, you and I should accept historical facts (which are confined to the bush of life and humans being the last species we know of). However, if for argument’s sake I accept the premise that God exists, I am challenging your next non-historical premise, which is that his sole purpose was to design humans but he chose first to spend 3.5+ billion years designing millions of other life forms etc., as above. You don’t know why, but you insist that your interpretation of goal and method is correct. I’m not attacking your God’s logic, which none of us can know, but YOUR logic!
There is no logic involved if I accept what history shows us what was God's choice. I start by recognizing God as the doer of evolution. It all follows that logically.
dhw: And I have suggested several alternative interpretations of your God’s logic which you have agreed are all logical, unlike your own. One of these is that since evolution reveals a constantly changing spectacle of life forms, maybe your God’s purpose was to create a constantly changing spectacle of life forms. Hence the next exchange:
Your suppositions humanize God. I've agreed, that if He thinks in a human way they are logical.
DAVID: I'm sure He watches everything He created, like an artist enjoying his own paintings.dhw: Thank you for the image. It is you who are now using the word “enjoy”. Since you are sure, perhaps you will stop ridiculing the idea that the history of evolution is that of a spectacle in itself, as opposed to serving no purpose other than to provide 3.5+ billion years of food until your God could specially design the only thing he wanted to design.
DAVID: [..] You keep saying He wanted to do it as a spectacle. That term and human desire is my objection to your thinking about God. He views it as fulfilling His purpose.
dhw: Then let’s drop the word “spectacle”. You are sure that he watches everything he created, like an artist enjoying his own paintings. So it can hardly be beyond the bounds of possibility that what he created actually fulfilled his purpose of creating something he wanted to enjoy.
I'm reasonably sure He is watching us with interest since we have free will He gave to us.
Big brain evolution: our mutation rate is slowing
DAVID: The only way God could get to humans if He wished to evolve them was to design all predecessors first! That is totally logical.
dhw: So your God, who according to you is always in control, said to himself: “I only want to specially design humans, but I want to specially design them by spending 3.5+ billion years specially designing millions of other life forms, lifestyles and natural wonders to eat one another and then in most cases to go extinct. Then I can say that instead of my specially designing humans (although according to one of my faithful, I did actually specially design their brains and their pelvises), they have evolved from trilobites, dinosaurs, whales, cuttlefish monarch butterflies and all my other special designs.”
DAVID: I don't think God did all the inventive human thinking you imply about His thought processes.
Then please tell me which of these “thoughts” runs counter to your hypothesis.
DAVID: […] I have no way of knowing why God chose to evolve. But I and you should accept the history, without saying God is illogical, which is what you always do by telling me I am illogical.
dhw: You have no way of knowing why your God should have inflicted the above procedure on himself, but you insist that the above were his thoughts.
DAVID: Why inflicted? God can do it anyway He wants. Don't apply thoughts to me that don't exist!
Your thought is that your God deliberately chose to take 3.5+ billion years to specially design the one thing he wanted to design, and you “have no way of knowing why”. So why do you insist that your thought is correct when there are other perfectly logical explanations for the historical facts?
DAVID: Your suppositions about God are all human thought. "God did it the hard way" is your thinking, again totally a human interpretation. He did it all stepwise. Start a universe and evolve its form. Create and evolve the Earth perfect for life. Create life and then evolve humans.
All fine until the last assumption. Why “and then evolve humans”? You have left out “and then evolve millions and millions of life forms, lifestyles and natural wonders extant and extinct that have nothing whatsoever to do with humans”. In fact, though, time and again you tell us these didn’t evolve anyway! According to you, the whale’s fin, the cuttlefish’s camouflage, the monarch’s flight path, and even the weaverbird’s nest all had to be specially designed, as did the human brain and pelvis.
DAVID: I start by recognizing God as the doer of evolution. It all follows that logically.
dhw: And I have suggested several alternative interpretations of your God’s logic which you have agreed are all logical, unlike your own. [These even include the possibility that his sole purpose was to produce humans.] One of these is that since evolution reveals a constantly changing spectacle of life forms, maybe your God’s purpose was to create a constantly changing spectacle of life forms. Hence the next exchange:
DAVID: Your suppositions humanize God. I've agreed, that if He thinks in a human way they are logical.
But you happen to know that he thinks in a way you can’t understand.
DAVID: I'm sure He watches everything He created, like an artist enjoying his own paintings.
dhw: Thank you for the image. It is you who are now using the word “enjoy”. Since you are sure, perhaps you will stop ridiculing the idea that the history of evolution is that of a spectacle in itself, as opposed to serving no purpose other than to provide 3.5+ billion years of food until your God could specially design the only thing he wanted to design.
DAVID: [..] You keep saying He wanted to do it as a spectacle. That term and human desire is my objection to your thinking about God. He views it as fulfilling His purpose.
dhw: Then let’s drop the word “spectacle”. You are sure that he watches everything he created, like an artist enjoying his own paintings. So it can hardly be beyond the bounds of possibility that what he created actually fulfilled his purpose of creating something he wanted to enjoy.
DAVID: I'm reasonably sure He is watching us with interest since we have free will He gave to us.
You are sure that he watches EVERYTHING he created, like an artist enjoying his own paintings, but you are only “reasonably sure” that he watches humans with interest since we have free will. It’s not possible in your view that the same sort of freedom might make all forms of life - your “everything” - interesting to him (i.e. cell communities using their God-given evolutionary mechanisms to create their own designs).
Big brain evolution: our mutation rate is slowing
by David Turell , Thursday, January 31, 2019, 15:04 (1906 days ago) @ dhw
dhw: Your thought is that your God deliberately chose to take 3.5+ billion years to specially design the one thing he wanted to design, and you “have no way of knowing why”. So why do you insist that your thought is correct when there are other perfectly logical explanations for the historical facts?
DAVID: Your suppositions about God are all human thought. "God did it the hard way" is your thinking, again totally a human interpretation. He did it all stepwise. Start a universe and evolve its form. Create and evolve the Earth perfect for life. Create life and then evolve humans.
dhw: All fine until the last assumption. Why “and then evolve humans”? You have left out “and then evolve millions and millions of life forms, lifestyles and natural wonders extant and extinct that have nothing whatsoever to do with humans”. In fact, though, time and again you tell us these didn’t evolve anyway! According to you, the whale’s fin, the cuttlefish’s camouflage, the monarch’s flight path, and even the weaverbird’s nest all had to be specially designed, as did the human brain and pelvis.
You know I view God designing every stage of evolution so humans appear from a stepwise process
DAVID: I start by recognizing God as the doer of evolution. It all follows that logically.dhw: And I have suggested several alternative interpretations of your God’s logic which you have agreed are all logical, unlike your own. [These even include the possibility that his sole purpose was to produce humans.] One of these is that since evolution reveals a constantly changing spectacle of life forms, maybe your God’s purpose was to create a constantly changing spectacle of life forms. Hence the next exchange:
DAVID: Your suppositions humanize God. I've agreed, that if He thinks in a human way they are logical.
dhw: But you happen to know that he thinks in a way you can’t understand.
I don't try to understand it. I just interpret His mechanisms as I see them.
DAVID: I'm sure He watches everything He created, like an artist enjoying his own paintings.dhw: Thank you for the image. It is you who are now using the word “enjoy”. Since you are sure, perhaps you will stop ridiculing the idea that the history of evolution is that of a spectacle in itself, as opposed to serving no purpose other than to provide 3.5+ billion years of food until your God could specially design the only thing he wanted to design.
DAVID: [..] You keep saying He wanted to do it as a spectacle. That term and human desire is my objection to your thinking about God. He views it as fulfilling His purpose.
dhw: Then let’s drop the word “spectacle”. You are sure that he watches everything he created, like an artist enjoying his own paintings. So it can hardly be beyond the bounds of possibility that what he created actually fulfilled his purpose of creating something he wanted to enjoy.
DAVID: I'm reasonably sure He is watching us with interest since we have free will He gave to us.
dhw: You are sure that he watches EVERYTHING he created, like an artist enjoying his own paintings, but you are only “reasonably sure” that he watches humans with interest since we have free will. It’s not possible in your view that the same sort of freedom might make all forms of life - your “everything” - interesting to him (i.e. cell communities using their God-given evolutionary mechanisms to create their own designs).
I'm sure He watches all of His creation as the artist image you like.
Big brain evolution: our mutation rate is slowing
DAVID: He did it all stepwise. Start a universe and evolve its form. Create and evolve the Earth perfect for life. Create life and then evolve humans.
dhw: All fine until the last assumption. Why “and then evolve humans”? You have left out “and then evolve millions and millions of life forms, lifestyles and natural wonders extant and extinct that have nothing whatsoever to do with humans”. In fact, though, time and again you tell us these didn’t evolve anyway! According to you, the whale’s fin, the cuttlefish’s camouflage, the monarch’s flight path, and even the weaverbird’s nest all had to be specially designed, as did the human brain and pelvis.
DAVID: You know I view God designing every stage of evolution so humans appear from a stepwise process.
Yes, I know. And in order to maintain this view, you constantly block out the inconsistencies: 1) an always-in-control God who has one purpose (us) but spends 3.5+ billion years designing other things, and 2) you believe in evolution but insist that your God specially designs every species.
dhw: […]I have suggested several alternative interpretations of your God’s logic which you have agreed are all logical, unlike your own. [These even include the possibility that his sole purpose was to produce humans.] One of these is that since evolution reveals a constantly changing spectacle of life forms, maybe your God’s purpose was to create a constantly changing spectacle of life forms. (See below)
DAVID: Your suppositions humanize God. I've agreed, that if He thinks in a human way they are logical.
dhw: But you happen to know that he thinks in a way you can’t understand.
DAVID: I don't try to understand it. I just interpret His mechanisms as I see them.
Why don’t you try to understand it? Why are you so convinced that your interpretation is correct, and that it is simply not possible for your God to think differently from the way you interpret his thoughts?
DAVID: I'm sure He watches everything He created, like an artist enjoying his own paintings.
And now, after much humming and hawing you have confirmed this:
DAVID: I'm sure He watches all of His creation as the artist image you like.
So, still sticking to a theistic explanation of evolution, you now agree that your God’s purpose in creating the bush of life might have been to enjoy watching the bush of life. And since you think he enjoys watching humans because we have free will, perhaps you will even agree that “freedom” (i.e. cell communities freely using their God-given evolutionary mechanisms to create their own designs) might make all forms of life - your “everything” - interesting to him. (I live in hope.
)
Big brain evolution: our mutation rate is slowing
by David Turell , Friday, February 01, 2019, 14:53 (1905 days ago) @ dhw
DAVID: You know I view God designing every stage of evolution so humans appear from a stepwise process.
dhw: Yes, I know. And in order to maintain this view, you constantly block out the inconsistencies: 1) an always-in-control God who has one purpose (us) but spends 3.5+ billion years designing other things, and 2) you believe in evolution but insist that your God specially designs every species.
Again it is you who questions God's choice of method. I accept it. Yes, theistic evolution is not your natural automatic evolution.
dhw: […]I have suggested several alternative interpretations of your God’s logic which you have agreed are all logical, unlike your own. [These even include the possibility that his sole purpose was to produce humans.] One of these is that since evolution reveals a constantly changing spectacle of life forms, maybe your God’s purpose was to create a constantly changing spectacle of life forms. (See below)DAVID: Your suppositions humanize God. I've agreed, that if He thinks in a human way they are logical.
dhw: But you happen to know that he thinks in a way you can’t understand.
DAVID: I don't try to understand it. I just interpret His mechanisms as I see them.
dhw: Why don’t you try to understand it? Why are you so convinced that your interpretation is correct, and that it is simply not possible for your God to think differently from the way you interpret his thoughts?
Because it invents human thinking which may not apply, so why try?
DAVID: I'm sure He watches everything He created, like an artist enjoying his own paintings.And now, after much humming and hawing you have confirmed this:
DAVID: I'm sure He watches all of His creation as the artist image you like.
dhw: So, still sticking to a theistic explanation of evolution, you now agree that your God’s purpose in creating the bush of life might have been to enjoy watching the bush of life. And since you think he enjoys watching humans because we have free will, perhaps you will even agree that “freedom” (i.e. cell communities freely using their God-given evolutionary mechanisms to create their own designs) might make all forms of life - your “everything” - interesting to him. (I live in hope.
No hope. I'm sure He watches, maybe in enjoyment.
Big brain evolution: compring chimp and brain organoids
by David Turell , Friday, February 08, 2019, 19:16 (1898 days ago) @ David Turell
By growing chimp and brain cultured organoids there are no ethical problems in doing gene comparisons to look at big brain evolution from the earlier primates:
https://phys.org/news/2019-02-chimpanzee-mini-brains-hint-secrets-human.html
"At some point during human evolution, a handful of genetic changes triggered a dramatic threefold expansion of the brain's neocortex, the wrinkly outermost layer of brain tissue responsible for everything from language to self-awareness to abstract thought. Identifying what drove this evolutionary shift is fundamental to understanding what makes us human, but has been particularly challenging for scientists because of ethical prohibitions against studying the developing brains of our closest living relative, the chimpanzee, in the lab. (my bold)
"'By birth, the human cortex is already twice as large as in the chimpanzee, so we need to go back much earlier into embryonic development to understand the events that drive this incredible growth," said Arnold Kriegstein, MD, Ph.D.
"In a study published February 7, 2019, in Cell, Kriegstein and collaborators have gotten around this impasse by creating chimpanzee brain "organoids"—small clusters of brain cells grown from stem cells in a laboratory dish that mimic the development and organization of full-size brains.
***
"By looking for differences in gene activity between human organoids and chimp organoids (as well as reference tissue from another primate, the rhesus macaque monkey) Bhaduri identified several hundred genetic changes unique to the human lineage that could help explain the evolutionary origins of the distinctly human brain. (my bold)
"For instance, Bhaduri discovered that neural precursor cells called outer radial glia (oRG)—originally discovered by the Kriegstein lab—showed heightened activity of a key growth signaling network known as the mTOR pathway in human organoids.
The Kriegstein lab has been studying the potential role of oRGs in the expansion of the human cortex for nearly a decade, "so it was particularly exciting to discover a molecular pathway in these cells that appears to have been specifically targeted during evolution and may help explain their specialized role in generating the advanced human cortex," Bhaduri said.
***
"Pollen said. "But first we needed genomes, stem cells, and single-cell RNA sequencing to be able to understand the evolutionary programs that drive brain development in the two species. All of these things have since fallen into place, letting us address these long-standing questions more precisely than ever before.'"
Comment: Note my bolds. Several hundred new genes are not a handful as described in the first paragraph. Yes it is, as if compared to all the genes we have, but as cooperative beneficial new genes created to affect this change it is not a handful, and clearly shows how the result of the study is propagandized to make it sound simple. This change requires design and a designer. This is the sort of hyperbole that I find constantly. Since it was not apparent to readers from my previous entries, I'll be more careful to point it out. It is misleading.
Big brain evolution: comparing chimp and brain organoids
QUOTES: "At some point during human evolution, a handful of genetic changes triggered a dramatic threefold expansion of the brain's neocortex, the wrinkly outermost layer of brain tissue responsible for everything from language to self-awareness to abstract thought. Identifying what drove this evolutionary shift is fundamental to understanding what makes us human,
"By looking for differences in gene activity between human organoids and chimp organoids (as well as reference tissue from another primate, the rhesus macaque monkey) Bhaduri identified several hundred genetic changes unique to the human lineage that could help explain the evolutionary origins of the distinctly human brain. (David’s bold)
DAVID: Note my bolds. Several hundred new genes are not a handful as described in the first paragraph. Yes it is, as if compared to all the genes we have, but as cooperative beneficial new genes created to affect this change it is not a handful, and clearly shows how the result of the study is propagandized to make it sound simple. This change requires design and a designer. This is the sort of hyperbole that I find constantly. Since it was not apparent to readers from my previous entries, I'll be more careful to point it out. It is misleading.
I have no doubt that in its proper place your attack on hyperbole is perfectly justified. It simply has no place in the discussion on cellular intelligence. By your admission this cause was championed long before the current grant issue, you initially quoted the article without any of these negative comments (and said two of the quotes expressed your own thoughts), and in any case I hope you are not including Shapiro in your blacklist of “fakers”.
I’m very happy with your expression “cooperative beneficial new genes”. This seems to me to sum up how the whole process works. I would suggest that the big leap from a handful to several hundred would coincide with the different stages in between our ape ancestors and H. sapiens. The brain expanded (= new cells/new genes), as existing cells cooperated to enable hominins to cope with changing conditions or to implement new ideas that required new skills. Today, as we noted in our very long discussions on this subject, the brain complexifies – and indeed that process has proved so efficient that there has even been a shrinkage.
Big brain evolution: comparing chimp and brain organoids
by David Turell , Saturday, February 09, 2019, 14:58 (1897 days ago) @ dhw
QUOTES: "At some point during human evolution, a handful of genetic changes triggered a dramatic threefold expansion of the brain's neocortex, the wrinkly outermost layer of brain tissue responsible for everything from language to self-awareness to abstract thought. Identifying what drove this evolutionary shift is fundamental to understanding what makes us human,
"By looking for differences in gene activity between human organoids and chimp organoids (as well as reference tissue from another primate, the rhesus macaque monkey) Bhaduri identified several hundred genetic changes unique to the human lineage that could help explain the evolutionary origins of the distinctly human brain. (David’s bold)
DAVID: Note my bolds. Several hundred new genes are not a handful as described in the first paragraph. Yes it is, as if compared to all the genes we have, but as cooperative beneficial new genes created to affect this change it is not a handful, and clearly shows how the result of the study is propagandized to make it sound simple. This change requires design and a designer. This is the sort of hyperbole that I find constantly. Since it was not apparent to readers from my previous entries, I'll be more careful to point it out. It is misleading.
dhw: I have no doubt that in its proper place your attack on hyperbole is perfectly justified. It simply has no place in the discussion on cellular intelligence. By your admission this cause was championed long before the current grant issue, you initially quoted the article without any of these negative comments (and said two of the quotes expressed your own thoughts), and in any case I hope you are not including Shapiro in your blacklist of “fakers”.
I’m very happy with your expression “cooperative beneficial new genes”. This seems to me to sum up how the whole process works. I would suggest that the big leap from a handful to several hundred would coincide with the different stages in between our ape ancestors and H. sapiens. The brain expanded (= new cells/new genes), as existing cells cooperated to enable hominins to cope with changing conditions or to implement new ideas that required new skills. Today, as we noted in our very long discussions on this subject, the brain complexifies – and indeed that process has proved so efficient that there has even been a shrinkage.
Humans have five layers of neurons in the prefrontal cortex not at all present in chimps, in a highly complex wiring set of patterns that AI folks are trying to imitate. One must assume from the jumps in fossil cranial size these layers also appeared in jumps in complexity requiring design that a committee of neurons could not envision before they were wired properly. Each wire/axon grows out from the central body of the neuron and at a distance makes multiple connection branches to other neurons. Unless guided what one would get is a pile of spaghetti. Your fanciful cell committees are out of their league. Designer required.
Big brain evolution: comparing chimp and brain organoids
Dhw: I’m very happy with your expression “cooperative beneficial new genes”. This seems to me to sum up how the whole process works. I would suggest that the big leap from a handful to several hundred would coincide with the different stages in between our ape ancestors and H. sapiens. The brain expanded (= new cells/new genes), as existing cells cooperated to enable hominins to cope with changing conditions or to implement new ideas that required new skills.Today, as we noted in our very long discussions on this subject, the brain complexifies – and indeed that process has proved so efficient that there has even been a shrinkage.
DAVID: Humans have five layers of neurons in the prefrontal cortex not at all present in chimps, in a highly complex wiring set of patterns that AI folks are trying to imitate. One must assume from the jumps in fossil cranial size these layers also appeared in jumps in complexity requiring design that a committee of neurons could not envision before they were wired properly. Each wire/axon grows out from the central body of the neuron and at a distance makes multiple connection branches to other neurons. Unless guided what one would get is a pile of spaghetti. Your fanciful cell committees are out of their league. Designer required.
You are of course entitled to your belief that your God had to keep dabbling with pre-human brains in advance, to prepare them for new demands and uses, but there is less evidence for that hypothesis than there is for mine: we know that the modern brain rewires itself in accordance with new demands (the illiterate women), and despite the overall shrinkage some sections even expand according to use (taxi drivers, musicians). In both cases, the brain responds to new demands and to usage, and does not change in anticipation of them. NB: this hypothesis does not preclude design. However, if materialism is correct, then the brain is the source of new ideas – hence our lengthy discussions on dualism versus materialism, and the THEORY OF INTELLIGENCE which I proposed a year ago. But I don’t think we want to go over all that again, do we?
Big brain evolution: comparing chimp and brain organoids
by David Turell , Sunday, February 10, 2019, 15:12 (1896 days ago) @ dhw
Dhw: I’m very happy with your expression “cooperative beneficial new genes”. This seems to me to sum up how the whole process works. I would suggest that the big leap from a handful to several hundred would coincide with the different stages in between our ape ancestors and H. sapiens. The brain expanded (= new cells/new genes), as existing cells cooperated to enable hominins to cope with changing conditions or to implement new ideas that required new skills.Today, as we noted in our very long discussions on this subject, the brain complexifies – and indeed that process has proved so efficient that there has even been a shrinkage.
DAVID: Humans have five layers of neurons in the prefrontal cortex not at all present in chimps, in a highly complex wiring set of patterns that AI folks are trying to imitate. One must assume from the jumps in fossil cranial size these layers also appeared in jumps in complexity requiring design that a committee of neurons could not envision before they were wired properly. Each wire/axon grows out from the central body of the neuron and at a distance makes multiple connection branches to other neurons. Unless guided what one would get is a pile of spaghetti. Your fanciful cell committees are out of their league. Designer required.
dhw:You are of course entitled to your belief that your God had to keep dabbling with pre-human brains in advance, to prepare them for new demands and uses, but there is less evidence for that hypothesis than there is for mine: we know that the modern brain rewires itself in accordance with new demands (the illiterate women), and despite the overall shrinkage some sections even expand according to use (taxi drivers, musicians). In both cases, the brain responds to new demands and to usage, and does not change in anticipation of them. NB: this hypothesis does not preclude design. However, if materialism is correct, then the brain is the source of new ideas – hence our lengthy discussions on dualism versus materialism, and the THEORY OF INTELLIGENCE which I proposed a year ago. But I don’t think we want to go over all that again, do we?
No we won't go through it all over. Just a reminder that you are using current brain evidence with its five layer frontal cortex and great plasticity, that the plasticity applies to Lucy and other very early pre-human forms. Plasticity applies to what exists, and there is no evidence it can produce more advanced form of brains. Plasticity can only apply to what exists. Speciation is much more involved and requires new design .
Big brain evolution: comparing chimp and brain organoids
dhw:You are of course entitled to your belief that your God had to keep dabbling with pre-human brains in advance, to prepare them for new demands and uses, but there is less evidence for that hypothesis than there is for mine: we know that the modern brain rewires itself in accordance with new demands (the illiterate women), and despite the overall shrinkage some sections even expand according to use (taxi drivers, musicians). In both cases, the brain responds to new demands and to usage, and does not change in anticipation of them. NB: this hypothesis does not preclude design. However, if materialism is correct, then the brain is the source of new ideas – hence our lengthy discussions on dualism versus materialism, and the THEORY OF INTELLIGENCE which I proposed a year ago. But I don’t think we want to go over all that again, do we?
DAVID: No we won't go through it all over. Just a reminder that you are using current brain evidence with its five layer frontal cortex and great plasticity, that the plasticity applies to Lucy and other very early pre-human forms. Plasticity applies to what exists, and there is no evidence it can produce more advanced form of brains. Plasticity can only apply to what exists. Speciation is much more involved and requires new design.
Our subject here is the brain, not speciation in general. Current brain evidence is all we have to go on, and we KNOW that new activities and usage make changes to the brain. I thought you believed in common descent, and so I really don’t see how expansion of the brain, i.e. an increase in the capacity of existing brains through additional cells and connections, requires new design. The example of taxi drivers and musicians makes it clear that expansion of parts of the brain can result from usage.
Big brain evolution: comparing chimp and brain organoids
by David Turell , Monday, February 11, 2019, 15:06 (1895 days ago) @ dhw
dhw:You are of course entitled to your belief that your God had to keep dabbling with pre-human brains in advance, to prepare them for new demands and uses, but there is less evidence for that hypothesis than there is for mine: we know that the modern brain rewires itself in accordance with new demands (the illiterate women), and despite the overall shrinkage some sections even expand according to use (taxi drivers, musicians). In both cases, the brain responds to new demands and to usage, and does not change in anticipation of them. NB: this hypothesis does not preclude design. However, if materialism is correct, then the brain is the source of new ideas – hence our lengthy discussions on dualism versus materialism, and the THEORY OF INTELLIGENCE which I proposed a year ago. But I don’t think we want to go over all that again, do we?
DAVID: No we won't go through it all over. Just a reminder that you are using current brain evidence with its five layer frontal cortex and great plasticity, that the plasticity applies to Lucy and other very early pre-human forms. Plasticity applies to what exists, and there is no evidence it can produce more advanced form of brains. Plasticity can only apply to what exists. Speciation is much more involved and requires new design.
dhw: Our subject here is the brain, not speciation in general. Current brain evidence is all we have to go on, and we KNOW that new activities and usage make changes to the brain. I thought you believed in common descent, and so I really don’t see how expansion of the brain, i.e. an increase in the capacity of existing brains through additional cells and connections, requires new design. The example of taxi drivers and musicians makes it clear that expansion of parts of the brain can result from usage.
The subject of this entry was the difference in chimp and human brains. You answer makes no sense. What is demonstrated above is a vast difference in frontal lobes between chimp and humans. That requires design.
Big brain evolution: comparing chimp and brain organoids
dhw: Current brain evidence is all we have to go on, and we KNOW that new activities and usage make changes to the brain. I thought you believed in common descent, and so I really don’t see how expansion of the brain, i.e. an increase in the capacity of existing brains through additional cells and connections, requires new design. The example of taxi drivers and musicians makes it clear that expansion of parts of the brain can result from usage.
DAVID: The subject of this entry was the difference in chimp and human brains. You answer makes no sense. What is demonstrated above is a vast difference in frontal lobes between chimp and humans. That requires design.
You are talking as if there was a sudden leap from chimp to H. sapiens. What both you and the article have failed to acknowledge is the many stages of evolution between chimp brain and H. sapiens brain. And yet you believe in common descent. Once more, then, we have to go back to the only explanations you will accept: 1) either your God provided the very first cells with a programme to change the brains (and female pelvises) of a group of apes and force them out of the trees for no particular reason, and then at intervals of millions of years more programmes were automatically switched on to change the brains of their descendants, or 2) your God picked out a group, and then later groups, and popped in to perform all the necessary operations himself on all the individuals in those groups (= dabbled). And all this happened because, even though the only brain he wanted right from the start was that of H. sapiens, he either couldn’t or didn’t want to design it until he’d specially designed all the other brains plus 3.5 billion years’ worth of other life forms, lifestyles and natural wonders. But this apparently makes sense to you.
Big brain evolution: comparing chimp and brain organoids
by David Turell , Tuesday, February 12, 2019, 17:49 (1894 days ago) @ dhw
dhw: Current brain evidence is all we have to go on, and we KNOW that new activities and usage make changes to the brain. I thought you believed in common descent, and so I really don’t see how expansion of the brain, i.e. an increase in the capacity of existing brains through additional cells and connections, requires new design. The example of taxi drivers and musicians makes it clear that expansion of parts of the brain can result from usage.
DAVID: The subject of this entry was the difference in chimp and human brains. You answer makes no sense. What is demonstrated above is a vast difference in frontal lobes between chimp and humans. That requires design.
dhw: You are talking as if there was a sudden leap from chimp to H. sapiens. What both you and the article have failed to acknowledge is the many stages of evolution between chimp brain and H. sapiens brain. And yet you believe in common descent. Once more, then, we have to go back to the only explanations you will accept: 1) either your God provided the very first cells with a programme to change the brains (and female pelvises) of a group of apes and force them out of the trees for no particular reason, and then at intervals of millions of years more programmes were automatically switched on to change the brains of their descendants, or 2) your God picked out a group, and then later groups, and popped in to perform all the necessary operations himself on all the individuals in those groups (= dabbled). And all this happened because, even though the only brain he wanted right from the start was that of H. sapiens, he either couldn’t or didn’t want to design it until he’d specially designed all the other brains plus 3.5 billion years’ worth of other life forms, lifestyles and natural wonders. But this apparently makes sense to you.
Fortunately or unfortunately there are just a few hominin stages from chimp to sapiens, a jump of 400cc to 1,200+cc, thus making each stage a large jump. Those jumps had to be designed. I don't know why the earliest hominins partially and then completely left the trees as Lucy and other very early specimens showed both tree dwelling and terrestrial characteristics. And you still don't accept that the God you don't accept used a stepwise evolutionary method to achieve His goals. God should be allowed to chose the method He wants, even if He doesn't suit your human standards for Him.
Big brain evolution: new axons may make local decisions
by David Turell , Tuesday, February 12, 2019, 18:25 (1894 days ago) @ David Turell
A new study strongly suggests that newly developing axons have some degree of self-control. That makes the neuron a very special kind of cell in which the nucleus does not have full control. But that makes sense because newly created connections occur at a distance from the central body:
https://medicalxpress.com/news/2019-02-nerve-cells-foot-soldier-axon.html
"Unlike their blobby brethren, neurons have distinct regions. There's the cell body, home to the nucleus. Then come the axons and dendrites, the signal-carrying and signal-receiving parts of the neuron that send long, spindly arms to form connections, called synapses, with other neurons.
"Now research led by investigators at Harvard Medical School and Harvard University's HMS-FAS Department of Stem Cell and Regenerative Biology suggests that parts of the neuron are far more complex than once thought.
***
"'We are not the first to think that there has to be some autonomy," said Jeffrey Macklis, a neuroscientist at Harvard Medical School and the Max and Anne Wien Professor of Stem Cell and Regenerative Biology at Harvard University. "It would take several hours for a growth cone to signal back to its nucleus for a 'next command,' and it has been clear from observing axon growth in the lab that growth cones can move toward targets even if severed from their cell bodies."
***
"The greatest surprises came from auditing the neuron's growth cones—the outermost tips of the axonal tentacles, which develop into the signaling synapses. This portion contained much of the molecular machinery of an independent cell, including proteins involved in growth, metabolism, signaling and more.
"This finding, Macklis says, challenges the dogma that the nucleus and cell body are the control centers of the neuron. Instead, it proposes a more intricate web of decision-making and the existence of semi-independent units far from central command.
"'What our results suggest is that growth cones are capable of taking in information from the outside world, making signaling decisions locally, and functioning semi-autonomously without the cell body," he said. "It's a whole new way of thinking about neurons."
"The cell body of a neuron has been traditionally thought of as a mainframe computer with axons like copper wires being directed to its synapses. But this new work suggests another model. Macklis proposes that the cell body may be like a server connected to smart PCs that have the capability to interface with the world.
***
"Previously, scientists who wanted to investigate the molecular underpinnings of axon growth had to grow typically mixed populations of neurons in the lab so that their axons could be carefully severed from the rest of the cell. However, placing neurons in dishes alters their molecular content and renders them different than neurons in the brain itself. Further, these traditional approaches could not isolate neurons of one specific type from others, thus failing to pinpoint what makes specific brain circuits assemble so precisely in the normal brain and what drives the assembly aberrations seen in disease. The new approach overcomes this hurdle and allows scientists to precision-profile specific types of neurons and their subcompartments directly in the mouse brain.
"Macklis and his team homed in on so-called callosal projection neurons, which connect the two hemispheres of the brain and enable communication between them. To identify the distinct subcellular parts of these neurons, the team genetically labeled the nuclei or the axons and their growth cones with fluorescent proteins. Next, the researchers separated the axonal growth cones from the neurons' cell bodies and quantitatively and comprehensively mapped out each part's proteome and RNA transcripts. To their surprise, the growth cones contained hundreds of unique and highly enriched RNA transcripts and proteins not even detected above noise in the cell body.
"If borne out in further studies, the findings could upend long-standing dogma in neuroscience, according to the researchers.
"'What our findings demonstrate is that a neuron, unlike a kidney or liver cell or most cells we think about, doesn't have a single transcriptome or proteome, but, rather, it has multiple, subcellularly localized transcriptomes and proteomes," Macklis said.
"There were also all kinds of other molecules involved in cell maintenance and growth that one would not expect to see in the growth cone. The molecular profile of this growing axon looked more like a self-sufficient cell than a copper wire carrying information from the nucleus.
"The findings may reshape the way neuroscientists approach the nervous system in the future, propelling them to probe the axon for valuable clues."
Comment: The findings open up part of the black box of how complex regions of the human brain can develop into five cooperative layers in the frontal cortex. My thought is the nucleus of the neuron tells the axon what to look for in a set of connections and the axon finds them on its own, as the article suggests, growing toward what it senses, far away from the body of the neuron. This was evolved when the first complex set of neurons made an early form of the brain, by design.
Big brain evolution: comparing chimp and brain organoids
dhw: You are talking as if there was a sudden leap from chimp to H. sapiens. What both you and the article have failed to acknowledge is the many stages of evolution between chimp brain and H. sapiens brain. And yet you believe in common descent. Once more, then, we have to go back to the only explanations you will accept: 1) either your God provided the very first cells with a programme to change the brains (and female pelvises) of a group of apes and force them out of the trees for no particular reason, and then at intervals of millions of years more programmes were automatically switched on to change the brains of their descendants, or 2) your God picked out a group, and then later groups, and popped in to perform all the necessary operations himself on all the individuals in those groups (= dabbled). And all this happened because, even though the only brain he wanted right from the start was that of H. sapiens, he either couldn’t or didn’t want to design it until he’d specially designed all the other brains plus 3.5 billion years’ worth of other life forms, lifestyles and natural wonders. But this apparently makes sense to you.
DAVID: Fortunately or unfortunately there are just a few hominin stages from chimp to sapiens, a jump of 400cc to 1,200+cc, thus making each stage a large jump. Those jumps had to be designed. I don't know why the earliest hominins partially and then completely left the trees as Lucy and other very early specimens showed both tree dwelling and terrestrial characteristics. And you still don't accept that the God you don't accept used a stepwise evolutionary method to achieve His goals. God should be allowed to chose the method He wants, even if He doesn't suit your human standards for Him.
Of course I accept that if God exists, he used evolution to achieve his goals! But you persist in your fixed belief that there was only one goal from the very beginning: to produce the brain of H. sapiens! You have agreed that the various alternatives I have proposed re goals and evolutionary methods are possible, and we signed a peace treaty at 15.37 on Friday 8 February under “God and evolution”, but now back you go again to your rigid framework as bolded above.
Let me offer you a possible solution to the mystery of Lucy and Co. Maybe in a particular location, tree-dwelling became impractical, and so a particular group of tree-dwellers had to adjust to life on the ground. And life on the ground required or led to new skills, and new skills required changes to the brain which went beyond the brain’s existing capacity. (We know that certain areas of the modern brain expand according to usage, as in the case of taxi-drivers and musicians.) Why do you regard that as less feasible than your God performing brain and pelvis operations on a particular group of tree-dwellers and then forcing them to leave the trees for no apparent reason?
Big brain evolution: comparing chimp and brain organoids
by David Turell , Wednesday, February 13, 2019, 14:50 (1893 days ago) @ dhw
dhw: You are talking as if there was a sudden leap from chimp to H. sapiens. What both you and the article have failed to acknowledge is the many stages of evolution between chimp brain and H. sapiens brain. And yet you believe in common descent. Once more, then, we have to go back to the only explanations you will accept: 1) either your God provided the very first cells with a programme to change the brains (and female pelvises) of a group of apes and force them out of the trees for no particular reason, and then at intervals of millions of years more programmes were automatically switched on to change the brains of their descendants, or 2) your God picked out a group, and then later groups, and popped in to perform all the necessary operations himself on all the individuals in those groups (= dabbled). And all this happened because, even though the only brain he wanted right from the start was that of H. sapiens, he either couldn’t or didn’t want to design it until he’d specially designed all the other brains plus 3.5 billion years’ worth of other life forms, lifestyles and natural wonders. But this apparently makes sense to you.
DAVID: Fortunately or unfortunately there are just a few hominin stages from chimp to sapiens, a jump of 400cc to 1,200+cc, thus making each stage a large jump. Those jumps had to be designed. I don't know why the earliest hominins partially and then completely left the trees as Lucy and other very early specimens showed both tree dwelling and terrestrial characteristics. And you still don't accept that the God you don't accept used a stepwise evolutionary method to achieve His goals. God should be allowed to chose the method He wants, even if He doesn't suit your human standards for Him.
dhw: Of course I accept that if God exists, he used evolution to achieve his goals! But you persist in your fixed belief that there was only one goal from the very beginning: to produce the brain of H. sapiens! You have agreed that the various alternatives I have proposed re goals and evolutionary methods are possible, and we signed a peace treaty at 15.37 on Friday 8 February under “God and evolution”, but now back you go again to your rigid framework as bolded above.
Let me offer you a possible solution to the mystery of Lucy and Co. Maybe in a particular location, tree-dwelling became impractical, and so a particular group of tree-dwellers had to adjust to life on the ground. And life on the ground required or led to new skills, and new skills required changes to the brain which went beyond the brain’s existing capacity. (We know that certain areas of the modern brain expand according to usage, as in the case of taxi-drivers and musicians.) Why do you regard that as less feasible than your God performing brain and pelvis operations on a particular group of tree-dwellers and then forcing them to leave the trees for no apparent reason?
The final bolded statement of yours is our difference. God had perfectly good reasons for creating the Lucy-like early hominins, because He had future plans and the purpose of creating H. sapiens over many years of stepwise evolution, at a point when each step was ready to begin.
Big brain evolution: comparing chimp and brain organoids
Dhw: Let me offer you a possible solution to the mystery of Lucy and Co. Maybe in a particular location, tree-dwelling became impractical, and so a particular group of tree-dwellers had to adjust to life on the ground. And life on the ground required or led to new skills, and new skills required changes to the brain which went beyond the brain’s existing capacity. (We know that certain areas of the modern brain expand according to usage, as in the case of taxi-drivers and musicians.) Why do you regard that as less feasible than your God performing brain and pelvis operations on a particular group of tree-dwellers and then forcing them to leave the trees for no apparent reason?
DAVID: The final bolded statement of yours is our difference. God had perfectly good reasons for creating the Lucy-like early hominins, because He had future plans and the purpose of creating H. sapiens over many years of stepwise evolution, at a point when each step was ready to begin.
It’s a shame that having reached agreement on the feasibility of my alternative hypotheses, we now have to go back over the same old ground. Your image of God becomes more and more confusing. Now he begins with a single purpose – to create H. sapiens – but is apparently so limited in his powers that not only is he unable to fulfil his purpose without first spending 3.5+ billion years specially designing millions and millions of other organisms, lifestyles and natural wonders, but he also has to wait for each of his new brain steps to be “ready to begin”, as if he had no control over the conditions which for some unknown reason would be necessary for the next step. And you don’t know why he chose this method to fulfil his one and only purpose, but we should accept it. By all means stick to your unproven dogma, though. I asked you why you thought my unproven hypothesis to be less feasible, even though it still allows for your God’s participation as the inventor of the mechanisms that created both the brain and its subsequent developments?
Thank you for the two wonderful items under “Nature’s wonders”:
DAVID (under “Defensive glues”): That it doesn't get stuck by its own glue means the glue and the defense from being stuck had to develop at the same time. Only design can do this.
DAVID (under “How cassowaries lose heat”): If these birds developed this mechanism gradually, it is probable they migrated gradually from a cooler region. Otherwise it is possible they were designed for this hot region.
Although I like your "gradual" hypothesis for the cassowaries, once again, the mind boggles at the sheer scale of information and instructions contained in the “library” you think you God installed in the very first cells. Or do you believe he might have popped in to instruct the slugs and the cassowaries? And all of this to ensure that organisms did and didn’t eat one another for 3.5+ billion years until he could design the only thing he wanted to design. But apparently you find this more feasible than the possibility that he gave organisms the means to devise their own ways of survival.
Big brain evolution: comparing chimp and brain organoids
by David Turell , Thursday, February 14, 2019, 19:06 (1892 days ago) @ dhw
Dhw: Let me offer you a possible solution to the mystery of Lucy and Co. Maybe in a particular location, tree-dwelling became impractical, and so a particular group of tree-dwellers had to adjust to life on the ground. And life on the ground required or led to new skills, and new skills required changes to the brain which went beyond the brain’s existing capacity. (We know that certain areas of the modern brain expand according to usage, as in the case of taxi-drivers and musicians.) Why do you regard that as less feasible than your God performing brain and pelvis operations on a particular group of tree-dwellers and then forcing them to leave the trees for no apparent reason?
DAVID: The final bolded statement of yours is our difference. God had perfectly good reasons for creating the Lucy-like early hominins, because He had future plans and the purpose of creating H. sapiens over many years of stepwise evolution, at a point when each step was ready to begin.
dhw: It’s a shame that having reached agreement on the feasibility of my alternative hypotheses, we now have to go back over the same old ground. Your image of God becomes more and more confusing. Now he begins with a single purpose – to create H. sapiens – but is apparently so limited in his powers that not only is he unable to fulfil his purpose without first spending 3.5+ billion years specially designing millions and millions of other organisms, lifestyles and natural wonders, but he also has to wait for each of his new brain steps to be “ready to begin”, as if he had no control over the conditions which for some unknown reason would be necessary for the next step. And you don’t know why he chose this method to fulfil his one and only purpose, but we should accept it.
You are amazingly stuck with the same confusion. I view God as free to choose any methods He wants to create humans. We can assume, as you do most of he time, that He is limited and forced to evolve what he wants. We can raise the issue that He might be limited to explain His choice, but that is more a more complicated set of nebulous suppositions than simply accepting God has the right to choose His approach. We do not know He is limited. We know what He produced. I will agree that a million years of Erectus may have been for refinement of that stage in the process, but is still pure guesswork.
dhw: By all means stick to your unproven dogma, though. I asked you why you thought my unproven hypothesis to be less feasible, even though it still allows for your God’s participation as the inventor of the mechanisms that created both the brain and its subsequent developments?
There is no evidence of such a mechanism. Why don't you just use the real facts we have.
Thank you for the two wonderful items under “Nature’s wonders”:DAVID (under “Defensive glues”): That it doesn't get stuck by its own glue means the glue and the defense from being stuck had to develop at the same time. Only design can do this.
DAVID (under “How cassowaries lose heat”): If these birds developed this mechanism gradually, it is probable they migrated gradually from a cooler region. Otherwise it is possible they were designed for this hot region.
dhw: Although I like your "gradual" hypothesis for the cassowaries, once again, the mind boggles at the sheer scale of information and instructions contained in the “library” you think you God installed in the very first cells. Or do you believe he might have popped in to instruct the slugs and the cassowaries? And all of this to ensure that organisms did and didn’t eat one another for 3.5+ billion years until he could design the only thing he wanted to design. But apparently you find this more feasible than the possibility that he gave organisms the means to devise their own ways of survival.
We have no evidence of such a mechanism. I view God as in control, and prefer not to suppose about which we have no facts. I'll repeat , the characteristics of humans are obviously not necessary for survival, which as I've shown, is not the driving force of evolution. Apes survived without humanizing. You have no answer for that point.
Big brain evolution: comparing chimp and brain organoids
dhw: Your image of God becomes more and more confusing. […]
DAVID: You are amazingly stuck with the same confusion. I view God as free to choose any methods He wants to create humans. We can assume, as you do most of he time, that He is limited and forced to evolve what he wants. We can raise the issue that He might be limited to explain His choice, but that is more a more complicated set of nebulous suppositions than simply accepting God has the right to choose His approach. We do not know He is limited. We know what He produced. I will agree that a million years of Erectus may have been for refinement of that stage in the process, but is still pure guesswork.
The confusion is entirely yours. I make no assumptions. I merely offer different hypotheses to explain the only facts we know, which are that there have been millions and millions of life forms, lifestyles and natural wonders, and humans came very late on the scene. If God exists, and since you and I believe that evolution happened, I have no doubt that he would have chosen evolution as his method for fulfilling his purpose. But what that purpose was from the beginning is “pure guesswork”, and whether his powers are limited or not is also “pure guesswork”. You say here that “we” assume he is limited. I don’t, so that leaves you, but later in the same post you say “I view God as in control” (I’ve bolded it). Both limited and unlimited are possible, I offer hypotheses for both, and you have agreed that they are all possible, but still you insist that the basis of your own is correct: i.e. you know his purpose and you know he chose to do things your way, even though you have repeatedly stated that you don’t know why.
dhw: By all means stick to your unproven dogma, though. I asked you why you thought my unproven hypothesis to be less feasible, even though it still allows for your God’s participation as the inventor of the mechanisms that created both the brain and its subsequent developments?
DAVID: There is no evidence of such a mechanism. Why don't you just use the real facts we have.
Why don’t you just use the only real facts we have (see above, in bold), recognize that there is no “clear evidence” for any of the hypotheses (see my final comment under “menopause”), and abide by the following agreements (“God and Evolution” 7 February at 20.51)?
DAVID: I’m still fixed but I accept your possibilities.
(“God and Evolution" 8 February at 15.37:)
dhw:Just to clarify, we have been discussing theistic interpretations of evolution. You have a fixed view of your God’s (singular) purpose and of the (to me illogical and incredible) way in which he implemented that purpose NOT ITAL[repeated below: re Nature’s Wonders] and also incorporating the 3.8-billion-year old “library” of info and instructions. I have offered alternative views of the purpose, together with explanations concerning how he might have used the method of evolution in order to fulfil those alternative purposes. You have accepted that all of these are possible.
It would seem that we have now reached agreement on these issues, as well as on that of survival as an “immediate driving force” for evolution, and so I shall refer back to this post if any of these issues arise again. Pax!
DAVID: Peace.
I am a man of my word. How about you?
dhw (re "Nature’s Wonders"): Although I like your "gradual" hypothesis for the cassowaries, once again, the mind boggles at the sheer scale of information and instructions contained in the “library” you think you God installed in the very first cells. Or do you believe he might have popped in to instruct the slugs and the cassowaries? And all of this to ensure that organisms did and didn’t eat one another for 3.5+ billion years until he could design the only thing he wanted to design. But apparently you find this more feasible than the possibility that he gave organisms the means to devise their own ways of survival.
David: We have no evidence of such a mechanism. I view God as in control, and prefer not to suppose about which we have no facts.
You suppose that your God is in control (but elsewhere he is limited), you suppose that the brain of H. sapiens was his one and only purpose, you suppose that he specially designed 3.5+ billion years’ worth of life forms etc. so that they would eat / not eat one another until he had designed what he wanted to design, but you prefer not to suppose “about which we have no facts”.
DAVID: I'll repeat , the characteristics of humans are obviously not necessary for survival, which as I've shown, is not the driving force of evolution. Apes survived without humanizing. You have no answer for that point.
Answered again and again (NO life form beyond bacteria was “necessary for survival”) and you have agreed, as above in bold, that in your own words, survival was and is “an immediate driving force”. An immediate driving force is a driving force. What happened to our “pax”?
Big brain evolution: comparing chimp and brain organoids
by David Turell , Friday, February 15, 2019, 18:53 (1891 days ago) @ dhw
dhw: Your image of God becomes more and more confusing. […]
DAVID: You are amazingly stuck with the same confusion. I view God as free to choose any methods He wants to create humans. We can assume, as you do most of he time, that He is limited and forced to evolve what he wants. We can raise the issue that He might be limited to explain His choice, but that is more a more complicated set of nebulous suppositions than simply accepting God has the right to choose His approach. We do not know He is limited. We know what He produced. I will agree that a million years of Erectus may have been for refinement of that stage in the process, but is still pure guesswork.
dhw: The confusion is entirely yours. I make no assumptions. I merely offer different hypotheses to explain the only facts we know, which are that there have been millions and millions of life forms, lifestyles and natural wonders, and humans came very late on the scene. If God exists, and since you and I believe that evolution happened, I have no doubt that he would have chosen evolution as his method for fulfilling his purpose. But what that purpose was from the beginning is “pure guesswork”, and whether his powers are limited or not is also “pure guesswork”. ...Both limited and unlimited are possible, I offer hypotheses for both, and you have agreed that they are all possible, but still you insist that the basis of your own is correct: i.e. you know his purpose and you know he chose to do things your way, even though you have repeatedly stated that you don’t know why.
Of course I do not know why God made his choice of evolving humans rather than a direct creation, or He did it because of limitations. These possibilities are all permutations of suppositions, angels dancing on a pine head. If one views evolution as driven by a need for survival and no other drive is present, humans have no need to be here at the level of sophistication they represent. Our ancestor apes are just fine if we would leave them alone. With that reasoning I view evolution as driven by God as designer, as proven by the obvious view that life is too complicated to be the result of chance.
(“God and Evolution" 8 February at 15.37:)
dhw:Just to clarify, we have been discussing theistic interpretations of evolution. You have a fixed view of your God’s (singular) purpose and of the (to me illogical and incredible) way in which he implemented that purpose NOT ITAL[repeated below: re Nature’s Wonders] and also incorporating the 3.8-billion-year old “library” of info and instructions. I have offered alternative views of the purpose, together with explanations concerning how he might have used the method of evolution in order to fulfill those alternative purposes. You have accepted that all of these are possible.
dhw:It would seem that we have now reached agreement on these issues, as well as on that of survival as an “immediate driving force” for evolution, and so I shall refer back to this post if any of these issues arise again. Pax!
DAVID: Peace.
dhw: I am a man of my word. How about you?
We can have peace within our preferred positions, which will always differ.
dhw (re "Nature’s Wonders"): Although I like your "gradual" hypothesis for the cassowaries, once again, the mind boggles at the sheer scale of information and instructions contained in the “library” you think you God installed in the very first cells. Or do you believe he might have popped in to instruct the slugs and the cassowaries? And all of this to ensure that organisms did and didn’t eat one another for 3.5+ billion years until he could design the only thing he wanted to design. But apparently you find this more feasible than the possibility that he gave organisms the means to devise their own ways of survival.David: We have no evidence of such a mechanism. I view God as in control, and prefer not to suppose about which we have no facts.
dhw: You suppose that your God is in control (but elsewhere he is limited), you suppose that the brain of H. sapiens was his one and only purpose, you suppose that he specially designed 3.5+ billion years’ worth of life forms etc. so that they would eat / not eat one another until he had designed what he wanted to design, but you prefer not to suppose “about which we have no facts”.
The facts we both know have lead to what I consider logical conclusions and a discovery of a faith in God. Your conclusionary road differs. So be it.
DAVID: I'll repeat , the characteristics of humans are obviously not necessary for survival, which as I've shown, is not the driving force of evolution. Apes survived without humanizing. You have no answer for that point.dhw: Answered again and again (NO life form beyond bacteria was “necessary for survival”) and you have agreed, as above in bold, that in your own words, survival was and is “an immediate driving force”. An immediate driving force is a driving force. What happened to our “pax”?
A total non-answer. You have no answer for why evolution advanced beyond bacteria. Your dependence on survival as a driving force logically goes out the window! Bacteria prove it! Only a designer could have created multicellularity. Bacteria are complex forms, multicellulars are infinitely more complex. All conclusions based on the facts we both know.
Big brain evolution: comparing chimp and brain organoids
dhw: I make no assumptions. I merely offer different hypotheses to explain the only facts we know, which are that there have been millions and millions of life forms, lifestyles and natural wonders, and humans came very late on the scene. If God exists, and since you and I believe that evolution happened, I have no doubt that he would have chosen evolution as his method for fulfilling his purpose. But what that purpose was from the beginning is “pure guesswork”, and whether his powers are limited or not is also “pure guesswork”. [...] I offer hypotheses for both, and you have agreed that they are all possible, but still you insist that the basis of your own is correct: i.e. you know his purpose and you know he chose to do things your way, even though you have repeatedly stated that you don’t know why.
DAVID: Of course I do not know why God made his choice of evolving humans rather than a direct creation, or He did it because of limitations. These possibilities are all permutations of suppositions, angels dancing on a pine head. If one views evolution as driven by a need for survival and no other drive is present, humans have no need to be here at the level of sophistication they represent. Our ancestor apes are just fine if we would leave them alone. With that reasoning I view evolution as driven by God as designer, as proven by the obvious view that life is too complicated to be the result of chance.
Thank you once more for admitting that you cannot understand why your God should have chosen to spend 3.5+ billion years fulfilling the one and only purpose you impose on him. You have accepted all my hypothetical explanations as possible, and so now you go back to survival, which we have also covered and agreed on. Once more: if your God exists, then of course he is the driving force behind evolution, but even your own theory states that he specially designed 3.5+ billion years’ worth of life forms etc. so that life would continue (= SURVIVE) until he could design the only thing he wanted to design. According to you yourself, the “immediate driving force” (your term) behind his invention of slug glue, whale flippers, cuttlefish camouflage, monarch migration etc. was to improve their chances of SURVIVAL. An immediate driving force is a driving force.
dhw:It would seem that we have now reached agreement on these issues, as well as on that of survival as an “immediate driving force” for evolution, and so I shall refer back to this post if any of these issues arise again. Pax!
DAVID: Peace.
dhw: I am a man of my word. How about you?
DAVID: We can have peace within our preferred positions, which will always differ.
But you have now raised exactly the same issues as before, which means yet more repetition!
DAVID: [referring to cellular intelligence]: We have no evidence of such a mechanism. I view God as in control, and prefer not to suppose about which we have no facts.
dhw: You suppose that your God is in control (but elsewhere he is limited), you suppose that the brain of H. sapiens was his one and only purpose, you suppose that he specially designed 3.5+ billion years’ worth of life forms etc. so that they would eat / not eat one another until he had designed what he wanted to design, but you prefer not to suppose “about which we have no facts”.
DAVID: The facts we both know have lead to what I consider logical conclusions and a discovery of a faith in God. Your conclusionary road differs. So be it.
I have no problem with your argument that life is too complex to have come about by chance, and therefore you have faith that there is a designer. But please stop pretending that your attempts to read God’s mind (see my bolded summary above) are based on facts. They are pure suppositions.
DAVID: You have no answer for why evolution advanced beyond bacteria. Your dependence on survival as a driving force logically goes out the window! Bacteria prove it! Only a designer could have created multicellularity. Bacteria are complex forms, multicellulars are infinitely more complex. All conclusions based on the facts we both know.
We have been over all this hundreds of times. Even bacteria change themselves in order to SURVIVE in different environments. Nobody knows why single cells began to combine, but if – as some scientists believe – single cells are intelligent, cognisant, cooperative, decision-making organisms (possibly endowed with their intelligence by a designer God), it is not unreasonable to suppose that they found it advantageous to do so. The fact that they produced new methods of SURVIVAL does not mean the only possible explanation is that your God preprogrammed or manipulated them to do so as part of his 3.5+ billion-year plan as bolded above. And it does not alter one jot your agreement that the “immediate driving force” for the various innovations, whether directly designed by your God or not – was SURVIVAL.
Big brain evolution: comparing chimp and brain organoids
by David Turell , Saturday, February 16, 2019, 15:36 (1890 days ago) @ dhw
DAVID: Of course I do not know why God made his choice of evolving humans rather than a direct creation, or He did it because of limitations. These possibilities are all permutations of suppositions, angels dancing on a pine head. If one views evolution as driven by a need for survival and no other drive is present, humans have no need to be here at the level of sophistication they represent. Our ancestor apes are just fine if we would leave them alone. With that reasoning I view evolution as driven by God as designer, as proven by the obvious view that life is too complicated to be the result of chance.
dhw: Thank you once more for admitting that you cannot understand why your God should have chosen to spend 3.5+ billion years fulfilling the one and only purpose you impose on him. You have accepted all my hypothetical explanations as possible, and so now you go back to survival, which we have also covered and agreed on. Once more: if your God exists, then of course he is the driving force behind evolution, but even your own theory states that he specially designed 3.5+ billion years’ worth of life forms etc. so that life would continue (= SURVIVE) until he could design the only thing he wanted to design. According to you yourself, the “immediate driving force” (your term) behind his invention of slug glue, whale flippers, cuttlefish camouflage, monarch migration etc. was to improve their chances of SURVIVAL. An immediate driving force is a driving force.
dhw:It would seem that we have now reached agreement on these issues, as well as on that of survival as an “immediate driving force” for evolution, and so I shall refer back to this post if any of these issues arise again. Pax!
DAVID: Peace.
dhw: I am a man of my word. How about you?
DAVID: We can have peace within our preferred positions, which will always differ.
dhw: But you have now raised exactly the same issues as before, which means yet more repetition!
I've said we will always differ. Of course we have issues. You are just as fixed as I am. I will continue to present new evidence from science and we will continue to present our differing opinions. Others ca n decide who they think is more correct.
DAVID: The facts we both know have lead to what I consider logical conclusions and a discovery of a faith in God. Your conclusionary road differs. So be it.dhw: I have no problem with your argument that life is too complex to have come about by chance, and therefore you have faith that there is a designer. But please stop pretending that your attempts to read God’s mind (see my bolded summary above) are based on facts. They are pure suppositions.
DAVID: You have no answer for why evolution advanced beyond bacteria. Your dependence on survival as a driving force logically goes out the window! Bacteria prove it! Only a designer could have created multicellularity. Bacteria are complex forms, multicellulars are infinitely more complex. All conclusions based on the facts we both know.
dhw: We have been over all this hundreds of times. Even bacteria change themselves in order to SURVIVE in different environments. Nobody knows why single cells began to combine, but if – as some scientists believe – single cells are intelligent, cognisant, cooperative, decision-making organisms (possibly endowed with their intelligence by a designer God), it is not unreasonable to suppose that they found it advantageous to do so. The fact that they produced new methods of SURVIVAL does not mean the only possible explanation is that your God preprogrammed or manipulated them to do so as part of his 3.5+ billion-year plan as bolded above. And it does not alter one jot your agreement that the “immediate driving force” for the various innovations, whether directly designed by your God or not – was SURVIVAL.
The bolded portion just above simply says, single cells must have had the innate ability to evolve. Talk about faith! A very simple set of multicellular then appeared, and then relatively suddenly the Cambrian Explosion, just as demanding an explanation as bacteria simply combining. Two giant steps which only a designer can accomplish. Neither are requirements for survival as you present it. Both are jumps ell beyond immediate survival. Have you noticed survival is always an immediate requirement, not a force to jump so far forward? You don't view survival as I do as a requirement for advancement. That is pure Darwin theory.
Big brain evolution: comparing chimp and brain organoids
dhw:It would seem that we have now reached agreement on these issues, as well as on that of survival as an “immediate driving force” for evolution, and so I shall refer back to this post if any of these issues arise again. Pax!
DAVID: Peace.
DAVID: We can have peace within our preferred positions, which will always differ.
dhw: But you have now raised exactly the same issues as before, which means yet more repetition!
DAVID: I've said we will always differ. Of course we have issues. You are just as fixed as I am. I will continue to present new evidence from science and we will continue to present our differing opinions. Others can decide who they think is more correct.
I offer various hypotheses, ranging from the existence/non-existence of God to the possible purposes and methods that underlie evolution. I am unable to "fix" on any of them because they all entail questions I can't answer. You remain fixed on one hypothesis. The reason for the peace treaty is that we keep going over the same ground: “humanizing” God (impossible not to if you want to talk about purpose); survival (an immediate driving force is a driving force); the incomprehensibility of an always-in-control God choosing to spend 3.5+ billion years designing anything but the one organism he wanted to design; humans were not necessary for survival (nor were ANY multicellular organisms) etc.
Having said that, I (and many others, judging by the viewings of the articles you post) am immensely grateful to you for keeping us up to date with all the latest scientific findings. Yes indeed, let us present our differing opinions. But can we please stop repeating arguments we have already reached agreement on? Pax should remain pax.
DAVID: I view God as in control, and prefer not to suppose about which we have no facts. [...]The facts we both know have lead to what I consider logical conclusions and a discovery of a faith in God. Your conclusionary road differs. So be it.
dhw: I have no problem with your argument that life is too complex to have come about by chance, and therefore you have faith that there is a designer. But please stop pretending that your attempts to read God’s mind […] are based on facts. They are pure suppositions.
I note that you have ignored the fact that your own hypotheses are pure suppositions.
DAVID: You have no answer for why evolution advanced beyond bacteria. Your dependence on survival as a driving force logically goes out the window! Bacteria prove it! Only a designer could have created multicellularity. Bacteria are complex forms, multicellulars are infinitely more complex. All conclusions based on the facts we both know.
dhw: We have been over all this hundreds of times. Even bacteria change themselves in order to SURVIVE in different environments. Nobody knows why single cells began to combine, but if – as some scientists believe – single cells are intelligent, cognisant, cooperative, decision-making organisms (possibly endowed with their intelligence by a designer God), it is not unreasonable to suppose that they found it advantageous to do so. [DAVID's bold] The fact that they produced new methods of SURVIVAL does not mean the only possible explanation is that your God preprogrammed or manipulated them to do so as part of his 3.5+ billion-year plan as bolded above. And it does not alter one jot your agreement that the “immediate driving force” for the various innovations, whether directly designed by your God or not – was SURVIVAL.
DAVID: The bolded portion just above simply says, single cells must have had the innate ability to evolve. Talk about faith!
It does not “simply say” that! If your God exists, then he is the designer of the mechanisms that enabled cells to evolve. Why do you continually ignore this explicit rider to my hypothesis, and why do you assume that your God is incapable of creating such a mechanism?
DAVID: A very simple set of multicellular then appeared, and then relatively suddenly the Cambrian Explosion, just as demanding an explanation as bacteria simply combining. Two giant steps which only a designer can accomplish. Neither are requirements for survival as you present it. Both are jumps well beyond immediate survival. Have you noticed survival is always an immediate requirement, not a force to jump so far forward? You don't view survival as I do as a requirement for advancement. That is pure Darwin theory.
How often must I repeat that we do not know why multicellularity happened – you have even bolded that yourself – but cellular intelligence is a possible answer. As regards the Cambrian, again nobody has the answer, but one possible hypothesis is a massive change in environmental conditions (increase in oxygen?) which created new opportunities for organisms (cell communities) to exploit the environment in new ways. Hence the innovations that led to speciation. Call them “advancements” if you like, but what would be the point of the innovations if they did not improve organisms’ chances of survival? And would they have survived if they hadn’t done so? That is also your OWN inexplicable hypothesis in which your God needed life forms to SURVIVE for 3.5+ billion years till he could specially design his one goal: H. sapiens. So please respect our pax and stop pretending that an immediate driving force is not a driving force.
Big brain evolution: comparing chimp and brain organoids
by David Turell , Sunday, February 17, 2019, 18:49 (1889 days ago) @ dhw
dhw:It would seem that we have now reached agreement on these issues, as well as on that of survival as an “immediate driving force” for evolution, and so I shall refer back to this post if any of these issues arise again. Pax!
DAVID: Peace.
DAVID: We can have peace within our preferred positions, which will always differ.
dhw: But you have now raised exactly the same issues as before, which means yet more repetition!
DAVID: I've said we will always differ. Of course we have issues. You are just as fixed as I am. I will continue to present new evidence from science and we will continue to present our differing opinions. Others can decide who they think is more correct.
dhw: I offer various hypotheses, ranging from the existence/non-existence of God to the possible purposes and methods that underlie evolution. I am unable to "fix" on any of them because they all entail questions I can't answer. You remain fixed on one hypothesis. The reason for the peace treaty is that we keep going over the same ground: “humanizing” God (impossible not to if you want to talk about purpose); survival (an immediate driving force is a driving force); the incomprehensibility of an always-in-control God choosing to spend 3.5+ billion years designing anything but the one organism he wanted to design; humans were not necessary for survival (nor were ANY multicellular organisms) etc.
Having said that, I (and many others, judging by the viewings of the articles you post) am immensely grateful to you for keeping us up to date with all the latest scientific findings. Yes indeed, let us present our differing opinions. But can we please stop repeating arguments we have already reached agreement on? Pax should remain pax.
DAVID: A very simple set of multicellular then appeared, and then relatively suddenly the Cambrian Explosion, just as demanding an explanation as bacteria simply combining. Two giant steps which only a designer can accomplish. Neither are requirements for survival as you present it. Both are jumps well beyond immediate survival. Have you noticed survival is always an immediate requirement, not a force to jump so far forward? You don't view survival as I do as a requirement for advancement. That is pure Darwin theory.
dhw: How often must I repeat that we do not know why multicellularity happened – you have even bolded that yourself – but cellular intelligence is a possible answer. As regards the Cambrian, again nobody has the answer, but one possible hypothesis is a massive change in environmental conditions (increase in oxygen?) which created new opportunities for organisms (cell communities) to exploit the environment in new ways. Hence the innovations that led to speciation. Call them “advancements” if you like, but what would be the point of the innovations if they did not improve organisms’ chances of survival? And would they have survived if they hadn’t done so? That is also your OWN inexplicable hypothesis in which your God needed life forms to SURVIVE for 3.5+ billion years till he could specially design his one goal: H. sapiens. So please respect our pax and stop pretending that an immediate driving force is not a driving force.
Your own statements deny your conclusion in bolds. It is obvious the changes before the Cambrian, perhaps allowed it, but didn't drive it. The bacteria have always survived without the need the improve. Why did they bother to become multicellular? It had to be driven by some sort of force. I've said my positions are fixed, just as you are fixed on survival of the fittest, an unproven Darwinian trope, I don't think evolution was driven by any need for survival. It was built into each evolutionary stage by the designer. PAX means we have fixed defined positions, and will discuss from those. My acceptance of God's choice of method i s only inexplicable to your neutrally fixed mind. Surprise! To me it is quite clear.
Big brain evolution: space representation in the brain
by David Turell , Sunday, February 17, 2019, 21:49 (1888 days ago) @ David Turell
edited by David Turell, Sunday, February 17, 2019, 22:04
A sort of GPS is described:
http://nautil.us//blog/new-evidence-for-the-geometry-of-thought
“'It has long been a common prejudice in cognitive science that the brain is either a Turing machine working with symbols or a connectionist system using neural networks.” In Krakow, Gärdenfors pushed against that prejudice. In his talk, “The Geometry of Thinking,” he suggested that humans are able to do things that today’s powerful computers can’t do—like learn language quickly and generalize from particulars with ease (to see, in other words, without much training, that lions and tigers are four-legged felines)—because we, unlike our computers, represent information in geometrical space.
"In a 2018 Science paper, ...Gärdenfors, of the University of Lund, buttressed his idea with recent advances in brain science. He argued that the brain represents concepts in the same way that it represents space and your location, by using the same neural circuitry for the brain’s “inner GPS.”
“'Cognitive spaces are a way of thinking about how our brain might organize our knowledge of the world,” Bellmund said. It’s an approach that concerns not only geographical data, but also relationships between objects and experience. “We were intrigued by evidence from many different groups that suggested that the principles of spatial coding in the hippocampus seem to be relevant beyond the realms of just spatial navigation,” Bellmund said. The hippocampus’ place and grid cells, in other words, map not only physical space but conceptual space. It appears that our representation of objects and concepts is very tightly linked with our representation of space.
"Work spanning decades has found that regions in the brain—the hippocampus and entorhinal cortex—act like a GPS. Their cells form a grid-like representation of the brain’s surroundings and keep track of its location on it. Specifically, neurons in the entorhinal cortex activate at evenly distributed locations in space: If you drew lines between each location in the environment where these cells activate, you would end up sketching a triangular grid, or a hexagonal lattice. The activity of these aptly named “grid” cells contains information that another kind of cell uses to locate your body in a particular place. The explanation of how these “place” cells work was stunning enough to award scientists John O’Keefe, May-Britt Moser, and Edvard Moser, the 2014 Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine. These cells activate only when you are in one particular location in space, or the grid, represented by your grid cells. Meanwhile, head-direction cells define which direction your head is pointing. Yet other cells indicate when you’re at the border of your environment—a wall or cliff. Rodent models have elucidated the nature of the brain’s spatial grids, but, with functional magnetic resonance imaging, they have also been validated in humans.
"Recent fMRI studies show that cognitive spaces reside in the hippocampal network—supporting the idea that these spaces lie at the heart of much subconscious processing.
***
"But the usefulness of a cognitive space isn’t just restricted to already familiar object comparisons. “One of the ways these cognitive spaces can benefit our behavior is when we encounter something we have never seen before,” Bellmund said. “Based on the features of the new object we can position it in our cognitive space. We can then use our old knowledge to infer how to behave in this novel situation.” Representing knowledge in this structured way allows us to make sense of how we should behave in new circumstances.
"Data also suggests that this region may represent information with different levels of abstraction. If you imagine moving through the hippocampus, from the top of the head toward the chin, you will find many different groups of place cells that completely map the entire environment but with different degrees of magnification. Put another way, moving through the hippocampus is like zooming in and out on your phone’s map app. The area in space represented by a single place cell gets larger. Such size differences could be the basis for how humans are able to move between lower and higher levels of abstraction—from “dog” to “pet” to “sentient being,” for example.
***
"It appears that the hippocampus is able to represent two environments without confounding the two. This property of place cells could be useful for constructing cognitive spaces, where avoiding cross-contamination would be essential. “By connecting all these previous discoveries,” Bellmund said, “we came to the assumption that the brain stores a mental map, regardless of whether we are thinking about a real space or the space between dimensions of our thoughts.'”
Comment: This brain facility was developed before humans. However what our brain can do is develop abstract concepts based on space as the article describes.
Big brain evolution: comparing chimp and brain organoids
dhw: How often must I repeat that we do not know why multicellularity happened – you have even bolded that yourself – but cellular intelligence is a possible answer. As regards the Cambrian, again nobody has the answer, but one possible hypothesis is a massive change in environmental conditions (increase in oxygen?) which created new opportunities for organisms (cell communities) to exploit the environment in new ways. Hence the innovations that led to speciation. Call them “advancements” if you like, but what would be the point of the innovations if they did not improve organisms’ chances of survival? And would they have survived if they hadn’t done so? That is also your OWN inexplicable hypothesis in which your God needed life forms to SURVIVE for 3.5+ billion years till he could specially design his one goal: H. sapiens. So please respect our pax and stop pretending that an immediate driving force is not a driving force. (David’s bold)
DAVID: Your own statements deny your conclusion in bolds. It is obvious the changes before the Cambrian, perhaps allowed it, but didn't drive it. The bacteria have always survived without the need the improve. Why did they bother to become multicellular? It had to be driven by some sort of force.
I keep pointing out that nobody knows why multicellularity began, as in the first sentence of my comment above! Maybe some single intelligent cells found themselves in a new and tricky situation and decided they’d be better off if they joined forces. We know that bacteria themselves form colonies. Same principle. The Cambrian is an extreme case which may have occurred because of a major change in the environment, as above, and my point is that the changes created new opportunities and new demands. As with multicellularity generally, there were new forms of food (even your own hypothesis rests on the need for organisms to eat so that life can SURVIVE), and these in turn demanded new forms of acquiring food and of avoiding being eaten. The whole process mushroomed through the interdependence of environmental conditions and the organisms themselves, with all the innovations hingeing on what you have called the “immediate driving force” of survival. Why is that so difficult for you to imagine?
DAVID: I've said my positions are fixed, just as you are fixed on survival of the fittest, an unproven Darwinian trope, I don't think evolution was driven by any need for survival. It was built into each evolutionary stage by the designer. PAX means we have fixed defined positions, and will discuss from those. My acceptance of God's choice of method i s only inexplicable to your neutrally fixed mind.. Surprise! To me it is quite clear.
We have long since agreed that survival of the fittest (not Darwin’s coinage) is a philosophical tautology. You have also agreed that the immediate purpose of all the different innovations, lifestyles and natural wonders was to improve the organisms’ chances of survival, and you have called it an “immediate driving force”. Why do you keep pretending that an immediate driving force is not a driving force? If you do not think whale flippers, monarch migration and cuttlefish camouflage were produced in order to improve chances of survival, but were all simply stages on the way to your God’s special design of the human brain, then please tell us how they are related to the human brain. As regards “choice of method”, three days ago you wrote: “Of course I do not know why God made his choice of evolving humans rather than a direct creation”, so how can the link between purpose and method be clear to you? I have offered you different hypotheses, the possibility of which you have accepted – hence our “pax” – but now back you go to the same combination which you yourself cannot understand.
xxxxx
Thank you for all the other new posts. I don’t feel that any of them require comment from me. It is tempting to use the one on “space representation” to re-open discussions on materialism versus dualism and on your contention that the human brain had to be specially designed, as opposed to evolving naturally from earlier brains. However, this would only result in yet more repetition of arguments already flogged to dead horsedom!
Big brain evolution: comparing chimp and brain organoids
by David Turell , Monday, February 18, 2019, 14:46 (1888 days ago) @ dhw
DAVID: Your own statements deny your conclusion in bolds. It is obvious the changes before the Cambrian, perhaps allowed it, but didn't drive it. The bacteria have always survived without the need the improve. Why did they bother to become multicellular? It had to be driven by some sort of force.
dhw: I keep pointing out that nobody knows why multicellularity began, as in the first sentence of my comment above!
This is a debate from two very different viewpoints. In my view God caused multicellularity.
dhw: Maybe some single intelligent cells found themselves in a new and tricky situation and decided they’d be better off if they joined forces. We know that bacteria themselves form colonies. Same principle.
But they always have remained bacteria.
dhw: The Cambrian is an extreme case which may have occurred because of a major change in the environment, as above, and my point is that the changes created new opportunities and new demands.
Environment does not drive massive change as in the Cambrian. Other than the arrival of more oxygen, the very simple Ediacarans had the same sea bottom space to live.
dhw: As with multicellularity generally, there were new forms of food (even your own hypothesis rests on the need for organisms to eat so that life can SURVIVE), and these in turn demanded new forms of acquiring food and of avoiding being eaten. The whole process mushroomed through the interdependence of environmental conditions and the organisms themselves, with all the innovations hingeing on what you have called the “immediate driving force” of survival. Why is that so difficult for you to imagine?
Survival is an immediate need when new species are created, if evolution is to continue, but there is no evidence that survival is an immediate driving force.
DAVID: I've said my positions are fixed, just as you are fixed on survival of the fittest, an unproven Darwinian trope, I don't think evolution was driven by any need for survival. It was built into each evolutionary stage by the designer. PAX means we have fixed defined positions, and will discuss from those. My acceptance of God's choice of method i s only inexplicable to your neutrally fixed mind.. Surprise! To me it is quite clear.dhw: If you do not think whale flippers, monarch migration and cuttlefish camouflage were produced in order to improve chances of survival, but were all simply stages on the way to your God’s special design of the human brain, then please tell us how they are related to the human brain.
Silly thought. All of the evolutionary developments lead to Humans. That is history. Flippers or gills have no direct relationship to brains, except both exist in the same body..
dhw: As regards “choice of method”, three days ago you wrote: “Of course I do not know why God made his choice of evolving humans rather than a direct creation”, so how can the link between purpose and method be clear to you? I have offered you different hypotheses, the possibility of which you have accepted – hence our “pax” – but now back you go to the same combination which you yourself cannot understand.
I don't try to understand it. It has to be seen as a chosen method since it follows the live of factual history..
xxxxx
dhw: Thank you for all the other new posts. I don’t feel that any of them require comment from me. It is tempting to use the one on “space representation” to re-open discussions on materialism versus dualism and on your contention that the human brain had to be specially designed, as opposed to evolving naturally from earlier brains. However, this would only result in yet more repetition of arguments already flogged to dead horsedom!
Exactly the point. I do not believe in natural evolution
Big brain evolution: comparing chimp and brain organoids
DAVID: In my view God caused multicellularity.
If he exists, then of course he did – possibly with a dabble, possibly by giving the first cells the intelligence to work together, as below:
dhw: Maybe some single intelligent cells found themselves in a new and tricky situation and decided they’d be better off if they joined forces. We know that bacteria themselves form colonies. Same principle.
DAVID: But they always have remained bacteria.
But maybe some didn’t! That is the whole point. At some stage, single cells formed communities, and that is how multicellular evolution began. Just as you and I believe that some apes remained the same, but others evolved into hominins.
dhw: The Cambrian is an extreme case which may have occurred because of a major change in the environment, as above, and my point is that the changes created new opportunities and new demands.
DAVID: Environment does not drive massive change as in the Cambrian. Other than the arrival of more oxygen, the very simple Ediacarans had the same sea bottom space to live.
A change in oxygen levels IS a change in the environment! It may have been massive.
dhw: As with multicellularity generally, there were new forms of food (even your own hypothesis rests on the need for organisms to eat so that life can SURVIVE), and these in turn demanded new forms of acquiring food and of avoiding being eaten. The whole process mushroomed through the interdependence of environmental conditions and the organisms themselves, with all the innovations hingeing on what you have called the “immediate driving force” of survival. Why is that so difficult for you to imagine?
DAVID: Survival is an immediate need when new species are created, if evolution is to continue, but there is no evidence that survival is an immediate driving force.
The term was yours, and an immediate need is a driving force. Hence my next comment:
dhw: If you do not think whale flippers, monarch migration and cuttlefish camouflage were produced in order to improve chances of survival, but were all simply stages on the way to your God’s special design of the human brain, then please tell us how they are related to the human brain.
DAVID: Silly thought. All of the evolutionary developments lead to Humans. That is history. Flippers or gills have no direct relationship to brains, except both exist in the same body.
Of course it’s a silly thought. That is the point. Whale flippers, monarch migration and cuttlefish camouflage do NOT lead to human brains! Their direct purpose was to improve those creatures’ chances of survival: what you call the “immediate driving force”.
dhw: […] three days ago you wrote: “Of course I do not know why God made his choice of evolving humans rather than a direct creation”, so how can the link between purpose and method be clear to you? […]
DAVID: I don't try to understand it. It has to be seen as a chosen method since it follows the live of factual history.
Factual history is vast numbers of organisms, lifestyles and natural wonders extant and extinct, with H. sapiens the most recent arrival. The rest is speculation. If God exists, then he masterminded evolution. That does not mean he designed every life form etc. in order to design humans! You accepted that all my alternative hypotheses are possible (= pax), but a few days later you go back to your fixed belief, which you don’t try to understand because you know it doesn’t make sense.
xxxxx
Under “Not enough time”
QUOTE: In what ways do they add to the case for intelligent design? One way is their sudden appearance in the fossil record with fully formed wing articulation. Another evidence concerns the reproductive system in suborders of dragonflies. While the organs in each suborder are constructed from the same basic parts, in each one a different part of the system has the function of sperm transmission—a parallel development in which it appears the same kind of solution was derived independently in several instances. It indicates a kind of design template used several times, as an engineer would use to build different motor engines, using the same parts. (David’s bold)
DAVID: Just like Wistar, but with more sudden appearances now in the fossil record. Note my bold. More evidence for my theory that God uses patterns. Bechly and I are similar converts. It just takes unbiased thought.
It is evidence that there are patterns. Patterns are part of the evidence evolutionists use to demonstrate common descent. The process above is convergence. If God exists, then of course the patterns are his doing. As for “time”, this is used to discredit the hypothesis of random mutations, which we both reject. I agree that the problem disappears if your God preprogrammed or personally manipulated the reproductive systems of different dragonflies – but why he bothered is beyond our comprehension if his one and only purpose was to produce the brain of H. sapiens. The problem also disappears if your God endowed the dragonflies’ cell communities with the intelligence to manipulate their reproductive systems – and then we don’t need to cudgel our H. sapiens brain as to why he would bother if his sole purpose was to produce that brain.
Big brain evolution: comparing chimp and brain organoids
by David Turell , Tuesday, February 19, 2019, 22:30 (1886 days ago) @ dhw
DAVID: Environment does not drive massive change as in the Cambrian. Other than the arrival of more oxygen, the very simple Ediacarans had the same sea bottom space to live.
dhw: A change in oxygen levels IS a change in the environment! It may have been massive.
The oxygen level increase was very large, but it drove nothing. It allowed more energy use, IF new forms which needed it, when evolved, were to survive. (Note subjunctive tense.)
dhw: If you do not think whale flippers, monarch migration and cuttlefish camouflage were produced in order to improve chances of survival, but were all simply stages on the way to your God’s special design of the human brain, then please tell us how they are related to the human brain.
DAVID: Silly thought. All of the evolutionary developments lead to Humans. That is history. Flippers or gills have no direct relationship to brains, except both exist in the same body.
Of course it’s a silly thought. That is the point. Whale flippers, monarch migration and cuttlefish camouflage do NOT lead to human brains! Their direct purpose was to improve those creatures’ chances of survival: what you call the “immediate driving force”.
I still will point out, an evolved form must be capable of survival if evolution is to progress. What creates the required genomic changes is what drives evolution, survival simply a requirement.
dhw: […] three days ago you wrote: “Of course I do not know why God made his choice of evolving humans rather than a direct creation”, so how can the link between purpose and method be clear to you? […]DAVID: I don't try to understand it. It has to be seen as a chosen method since it follows the live of factual history.
dhw: Factual history is vast numbers of organisms, lifestyles and natural wonders extant and extinct, with H. sapiens the most recent arrival. The rest is speculation. If God exists, then he masterminded evolution. That does not mean he designed every life form etc. in order to design humans! You accepted that all my alternative hypotheses are possible (= pax), but a few days later you go back to your fixed belief, which you don’t try to understand because you know it doesn’t make sense.
I don't try to explain it, because I ACCEPT it as God's choice. Makes perfect sense to me.
xxxxx
Under “Not enough time”QUOTE: In what ways do they add to the case for intelligent design? One way is their sudden appearance in the fossil record with fully formed wing articulation. Another evidence concerns the reproductive system in suborders of dragonflies. While the organs in each suborder are constructed from the same basic parts, in each one a different part of the system has the function of sperm transmission—a parallel development in which it appears the same kind of solution was derived independently in several instances. It indicates a kind of design template used several times, as an engineer would use to build different motor engines, using the same parts. (David’s bold)
DAVID: Just like Wistar, but with more sudden appearances now in the fossil record. Note my bold. More evidence for my theory that God uses patterns. Bechly and I are similar converts. It just takes unbiased thought.
dhw: It is evidence that there are patterns. Patterns are part of the evidence evolutionists use to demonstrate common descent. The process above is convergence. If God exists, then of course the patterns are his doing. As for “time”, this is used to discredit the hypothesis of random mutations, which we both reject. I agree that the problem disappears if your God preprogrammed or personally manipulated the reproductive systems of different dragonflies – but why he bothered is beyond our comprehension if his one and only purpose was to produce the brain of H. sapiens.
Not 'beyond our comprehension', only yours in this discussion.
dhw: The problem also disappears if your God endowed the dragonflies’ cell communities with the intelligence to manipulate their reproductive systems – and then we don’t need to cudgel our H. sapiens brain as to why he would bother if his sole purpose was to produce that brain.
I firmly believe God designed most of everything which obviously needs to be designed.
Big brain evolution: comparing chimp and brain organoids
Dhw: The Cambrian is an extreme case which may have occurred because of a major change in the environment, as above, and my point is that the changes created new opportunities and new demands. [You omitted this important comment.]
[…]
DAVID: The oxygen level increase was very large, but it drove nothing. It allowed more energy use, IF new forms which needed it, when evolved, were to survive. (Note subjunctive tense.)
If you believe in common descent, as opposed to separate creation, then all new organisms (apart from the very first few forms or one) are descended from earlier organisms. Put the above two comments together and you have new conditions which either require (= demands) or allow (= opportunities) existing organisms to restructure themselves as they find new ways to improve their chances of survival. Demands directly drive change, opportunities allow change, but in both cases the “immediate driving force”, to quote your own apt description, is to improve chances of survival.
dhw: If you do not think whale flippers, monarch migration and cuttlefish camouflage were produced in order to improve chances of survival, but were all simply stages on the way to your God’s special design of the human brain, then please tell us how they are related to the human brain.
DAVID: Silly thought. All of the evolutionary developments lead to Humans. That is history. Flippers or gills have no direct relationship to brains, except both exist in the same body.
dhw: Of course it’s a silly thought. That is the point. Whale flippers, monarch migration and cuttlefish camouflage do NOT lead to human brains! Their direct purpose was to improve those creatures’ chances of survival: what you call the “immediate driving force”.
DAVID: I still will point out, an evolved form must be capable of survival if evolution is to progress. What creates the required genomic changes is what drives evolution, survival simply a requirement.
No-one will disagree that life and individual species, lifestyles and natural wonders can’t go on if they don’t survive! That is why flippers, migration and camouflage have evolved (though you think they were all specially designed): because survival is a requirement, and a requirement is what you so eloquently call an “immediate driving force”. Why do you keep ignoring your own observation?
dhw: Factual history is vast numbers of organisms, lifestyles and natural wonders extant and extinct, with H. sapiens the most recent arrival. The rest is speculation. If God exists, then he masterminded evolution. That does not mean he designed every life form etc. in order to design humans! You accepted that all my alternative hypotheses are possible (= pax), but a few days later you go back to your fixed belief, which you don’t try to understand because you know it doesn’t make sense.
DAVID: I don't try to explain it, because I ACCEPT it as God's choice. Makes perfect sense to me.
It makes sense to you and to me that if God exists, he chose to create a system which would produce billions of life forms, lifestyles and natural wonders. What neither you nor I can understand is why he would choose to create such a system if his one and only purpose was to produce the brain of H. sapiens. (See below.) Hence all the logical alternatives which you accept as possible but which you reject because you have a fixed belief.
dhw: (Under “Not enough time”): As for “time”, this is used to discredit the hypothesis of random mutations, which we both reject. I agree that the problem disappears if your God preprogrammed or personally manipulated the reproductive systems of different dragonflies – but why he bothered is beyond our comprehension if his one and only purpose was to produce the brain of H. sapiens.
DAVID: Not 'beyond our comprehension', only yours in this discussion.
Then please explain why your God preprogrammed or dabbled all the different reproductive systems for dragonflies if his sole purpose was to produce the brain of H. sapiens. And please don’t tell us you don’t “try” to explain it. If it is comprehensible to you, then you must have an explanation.
dhw: The problem also disappears if your God endowed the dragonflies’ cell communities with the intelligence to manipulate their reproductive systems – and then we don’t need to cudgel our H. sapiens brain as to why he would bother if his sole purpose was to produce that brain.
DAVID: I firmly believe God designed most of everything which obviously needs to be designed.
And according to your many posts on the subject, this includes every innovation, lifestyle and natural wonder in the history of life. I am aware of your fixed beliefs and also of the fact that you reject any hypothesis that offers a logical explanation of those aspects of your beliefs that defy logic. (See above.) The term for such beliefs is “dogma” (= a set of firm beliefs held by people who expect other people to accept these beliefs without thinking about them). You are an expert in using logic to question the dogma of atheists such as Dawkins, and also to support your belief in God, but you seem strangely reluctant to use it when discussing your fixed beliefs about your God’s possible purposes and methods.
Big brain evolution: comparing chimp and brain organoids
by David Turell , Wednesday, February 20, 2019, 22:06 (1885 days ago) @ dhw
dhw: If you believe in common descent, as opposed to separate creation, then all new organisms (apart from the very first few forms or one) are descended from earlier organisms. Put the above two comments together and you have new conditions which either require (= demands) or allow (= opportunities) existing organisms to restructure themselves as they find new ways to improve their chances of survival. Demands directly drive change, opportunities allow change, but in both cases the “immediate driving force”, to quote your own apt description, is to improve chances of survival.
From my standpoint, you are totally backwards, by agnostically ignoring God's role.."Demands directly drive" are pure Darwinism unproven theory. I view God as the designer and prime driver of Evolution. Therefore survival is an important part of how He designs the next stage in evolution, but it is always of secondary consideration compared to the design of the next more complex stage with must include provisions for necessary survival.
dhw: Then please explain why your God preprogrammed or dabbled all the different reproductive systems for dragonflies if his sole purpose was to produce the brain of H. sapiens. And please don’t tell us you don’t “try” to explain it. If it is comprehensible to you, then you must have an explanation.
You are forcing me to repeat my series of logical thoughts.God chose to design/evolve every form of life until the process produced H. sapiens. That comes from a preliminary analysis that life is much too complex to have arrived by chance, therefore had a first cause, and it had to be a mind/designer. Since I feel a chance-driven evolution cannot arrive at H. sapiens it must be the goal of the designer. I view the Cambrian 'gap' no larger than the ape/human 'gap'.
dhw: The problem also disappears if your God endowed the dragonflies’ cell communities with the intelligence to manipulate their reproductive systems – and then we don’t need to cudgel our H. sapiens brain as to why he would bother if his sole purpose was to produce that brain.DAVID: I firmly believe God designed most of everything which obviously needs to be designed.
dhw: And according to your many posts on the subject, this includes every innovation, lifestyle and natural wonder in the history of life. I am aware of your fixed beliefs and also of the fact that you reject any hypothesis that offers a logical explanation of those aspects of your beliefs that defy logic. (See above.) The term for such beliefs is “dogma” (= a set of firm beliefs held by people who expect other people to accept these beliefs without thinking about them). You are an expert in using logic to question the dogma of atheists such as Dawkins, and also to support your belief in God, but you seem strangely reluctant to use it when discussing your fixed beliefs about your God’s possible purposes and methods.
And just why can't I be fixed for myself? I've agreed your views are logical, but only if God is not the designer.
Big brain evolution: comparing chimp and brain organoids
dhw: If you believe in common descent, as opposed to separate creation, then all new organisms (apart from the very first few forms or one) are descended from earlier organisms. Put the above two comments together and you have new conditions which either require (= demands) or allow (= opportunities) existing organisms to restructure themselves as they find new ways to improve their chances of survival. Demands directly drive change, opportunities allow change, but in both cases the “immediate driving force”, to quote your own apt description, is to improve chances of survival.
DAVID: From my standpoint, you are totally backwards, by agnostically ignoring God's role. "Demands directly drive" are pure Darwinism unproven theory. I view God as the designer and prime driver of Evolution. Therefore survival is an important part of how He designs the next stage in evolution, but it is always of secondary consideration compared to the design of the next more complex stage with must include provisions for necessary survival.
Back you go to your hatred of Darwin. Of course demands/needs/requirements directly drive. Hunger directly drives you to look for food, danger directly drives you to look for protection, disease directly drives you to look for a cure, so why do you think the need to survive did not directly lead to the invention of flippers to improve pre-whales’ chances of survival in water, camouflage for cuttlefish to escape predators, migration for monarch butterflies to escape from the cold? You are wriggling around trying to forget your own acknowledgement that survival was the “immediate driving force” for all of these. The fact that you consider this “secondary” to your belief that God wanted them to eat or not eat one another so that life could continue until he could specially design the brain of H. sapiens does not mean an immediate driving force is not a driving force! (You also keep refusing to acknowledge that ALL our theories and hypotheses are “unproven” because if they were proven they would be facts and not theories – see “Genome complexity” – and you keep refusing to acknowledge my agreement with you that if God exists, of course he is the designer and prime driver of Evolution. That is why all the hypotheses I have offered you include your God.)
dhw: Then please explain why your God preprogrammed or dabbled all the different reproductive systems for dragonflies if his sole purpose was to produce the brain of H. sapiens. And please don’t tell us you don’t “try” to explain it. If it is comprehensible to you, then you must have an explanation.
DAVID: You are forcing me to repeat my series of logical thoughts.God chose to design/evolve every form of life until the process produced H. sapiens. That comes from a preliminary analysis that life is much too complex to have arrived by chance, therefore had a first cause, and it had to be a mind/designer. Since I feel a chance-driven evolution cannot arrive at H. sapiens it must be the goal of the designer. I view the Cambrian 'gap' no larger than the ape/human 'gap'.
I have never questioned the logic of life being too complex to have arisen by chance, and I do not believe that chance-driven evolution could have arrived at dinosaurs or elephants or humans or dragonflies, and nor do you because you say he specially designed every species, lifestyle and natural wonder. That does not mean humans were his one and only goal. I have asked you to explain why he specially designed different dragonfly reproductive systems if his sole purpose was to specially design H. sapiens. You had written that it was “not ‘beyond our comprehension’, only yours in this discussion.” So once more, please explain it.
Dhw: You are an expert in using logic to question the dogma of atheists such as Dawkins, and also to support your belief in God, but you seem strangely reluctant to use it when discussing your fixed beliefs about your God’s possible purposes and methods.
DAVID: And just why can't I be fixed for myself? I've agreed your views are logical, but only if God is not the designer.
Of course you can be fixed, but the point of our discussions is to exchange views and to test how feasible they are. As for the different hypotheses I have offered, every single one allows for God being the designer, and every single one removes the great gap in your own: why would your God have specially designed billions of life forms, lifestyles and natural wonders if his sole purpose was to specially design the brain of H. sapiens?
Big brain evolution: comparing chimp and brain organoids
by David Turell , Thursday, February 21, 2019, 19:58 (1884 days ago) @ dhw
DAVID: From my standpoint, you are totally backwards, by agnostically ignoring God's role. "Demands directly drive" are pure Darwinism unproven theory. I view God as the designer and prime driver of Evolution. Therefore survival is an important part of how He designs the next stage in evolution, but it is always of secondary consideration compared to the design of the next more complex stage with must include provisions for necessary survival.
dhw: Back you go to your hatred of Darwin.
I don't hate Darwin. I hate Darwinism, the stupid result of his thoughts being bastardized. He did base his theory on survivability, which has never been proven.
dhw: Of course demands/needs/requirements directly drive. Hunger directly drives you to look for food, danger directly drives you to look for protection, disease directly drives you to look for a cure, so why do you think the need to survive did not directly lead to the invention of flippers to improve pre-whales’ chances of survival in water, camouflage for cuttlefish to escape predators, migration for monarch butterflies to escape from the cold?
You are still ignoring my primary point. God is running evolution in my view. God decides on the advances, and provides for survival in His designs as a primary requirement of His design. You want survival to be primary. I don't accept that view.
dhw: You are wriggling around trying to forget your own acknowledgement that survival was the “immediate driving force” for all of these. The fact that you consider this “secondary” to your belief that God wanted them to eat or not eat one another so that life could continue until he could specially design the brain of H. sapiens does not mean an immediate driving force is not a driving force!
It must be a primary consideration for God as He designs.
dhw: you keep refusing to acknowledge my agreement with you that if God exists, of course he is the designer and prime driver of Evolution. That is why all the hypotheses I have offered you include your God.
I accept that you look at the possibility God exists. Why wouldn't you as a agnostic?
DAVID: You are forcing me to repeat my series of logical thoughts.God chose to design/evolve every form of life until the process produced H. sapiens. That comes from a preliminary analysis that life is much too complex to have arrived by chance, therefore had a first cause, and it had to be a mind/designer. Since I feel a chance-driven evolution cannot arrive at H. sapiens it must be the goal of the designer. I view the Cambrian 'gap' no larger than the ape/human 'gap'.
dhw: I have never questioned the logic of life being too complex to have arisen by chance, and I do not believe that chance-driven evolution could have arrived at dinosaurs or elephants or humans or dragonflies, and nor do you because you say he specially designed every species, lifestyle and natural wonder. That does not mean humans were his one and only goal. I have asked you to explain why he specially designed different dragonfly reproductive systems if his sole purpose was to specially design H. sapiens. You had written that it was “not ‘beyond our comprehension’, only yours in this discussion.” So once more, please explain it.
Ad nauseum. Part of the food supply balance of nature.
Dhw: You are an expert in using logic to question the dogma of atheists such as Dawkins, and also to support your belief in God, but you seem strangely reluctant to use it when discussing your fixed beliefs about your God’s possible purposes and methods.DAVID: And just why can't I be fixed for myself? I've agreed your views are logical, but only if God is not the designer.
dhw: Of course you can be fixed, but the point of our discussions is to exchange views and to test how feasible they are. As for the different hypotheses I have offered, every single one allows for God being the designer, and every single one removes the great gap in your own: why would your God have specially designed billions of life forms, lifestyles and natural wonders if his sole purpose was to specially design the brain of H. sapiens?
No gap. Balance of Nature, explained over and over.
Big brain evolution: comparing chimp and brain organoids
DAVID: From my standpoint, you are totally backwards, by agnostically ignoring God's role. "Demands directly drive" are pure Darwinism unproven theory. I view God as the designer and prime driver of Evolution. Therefore survival is an important part of how He designs the next stage in evolution, but it is always of secondary consideration compared to the design of the next more complex stage with must include provisions for necessary survival.
dhw: Back you go to your hatred of Darwin.
DAVID: I don't hate Darwin. I hate Darwinism, the stupid result of his thoughts being bastardized. He did base his theory on survivability, which has never been proven.
I have tried to explain below why survivability is sheer common sense. You have agreed to this and have called it an “immediate driving force”.
dhw: Of course demands/needs/requirements directly drive. Hunger directly drives you to look for food, danger directly drives you to look for protection, disease directly drives you to look for a cure, so why do you think the need to survive did not directly lead to the invention of flippers to improve pre-whales’ chances of survival in water, camouflage for cuttlefish to escape predators, migration for monarch butterflies to escape from the cold?
DAVID: You are still ignoring my primary point. God is running evolution in my view. God decides on the advances, and provides for survival in His designs as a primary requirement of His design. You want survival to be primary. I don't accept that view.
If, in your view of evolution, survival was a primary requirement of his design, then survival was a primary purpose for his designing the flippers, camouflage and migration. In most people's eyes, including your own, purpose would be regarded as a driving force. The fact that you believe his primary purpose in designing them and all the other products of life and evolution extant and extinct was to keep life going until he could design the brain of H. sapiens does not alter the fact that a "primary requirement" amounts to a primary “immediate driving force” (your own words). The accumulation of all these innovations, lifestyles and natural wonders constitutes the history of evolution. That does not contradict your theory that “God is running evolution”.
dhw: ...you keep refusing to acknowledge my agreement with you that if God exists, of course he is the designer and prime driver of Evolution. That is why all the hypotheses I have offered you include your God.
DAVID: I accept that you look at the possibility God exists. Why wouldn't you as a agnostic?
Then please stop implying that my agnosticism in some way attempts to exclude God, as in such statements as “I’ve agreed your views are logical, but only if God is not the designer.” See my Chixculub comment below.
dhw: I have asked you to explain why he specially designed different dragonfly reproductive systems if his sole purpose was to specially design H. sapiens. You had written that it was “not ‘beyond our comprehension’, only yours in this discussion.” So once more, please explain it.
DAVID: Ad nauseum. Part of the food supply balance of nature.
We have agreed ad nauseam that all organisms need food, the balance of nature has constantly changed throughout the history of life, it always depends on conditions and a particular hierarchy of organisms, and has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the argument that your God’s sole purpose from the very beginning was to design the brain of H. sapiens. Or do you honestly believe that your God could not have designed the brain of H. sapiens if he hadn’t designed particular econiches in which dragonflies had different reproductive systems?
DAVID: (under “Chixculub and volcanoes”: Whatever the cause dinosaurs had to go to allow mammals to proliferate.
Yes, when Chixculub struck, the balance of nature changed, which of course makes us wonder why he would have bothered to specially design dinosaurs in the first place if his one and only purpose was to specially design the brain of H. sapiens. You accept the logic of my different explanations – e.g. this was not his one and only purpose, or he didn’t specially design the dinosaurs, the flippers, the slug poison and the different dragonfly reproductive systems (but may have designed the mechanism that enabled the organisms to do their own designing), or he didn’t know how to achieve his one and only purpose, or the purpose did not occur to him until late in the process - but for some reason you think all of these remove your God as the designer.
Big brain evolution: comparing chimp and brain organoids
by David Turell , Friday, February 22, 2019, 14:51 (1884 days ago) @ dhw
dhw: I have tried to explain below why survivability is sheer common sense. You have agreed to this and have called it an “immediate driving force”.
It is an immediate design requirement. It doesn't drive God's evolution.
DAVID: You are still ignoring my primary point. God is running evolution in my view. God decides on the advances, and provides for survival in His designs as a primary requirement of His design. You want survival to be primary. I don't accept that view.dhw: If, in your view of evolution, survival was a primary requirement of his design, then survival was a primary purpose for his designing the flippers, camouflage and migration. In most people's eyes, including your own, purpose would be regarded as a driving force. The fact that you believe his primary purpose in designing them and all the other products of life and evolution extant and extinct was to keep life going until he could design the brain of H. sapiens does not alter the fact that a "primary requirement" amounts to a primary “immediate driving force” (your own words). The accumulation of all these innovations, lifestyles and natural wonders constitutes the history of evolution. That does not contradict your theory that “God is running evolution”.
Thank you for a moderate view of survival's role in evolution which accepts my view of the importance of survival and puts 'survival of the fittest' in proper perspective.
dhw: I have asked you to explain why he specially designed different dragonfly reproductive systems if his sole purpose was to specially design H. sapiens. You had written that it was “not ‘beyond our comprehension’, only yours in this discussion.” So once more, please explain it.DAVID: Ad nauseum. Part of the food supply balance of nature.
dhw: We have agreed ad nauseam that all organisms need food, the balance of nature has constantly changed throughout the history of life, it always depends on conditions and a particular hierarchy of organisms, and has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the argument that your God’s sole purpose from the very beginning was to design the brain of H. sapiens. Or do you honestly believe that your God could not have designed the brain of H. sapiens if he hadn’t designed particular econiches in which dragonflies had different reproductive systems?
I can only return to God's choice to evolve humans over eons of time and econiches are necessary.
DAVID: (under “Chixculub and volcanoes”: Whatever the cause dinosaurs had to go to allow mammals to proliferate.dhw: Yes, when Chixculub struck, the balance of nature changed, which of course makes us wonder why he would have bothered to specially design dinosaurs in the first place if his one and only purpose was to specially design the brain of H. sapiens. You accept the logic of my different explanations – e.g. this was not his one and only purpose, or he didn’t specially design the dinosaurs, the flippers, the slug poison and the different dragonfly reproductive systems (but may have designed the mechanism that enabled the organisms to do their own designing), or he didn’t know how to achieve his one and only purpose, or the purpose did not occur to him until late in the process - but for some reason you think all of these remove your God as the designer.
No, I fully accept that Chixculub alters the course of evolution and may have been used by God to make that correction. And I fully accept that God may have limitations as you describe. I do not accept organisms self-design abilities unless under God's guidelines, which you keep trying to sneak in without guidelines. All the above are possible interpretations of God in his designer role. Also I will not go so far to think God did not know how to evolve humans , but had to learn the process. Your proposals about the weaknesses of God are all mildly possible, but the results of creation strongly suggest God is much more powerful than your diminishing concepts of Him as designer.
dhw:Big brain evolution: comparing chimp and brain organoids
dhw: I have tried to explain below why survivability is sheer common sense. You have agreed to this and have called it an “immediate driving force”.
DAVID: It is an immediate design requirement. It doesn't drive God's evolution.
If God exists, then he is the driving force behind evolution. But even if it were true that his only purpose was to design the human brain, and even if it were true that he specially designed flippers, camouflage and migration, the reason he did so was to improve the organisms’ chances of survival. The reason for doing something is, in your own words, its “immediate driving force”.
DAVID: You are still ignoring my primary point. God is running evolution in my view. God decides on the advances, and provides for survival in His designs as a primary requirement of His design. You want survival to be primary. I don't accept that view.
dhw: If, in your view of evolution, survival was a primary requirement of his design, then survival was a primary purpose for his designing the flippers, camouflage and migration. In most people's eyes, including your own, purpose would be regarded as a driving force. [etc.]
DAVID: Thank you for a moderate view of survival's role in evolution which accepts my view of the importance of survival and puts 'survival of the fittest' in proper perspective.
We have long since agreed that “survival of the fittest” is a tautology that simply means the survivors are fit to survive. Nothing to do with your agreement that survival is a “primary requirement”. Thank you for accepting my view of the primary importance of survival as the “immediate driving force” for the invention of innovations, lifestyles and natural wonders. Now please let's stop all this quibbling and move on.
dhw: I have asked you to explain why he specially designed different dragonfly reproductive systems if his sole purpose was to specially design H. sapiens. You had written that it was “not ‘beyond our comprehension’, only yours in this discussion.”
DAVID: Ad nauseum. Part of the food supply balance of nature.
dhw: […] do you honestly believe that your God could not have designed the brain of H. sapiens if he hadn’t designed particular econiches in which dragonflies had different reproductive systems?
DAVID: I can only return to God's choice to evolve humans over eons of time and econiches are necessary.
Econiches are necessary for all forms of life extinct and extant. Nothing to do with your anthropocentric view of evolution. If you can “only return” to repeating your fixed belief and cannot explain the role of dragonfly reproduction systems in your God’s design of the human brain, then please stop telling us it all makes sense to you.
DAVID: (under “Chixculub and volcanoes”: Whatever the cause dinosaurs had to go to allow mammals to proliferate.
dhw: Yes, when Chixculub struck, the balance of nature changed, which of course makes us wonder why he would have bothered to specially design dinosaurs in the first place if his one and only purpose was to specially design the brain of H. sapiens. You accept the logic of my different explanations – e.g. this was not his one and only purpose, or he didn’t specially design the dinosaurs, the flippers, the slug poison and the different dragonfly reproductive systems (but may have designed the mechanism that enabled the organisms to do their own designing), or he didn’t know how to achieve his one and only purpose, or the purpose did not occur to him until late in the process - but for some reason you think all of these remove your God as the designer.
DAVID: No, I fully accept that Chixculub alters the course of evolution and may have been used by God to make that correction. And I fully accept that God may have limitations as you describe. I do not accept organisms self-design abilities unless under God's guidelines, which you keep trying to sneak in without guidelines. All the above are possible interpretations of God in his designer role. Also I will not go so far to think God did not know how to evolve humans , but had to learn the process. Your proposals about the weaknesses of God are all mildly possible, but the results of creation strongly suggest God is much more powerful than your diminishing concepts of Him as designer.
Firstly, more contradictions: you “fully accept” that your God may have limitations, but you do not accept the possibility (= limitation) that he didn’t know how to fulfil the purpose you have imposed on him. Your acceptance that weaknesses (limitations) are mildly possible hardly amounts to “fully accepting” the possibility of weaknesses (limitations). Secondly, however, my views are not “diminishing concepts of Him as designer” – they are hypotheses to bridge the logical gap in your reasoning, as exemplified by the dragonfly example. These hypotheses include God having full power (= no weaknesses or limitations), and choosing to endow life forms with the ability to do their own designing, as opposed to their automatically picking out the correct instructions from his 3.8-billion-year-old library of complete information and instructions for the whole of undabbled evolution - which you keep trying to “sneak in” under the guise of “guidelines”.
dhw:Big brain evolution: comparing chimp and brain organoids
by David Turell , Saturday, February 23, 2019, 18:16 (1883 days ago) @ dhw
dhw: I have tried to explain below why survivability is sheer common sense. You have agreed to this and have called it an “immediate driving force”.
DAVID: It is an immediate design requirement. It doesn't drive God's evolution.
dhw: If God exists, then he is the driving force behind evolution. But even if it were true that his only purpose was to design the human brain, and even if it were true that he specially designed flippers, camouflage and migration, the reason he did so was to improve the organisms’ chances of survival. The reason for doing something is, in your own words, its “immediate driving force”.
God is the driving force, survival an immediate need in design.
DAVID: You are still ignoring my primary point. God is running evolution in my view. God decides on the advances, and provides for survival in His designs as a primary requirement of His design. You want survival to be primary. I don't accept that view.dhw: If, in your view of evolution, survival was a primary requirement of his design, then survival was a primary purpose for his designing the flippers, camouflage and migration. In most people's eyes, including your own, purpose would be regarded as a driving force. [etc.]
DAVID: Thank you for a moderate view of survival's role in evolution which accepts my view of the importance of survival and puts 'survival of the fittest' in proper perspective.
dhw: We have long since agreed that “survival of the fittest” is a tautology that simply means the survivors are fit to survive. Nothing to do with your agreement that survival is a “primary requirement”. Thank you for accepting my view of the primary importance of survival as the “immediate driving force” for the invention of innovations, lifestyles and natural wonders. Now please let's stop all this quibbling and move on.
You are still quibbling as in the bold. Survival as an 'immediate requirement of design' is fine with me.
dhw: […] do you honestly believe that your God could not have designed the brain of H. sapiens if he hadn’t designed particular econiches in which dragonflies had different reproductive systems?DAVID: I can only return to God's choice to evolve humans over eons of time and econiches are necessary.
dhw: Econiches are necessary for all forms of life extinct and extant. Nothing to do with your anthropocentric view of evolution. If you can “only return” to repeating your fixed belief and cannot explain the role of dragonfly reproduction systems in your God’s design of the human brain, then please stop telling us it all makes sense to you.
To answer the above: There are a great variety of econiches which are simply God's method of supplying energy for life to survive as it evolves over time. That is the only relationship to the human brain. Your debate point tries to take my logic to an illogical extreme and fails.
DAVID: (under “Chixculub and volcanoes”: Whatever the cause dinosaurs had to go to allow mammals to proliferate.
DAVID: No, I fully accept that Chixculub alters the course of evolution and may have been used by God to make that correction. And I fully accept that God may have limitations as you describe. I do not accept organisms self-design abilities unless under God's guidelines, which you keep trying to sneak in without guidelines. All the above are possible interpretations of God in his designer role. Also I will not go so far to think God did not know how to evolve humans , but had to learn the process. Your proposals about the weaknesses of God are all mildly possible, but the results of creation strongly suggest God is much more powerful than your diminishing concepts of Him as designer.
dhw: Firstly, more contradictions: you “fully accept” that your God may have limitations, but you do not accept the possibility (= limitation) that he didn’t know how to fulfil the purpose you have imposed on him. Your acceptance that weaknesses (limitations) are mildly possible hardly amounts to “fully accepting” the possibility of weaknesses (limitations). Secondly, however, my views are not “diminishing concepts of Him as designer” – they are hypotheses to bridge the logical gap in your reasoning, as exemplified by the dragonfly example. These hypotheses include God having full power (= no weaknesses or limitations), and choosing to endow life forms with the ability to do their own designing, as opposed to their automatically picking out the correct instructions from his 3.8-billion-year-old library of complete information and instructions for the whole of undabbled evolution - which you keep trying to “sneak in” under the guise of “guidelines”.
Logically, from my belief that God is in full control, which is on faith, I can recognize the theoretical views that He somehow has possible limits as logical objections from someone who does not have faith. That is how I 'accept', with a different view of the word 'accept' than you have. In my position that God drives evolution, of course He has guidelines. My acceptance agrees that your objections are logical, but I continue to follow what I believe.
dhw:Big brain evolution: comparing chimp and brain organoids
dhw: If God exists, then he is the driving force behind evolution. But even if it were true that his only purpose was to design the human brain, and even if it were true that he specially designed flippers, camouflage and migration, the reason he did so was to improve the organisms’ chances of survival. The reason for doing something is, in your own words, its “immediate driving force”.
DAVID: God is the driving force, survival an immediate need in design.
I have just said that if God exists he is the driving force behind evolution. He is the doer, and an immediate need or purpose is the driving force behind the doer’s actions. Why do you insist on changing your own description of this as the “immediate driving force”?
dhw: […] Thank you for accepting my view of the primary importance of survival as the “immediate driving force” for the invention of innovations, lifestyles and natural wonders. Now please let's stop all this quibbling and move on.
DAVID: You are still quibbling as in the bold. Survival as an 'immediate requirement of design' is fine with me.
You agree that survival is a “primary requirement”, you can hardly disagree that the primary purpose of flippers, camouflage and migration is to improve the organisms’ chances of survival, and you have called this the “immediate driving force”. I agree with you. So why can’t you agree with yourself?
dhw: […] do you honestly believe that your God could not have designed the brain of H. sapiens if he hadn’t designed particular econiches in which dragonflies had different reproductive systems?
DAVID: I can only return to God's choice to evolve humans over eons of time and econiches are necessary.
dhw: Econiches are necessary for all forms of life extinct and extant. Nothing to do with your anthropocentric view of evolution. If you can “only return” to repeating your fixed belief and cannot explain the role of dragonfly reproduction systems in your God’s design of the human brain, then please stop telling us it all makes sense to you.
DAVID: To answer the above: There are a great variety of econiches which are simply God's method of supplying energy for life to survive as it evolves over time. That is the only relationship to the human brain. Your debate point tries to take my logic to an illogical extreme and fails.
I asked you why he designed different dragonfly reproductive systems if his one and only purpose was to design the human brain. Back you went to econiches, and now you say their purpose is to pass time. This has no link to the one and only purpose you have imposed on your God, which was to design the brain of H. sapiens. There is no link, and you have failed to answer my question. Perfectly understandable, since the two hypotheses put together make no sense, even to you.
DAVID: Logically, from my belief that God is in full control, which is on faith, I can recognize the theoretical views that He somehow has possible limits as logical objections from someone who does not have faith. That is how I 'accept', with a different view of the word 'accept' than you have. In my position that God drives evolution, of course He has guidelines. My acceptance agrees that your objections are logical, but I continue to follow what I believe.
If God exists, of course he drives evolution, but not necessarily in the way or for the purpose you impose on him. And that is the nub of the matter. You accept the logic of my objections to your hypothesis but you refuse to budge. That is the essence of dogma.
DAVID: (from the gene complexity thread) You like a slightly impotent God.
dhw: […] there is no impotence involved if God chooses to give evolution free rein through his design of an autonomous mechanism (cellular intelligence), as opposed to providing a 3.8-billion-year-old library of information and instructions for every single undabbled life form, lifestyle and natural wonder, plus solutions for every single problem that bacteria would have to solve for the rest of time.
DAVID: You do not see a purposeful God as I do. If He is driven to achieve certain goals He will keep tight control.
If I believed in God, I would see him as all purposeful. But (a) since your theory that his one and only goal was you and me is logically incompatible with his 3.5+ billion years’ worth of anything but you and me, I challenge it, and (b) since you firmly believe in free will, it should be obvious to you that he did not wish to keep tight control over at least one product of evolution, and so it is feasible that he might not have wished to keep tight control over the evolutionary process either. And you are sure that he enjoys his creations, just as a painter enjoys his paintings, but you are unwilling to even countenance the idea that he might have started the whole higgledy-piggledy process for his enjoyment. (The word was yours. I would prefer to delve a little deeper.)
dhw:Big brain evolution: comparing chimp and brain organoids
by David Turell , Sunday, February 24, 2019, 14:52 (1882 days ago) @ dhw
DAVID: God is the driving force, survival an immediate need in design.
dhw: have just said that if God exists he is the driving force behind evolution. He is the doer, and an immediate need or purpose is the driving force behind the doer’s actions. Why do you insist on changing your own description of this as the “immediate driving force”?
Because there is a nuance of difference. You agree God is the driver. Survival must be achieved by His new organisms as they are created. The survival requirement drives His design.
dhw: […] do you honestly believe that your God could not have designed the brain of H. sapiens if he hadn’t designed particular econiches in which dragonflies had different reproductive systems?
DAVID: I can only return to God's choice to evolve humans over eons of time and econiches are necessary.
dhw: Econiches are necessary for all forms of life extinct and extant. Nothing to do with your anthropocentric view of evolution. If you can “only return” to repeating your fixed belief and cannot explain the role of dragonfly reproduction systems in your God’s design of the human brain, then please stop telling us it all makes sense to you.
Its role is balance of nature. Stop describing what 'doesn't make sense to me'. I make my own sense.
DAVID: To answer the above: There are a great variety of econiches which are simply God's method of supplying energy for life to survive as it evolves over time. That is the only relationship to the human brain. Your debate point tries to take my logic to an illogical extreme and fails.dhw: I asked you why he designed different dragonfly reproductive systems if his one and only purpose was to design the human brain. Back you went to econiches, and now you say their purpose is to pass time. This has no link to the one and only purpose you have imposed on your God, which was to design the brain of H. sapiens. There is no link, and you have failed to answer my question. Perfectly understandable, since the two hypotheses put together make no sense, even to you.
Of course there is no direct link between fireflies and human brains. It is all part of evolution as I view it. To repeat, I make perfect sense to me.
DAVID: Logically, from my belief that God is in full control, which is on faith, I can recognize the theoretical views that He somehow has possible limits as logical objections from someone who does not have faith. That is how I 'accept', with a different view of the word 'accept' than you have. In my position that God drives evolution, of course He has guidelines. My acceptance agrees that your objections are logical, but I continue to follow what I believe.dhw: If God exists, of course he drives evolution, but not necessarily in the way or for the purpose you impose on him. And that is the nub of the matter. You accept the logic of my objections to your hypothesis but you refuse to budge. That is the essence of dogma.
i won't budge. I am n ot agnostic.
DAVID: (from the gene complexity thread) You like a slightly impotent God.dhw: […] there is no impotence involved if God chooses to give evolution free rein through his design of an autonomous mechanism (cellular intelligence), as opposed to providing a 3.8-billion-year-old library of information and instructions for every single undabbled life form, lifestyle and natural wonder, plus solutions for every single problem that bacteria would have to solve for the rest of time.
DAVID: You do not see a purposeful God as I do. If He is driven to achieve certain goals He will keep tight control.
dhw: If I believed in God, I would see him as all purposeful. But (a) since your theory that his one and only goal was you and me is logically incompatible with his 3.5+ billion years’ worth of anything but you and me, I challenge it, and (b) since you firmly believe in free will, it should be obvious to you that he did not wish to keep tight control over at least one product of evolution, and so it is feasible that he might not have wished to keep tight control over the evolutionary process either. And you are sure that he enjoys his creations, just as a painter enjoys his paintings, but you are unwilling to even countenance the idea that he might have started the whole higgledy-piggledy process for his enjoyment. (The word was yours. I would prefer to delve a little deeper.)
But you don't believe in God. In that point of view I agree all of your thoughts have logic, but your thoughts don't change my mind.
dhw:Big brain evolution: comparing chimp and brain organoids
DAVID: God is the driving force, survival an immediate need in design.
dhw: I have just said that if God exists he is the driving force behind evolution. He is the doer, and an immediate need or purpose is the driving force behind the doer’s actions. Why do you insist on changing your own description of this as the “immediate driving force”?
DAVID: Because there is a nuance of difference. You agree God is the driver. Survival must be achieved by His new organisms as they are created. The survival requirement drives His design.
Exactly. Even in your own hypothesis, survival is the immediate force that drives his design (= immediate driving force) of the innovations, lifestyles and natural wonders that make up the history of evolution.
dhw: […] do you honestly believe that your God could not have designed the brain of H. sapiens if he hadn’t designed particular econiches in which dragonflies had different reproductive systems?
DAVID: I can only return to God's choice to evolve humans over eons of time and econiches are necessary.
dhw: Econiches are necessary for all forms of life extinct and extant. Nothing to do with your anthropocentric view of evolution. If you can “only return” to repeating your fixed belief and cannot explain the role of dragonfly reproduction systems in your God’s design of the human brain, then please stop telling us it all makes sense to you.
DAVID: Its role is balance of nature. Stop describing what 'doesn't make sense to me'. I make my own sense.
But you admit that you cannot explain why your God chose to design millions of niches, including those involving different dragonfly reproductive systems, when all he wanted to do was design the brain of H. sapiens.
DAVID: Of course there is no direct link between fireflies and human brains. It is all part of evolution as I view it. To repeat, I make perfect sense to me.
Of course it’s part of evolution, as is every other life form, lifestyle and innovation. But that does not explain why he “chose” to design them all when the ONLY thing he wanted to design, according to you, was the human brain.
dhw: If God exists, of course he drives evolution, but not necessarily in the way or for the purpose you impose on him. And that is the nub of the matter. You accept the logic of my objections to your hypothesis but you refuse to budge. That is the essence of dogma.
DAVID: I won't budge. I am not agnostic.
Nothing to do with agnosticism, since all the logical alternatives I have offered you are theistic.
DAVID: (from the "gene complexity" thread) You like a slightly impotent God.
dhw: […] there is no impotence involved if God chooses to give evolution free rein through his design of an autonomous mechanism (cellular intelligence), as opposed to providing a 3.8-billion-year-old library of information and instructions for every single undabbled life form, lifestyle and natural wonder, plus solutions for every single problem that bacteria would have to solve for the rest of time.
DAVID: You do not see a purposeful God as I do. If He is driven to achieve certain goals He will keep tight control.
dhw: If I believed in God, I would see him as all purposeful. But (a) since your theory that his one and only goal was you and me is logically incompatible with his 3.5+ billion years’ worth of anything but you and me, I challenge it, and (b) since you firmly believe in free will, it should be obvious to you that he did not wish to keep tight control over at least one product of evolution, and so it is feasible that he might not have wished to keep tight control over the evolutionary process either. And you are sure that he enjoys his creations, just as a painter enjoys his paintings, but you are unwilling to even countenance the idea that he might have started the whole higgledy-piggledy process for his enjoyment. (The word was yours. I would prefer to delve a little deeper.)
DAVID: But you don't believe in God. In that point of view I agree all of your thoughts have logic, but your thoughts don't change my mind.
Same answer as above. The “logical” thoughts I have offered you are all theistic. But I am satisfied with your earlier acknowledgements that you can't explain why your God chose to spend 3.5+ years not fulfilling his only purpose, and that all my alternative theistic explanations are logical and possible. I do not ask you to believe in any of them.
dhw:Big brain evolution: comparing chimp and brain organoids
by David Turell , Monday, February 25, 2019, 15:02 (1881 days ago) @ dhw
DAVID: Its role is balance of nature. Stop describing what 'doesn't make sense to me'. I make my own sense.
dhw: But you admit that you cannot explain why your God chose to design millions of niches, including those involving different dragonfly reproductive systems, when all he wanted to do was design the brain of H. sapiens.
But it is explained and you've agreed. If evolution is the method along the way everyone who survives has to eat.
DAVID: Of course there is no direct link between fireflies and human brains. It is all part of evolution as I view it. To repeat, I make perfect sense to me.dhw: Of course it’s part of evolution, as is every other life form, lifestyle and innovation. But that does not explain why he “chose” to design them all when the ONLY thing he wanted to design, according to you, was the human brain.
Quibbling. Econiches are needed for food supply. Each time you tell me I don't make sense to me I'll repeat the point.
DAVID: You do not see a purposeful God as I do. If He is driven to achieve certain goals He will keep tight control.dhw: If I believed in God, I would see him as all purposeful. But (a) since your theory that his one and only goal was you and me is logically incompatible with his 3.5+ billion years’ worth of anything but you and me, I challenge it, and (b) since you firmly believe in free will, it should be obvious to you that he did not wish to keep tight control over at least one product of evolution, and so it is feasible that he might not have wished to keep tight control over the evolutionary process either. And you are sure that he enjoys his creations, just as a painter enjoys his paintings, but you are unwilling to even countenance the idea that he might have started the whole higgledy-piggledy process for his enjoyment. (The word was yours. I would prefer to delve a little deeper.)
DAVID: But you don't believe in God. In that point of view I agree all of your thoughts have logic, but your thoughts don't change my mind.
dhw: Same answer as above. The “logical” thoughts I have offered you are all theistic. But I am satisfied with your earlier acknowledgements that you can't explain why your God chose to spend 3.5+ years not fulfilling his only purpose, and that all my alternative theistic explanations are logical and possible. I do not ask you to believe in any of them.
I am satisfied also. Within your frame of reference I recognize your thoughts are theistic and logical possibilities.
dhw:Big brain evolution: comparing chimp and brain organoids
dhw: But you admit that you cannot explain why your God chose to design millions of niches, including those involving different dragonfly reproductive systems, when all he wanted to do was design the brain of H. sapiens.
DAVID: But it is explained and you've agreed. If evolution is the method along the way everyone who survives has to eat.
The method along the way to what? I agree that all organisms have to eat. That does not explain why your always-in-control God chose to spend 3.5+ billion years designing millions of econiches, life forms, lifestyles and natural wonders if the ONLY thing he wanted to design was the brain of H. sapiens. And that is what you cannot explain, so you try to gloss it over with comments like the next one:
DAVID: Of course there is no direct link between fireflies and human brains. It is all part of evolution as I view it. To repeat, I make perfect sense to me.
dhw: Of course it’s part of evolution, as is every other life form, lifestyle and innovation. But that does not explain why he “chose” to design them all when the ONLY thing he wanted to design, according to you, was the human brain.
DAVID: Quibbling. Econiches are needed for food supply. Each time you tell me I don't make sense to me I'll repeat the point.
Yes, econiches are needed for food supply. Nothing whatsoever to do with your belief that God’s only purpose was to design our brains, so it does not explain why he spent 3.5+ billion years not designing the only thing he wanted to design.
Dhw: The “logical” thoughts I have offered you are all theistic. But I am satisfied with your earlier acknowledgements that you can't explain why your God chose to spend 3.5+ years not fulfilling his only purpose, and that all my alternative theistic explanations are logical and possible. I do not ask you to believe in any of them.
DAVID: I am satisfied also. Within your frame of reference I recognize your thoughts are theistic and logical possibilities.
Thank you. My frame of reference is exactly the same as yours: we agree that life exists, there have been countless econiches, lifestyles, natural wonders and life forms extant and extinct, of which humans are the latest, and there may be a God who created life.
dhw:Big brain evolution: comparing chimp and brain organoids
by David Turell , Tuesday, February 26, 2019, 15:53 (1880 days ago) @ dhw
dhw: But you admit that you cannot explain why your God chose to design millions of niches, including those involving different dragonfly reproductive systems, when all he wanted to do was design the brain of H. sapiens.
DAVID: But it is explained and you've agreed. If evolution is the method along the way everyone who survives has to eat.
dhw: The method along the way to what? I agree that all organisms have to eat. That does not explain why your always-in-control God chose to spend 3.5+ billion years designing millions of econiches, life forms, lifestyles and natural wonders if the ONLY thing he wanted to design was the brain of H. sapiens. And that is what you cannot explain, so you try to gloss it over with comments like the next one:
I don't gloss over the issue. You want to have me give you an explanation as to why God evolved humans over time. Of course I can't explain it, as you note, because I view it as God's decision to achieve His goals through evolution. That is my explanation: it was God's choice.
DAVID: Of course there is no direct link between fireflies and human brains. It is all part of evolution as I view it. To repeat, I make perfect sense to me.dhw: Of course it’s part of evolution, as is every other life form, lifestyle and innovation. But that does not explain why he “chose” to design them all when the ONLY thing he wanted to design, according to you, was the human brain.
DAVID: Quibbling. Econiches are needed for food supply. Each time you tell me I don't make sense to me I'll repeat the point.
dhw: Yes, econiches are needed for food supply. Nothing whatsoever to do with your belief that God’s only purpose was to design our brains, so it does not explain why he spent 3.5+ billion years not designing the only thing he wanted to design.
The only way to solve the problem you have created as to why God used 3.5 billion years to create humans is ask God and He is not talking. Your human logic fights with the history of God's actions.
Dhw: The “logical” thoughts I have offered you are all theistic. But I am satisfied with your earlier acknowledgements that you can't explain why your God chose to spend 3.5+ years not fulfilling his only purpose, and that all my alternative theistic explanations are logical and possible. I do not ask you to believe in any of them.DAVID: I am satisfied also. Within your frame of reference I recognize your thoughts are theistic and logical possibilities.
dhw: Thank you. My frame of reference is exactly the same as yours: we agree that life exists, there have been countless econiches, lifestyles, natural wonders and life forms extant and extinct, of which humans are the latest, and there may be a God who created life.
And I would add, once life was started, God guided all the rest which has happened as you described.
dhw:Big brain evolution: comparing chimp and brain organoids
dhw: But you admit that you cannot explain why your God chose to design millions of niches, including those involving different dragonfly reproductive systems, when all he wanted to do was design the brain of H. sapiens.
DAVID: But it is explained and you've agreed. If evolution is the method along the way everyone who survives has to eat.
dhw: The method along the way to what? I agree that all organisms have to eat. That does not explain why your always-in-control God chose to spend 3.5+ billion years designing millions of econiches, life forms, lifestyles and natural wonders if the ONLY thing he wanted to design was the brain of H. sapiens. And that is what you cannot explain, so you try to gloss it over with comments like the next one:
DAVID: I don't gloss over the issue. You want to have me give you an explanation as to why God evolved humans over time. Of course I can't explain it, as you note, because I view it as God's decision to achieve His goals through evolution. That is my explanation: it was God's choice.
Of course if he exists he decided to achieve his goals through evolution. Why have you used the plural? According to you, there was only one goal: to produce the human brain. I have offered you four different theistic hypotheses to explain what you cannot explain, but in each case at least one element of your combined hypotheses (God always in control; one and only purpose to produce humans; preprogrammed or dabbled every single life form etc. in the history of life) has to be discarded. You have accepted their logic, but you insist on the one hypothesis that you cannot explain.
DAVID: Econiches are needed for food supply. Each time you tell me I don't make sense to me I'll repeat the point.
dhw: Yes, econiches are needed for food supply. Nothing whatsoever to do with your belief that God’s only purpose was to design our brains, so it does not explain why he spent 3.5+ billion years not designing the only thing he wanted to design.
DAVID: The only way to solve the problem you have created as to why God used 3.5 billion years to create humans is ask God and He is not talking. Your human logic fights with the history of God's actions.
You have created the problem! You have accepted the logic of four different interpretations of your God’s actions, but you insist on the combination of hypotheses which you cannot explain!
dhw: The “logical” thoughts I have offered you are all theistic. But I am satisfied with your earlier acknowledgements that you can't explain why your God chose to spend 3.5+ years not fulfilling his only purpose, and that all my alternative theistic explanations are logical and possible. I do not ask you to believe in any of them.
DAVID: I am satisfied also. Within your frame of reference I recognize your thoughts are theistic and logical possibilities.
dhw: Thank you. My frame of reference is exactly the same as yours: we agree that life exists, there have been countless econiches, lifestyles, natural wonders and life forms extant and extinct, of which humans are the latest, and there may be a God who created life.
DAVID: And I would add, once life was started, God guided all the rest which has happened as you described.
That is not a frame of reference but an interpretation of all the above and the focus of our discussion. Must I really repeat all the alternative theistic hypotheses which you have accepted as logical?
dhw:Big brain evolution: comparing chimp and brain organoids
by David Turell , Wednesday, February 27, 2019, 17:47 (1879 days ago) @ dhw
DAVID: I don't gloss over the issue. You want to have me give you an explanation as to why God evolved humans over time. Of course I can't explain it, as you note, because I view it as God's decision to achieve His goals through evolution. That is my explanation: it was God's choice.
dhw: Of course if he exists he decided to achieve his goals through evolution. Why have you used the plural? According to you, there was only one goal: to produce the human brain. I have offered you four different theistic hypotheses to explain what you cannot explain, but in each case at least one element of your combined hypotheses (God always in control; one and only purpose to produce humans; preprogrammed or dabbled every single life form etc. in the history of life) has to be discarded. You have accepted their logic, but you insist on the one hypothesis that you cannot explain.
You want the explanation. I don't need it since it was God's choice of action.
DAVID: Econiches are needed for food supply. Each time you tell me I don't make sense to me I'll repeat the point.dhw: Yes, econiches are needed for food supply. Nothing whatsoever to do with your belief that God’s only purpose was to design our brains, so it does not explain why he spent 3.5+ billion years not designing the only thing he wanted to design.
DAVID: The only way to solve the problem you have created as to why God used 3.5 billion years to create humans is ask God and He is not talking. Your human logic fights with the history of God's actions.
dhw: You have created the problem! You have accepted the logic of four different interpretations of your God’s actions, but you insist on the combination of hypotheses which you cannot explain!
I've explained how God covered the gap in time with econiche food supply. His choice of a gap in time in His choice. We can debate why He made that choice, but we'll not come up with a definite answer, only your other hypothesis which in their own way are logical possibilities.
dhw: The “logical” thoughts I have offered you are all theistic. But I am satisfied with your earlier acknowledgements that you can't explain why your God chose to spend 3.5+ years not fulfilling his only purpose, and that all my alternative theistic explanations are logical and possible. I do not ask you to believe in any of them.DAVID: I am satisfied also. Within your frame of reference I recognize your thoughts are theistic and logical possibilities.
dhw: Thank you. My frame of reference is exactly the same as yours: we agree that life exists, there have been countless econiches, lifestyles, natural wonders and life forms extant and extinct, of which humans are the latest, and there may be a God who created life.
DAVID: And I would add, once life was started, God guided all the rest which has happened as you described.
dhw: That is not a frame of reference but an interpretation of all the above and the focus of our discussion. Must I really repeat all the alternative theistic hypotheses which you have accepted as logical?
No, I'll stick to God in control.
dhw:Big brain evolution: comparing chimp and brain organoids
DAVID: I don't gloss over the issue. You want to have me give you an explanation as to why God evolved humans over time. Of course I can't explain it, as you note, because I view it as God's decision to achieve His goals through evolution. That is my explanation: it was God's choice.
dhw: Of course if he exists he decided to achieve his goals through evolution. Why have you used the plural? According to you, there was only one goal: to produce the human brain. I have offered you four different theistic hypotheses to explain what you cannot explain, but in each case at least one element of your combined hypotheses (God always in control; one and only purpose to produce humans; preprogrammed or dabbled every single life form etc. in the history of life) has to be discarded. You have accepted their logic, but you insist on the one hypothesis that you cannot explain.
DAVID: You want the explanation. I don't need it since it was God's choice of action.
You can’t explain why your God would have chosen to spend 3.5+ billion years not designing the only thing he wanted to design. You accept the logic behind different interpretations of the facts as we know them, but you happen to know they are all wrong because your inexplicable hypothesis is right.
DAVID: The only way to solve the problem you have created as to why God used 3.5 billion years to create humans is ask God and He is not talking. Your human logic fights with the history of God's actions.
dhw: You have created the problem! You have accepted the logic of four different interpretations of your God’s actions, but you insist on the combination of hypotheses which you cannot explain!
DAVID: I've explained how God covered the gap in time with econiche food supply. His choice of a gap in time in His choice. We can debate why He made that choice, but we'll not come up with a definite answer, only your other hypothesis which in their own way are logical possibilities.
As above. My hypotheses make perfect sense, yours is inexplicable, but you know yours is right.
dhw: The “logical” thoughts I have offered you are all theistic. But I am satisfied with your earlier acknowledgements that you can't explain why your God chose to spend 3.5+ years not fulfilling his only purpose, and that all my alternative theistic explanations are logical and possible. I do not ask you to believe in any of them.
DAVID: I am satisfied also. Within your frame of reference I recognize your thoughts are theistic and logical possibilities.
dhw: Thank you. My frame of reference is exactly the same as yours: we agree that life exists, there have been countless econiches, lifestyles, natural wonders and life forms extant and extinct, of which humans are the latest, and there may be a God who created life.
DAVID: And I would add, once life was started, God guided all the rest which has happened as you described.
dhw: That is not a frame of reference but an interpretation of all the above and the focus of our discussion. Must I really repeat all the alternative theistic hypotheses which you have accepted as logical?
DAVID: No, I'll stick to God in control.
Fine, although on other occasions you are not so sure that he is in control since his powers may be limited. Anyway, control fits in neatly with the hypothesis that God’s purpose from the beginning was NOT solely to produce the brain of H. sapiens but to produce countless econiches, lifestyles, natural wonders and life forms extant and extinct which have nothing to do with our brain but which he could enjoy as a painter enjoys watching his own paintings, to use the analogy which you are sure is correct.
dhw:Big brain evolution: comparing chimp and brain organoids
by David Turell , Thursday, February 28, 2019, 16:05 (1878 days ago) @ dhw
DAVID: You want the explanation. I don't need it since it was God's choice of action.
dhw: You can’t explain why your God would have chosen to spend 3.5+ billion years not designing the only thing he wanted to design. You accept the logic behind different interpretations of the facts as we know them, but you happen to know they are all wrong because your inexplicable hypothesis is right.
We have covered all the possible reasons why God chose to evolve human life over 3.5 billion years. A conclusion is not possible. I simply accept the history and quit wondering.
DAVID: The only way to solve the problem you have created as to why God used 3.5 billion years to create humans is ask God and He is not talking. Your human logic fights with the history of God's actions.dhw: You have created the problem! You have accepted the logic of four different interpretations of your God’s actions, but you insist on the combination of hypotheses which you cannot explain!
DAVID: I've explained how God covered the gap in time with econiche food supply. His choice of a gap in time in His choice. We can debate why He made that choice, but we'll not come up with a definite answer, only your other hypothesis which in their own way are logical possibilities.
dhw: As above. My hypotheses make perfect sense, yours is inexplicable, but you know yours is right.
Inexplicable only to you because you don't like the pattern of history..
dhw: The “logical” thoughts I have offered you are all theistic. But I am satisfied with your earlier acknowledgements that you can't explain why your God chose to spend 3.5+ years not fulfilling his only purpose, and that all my alternative theistic explanations are logical and possible. I do not ask you to believe in any of them.DAVID: I am satisfied also. Within your frame of reference I recognize your thoughts are theistic and logical possibilities.
dhw: Thank you. My frame of reference is exactly the same as yours: we agree that life exists, there have been countless econiches, lifestyles, natural wonders and life forms extant and extinct, of which humans are the latest, and there may be a God who created life.
DAVID: And I would add, once life was started, God guided all the rest which has happened as you described.
dhw: That is not a frame of reference but an interpretation of all the above and the focus of our discussion. Must I really repeat all the alternative theistic hypotheses which you have accepted as logical?
DAVID: No, I'll stick to God in control.
dhw: Fine, although on other occasions you are not so sure that he is in control since his powers may be limited. Anyway, control fits in neatly with the hypothesis that God’s purpose from the beginning was NOT solely to produce the brain of H. sapiens but to produce countless econiches, lifestyles, natural wonders and life forms extant and extinct which have nothing to do with our brain but which he could enjoy as a painter enjoys watching his own paintings, to use the analogy which you are sure is correct.
Haven't you realized by now, I have no idea why God chose to evolve humans over time. I've politely offered some logical possibilities at your urging to delve into it, but practically we both know the truth of God's thoughts will remain hidden. I accept the pattern of history as God's choice.
dhw:Big brain evolution: comparing chimp and brain organoids
DAVID: You want the explanation. I don't need it since it was God's choice of action.
dhw: You can’t explain why your God would have chosen to spend 3.5+ billion years not designing the only thing he wanted to design. You accept the logic behind different interpretations of the facts as we know them, but you happen to know they are all wrong because your inexplicable hypothesis is right.
DAVID: We have covered all the possible reasons why God chose to evolve human life over 3.5 billion years. A conclusion is not possible. I simply accept the history and quit wondering.
The history (for those of us who believe in evolution) is that millions of life forms, econiches, lifestyles and natural wonders extinct and extant and including humans have evolved over 3.8 billion years. It is not history that your God’s one and only purpose was to produce humans and he inexplicably chose to spend 3.5+ billion years not designing humans.
dhw: My hypotheses make perfect sense, yours is inexplicable, but you know yours is right.
DAVID: Inexplicable only to you because you don't like the pattern of history.
I don’t like your interpretation of the pattern of history, and on Tuesday you wrote: “You want to have me give you an explanation as to why God evolved humans over time. Of course I can’t explain it…it was God’s choice.” You can’t explain it, but you say it is inexplicable only to me. See also your next comment:
David: Haven't you realized by now, I have no idea why God chose to evolve humans over time. I've politely offered some logical possibilities at your urging to delve into it, but practically we both know the truth of God's thoughts will remain hidden. I accept the pattern of history as God's choice.
Your interpretation of the pattern of history is inexplicable to you, but you accept your interpretation and reject any other. I am the one who has offered alternative logical possibilities which you have politely accepted, though also in one case volunteering the information that you are sure your God watches his creations with the same enjoyment as a painter looking at his paintings. You do not “accept” the pattern – you have created it, and you reject any other possible pattern.
dhw:Big brain evolution: comparing chimp and brain organoids
by David Turell , Friday, March 01, 2019, 23:47 (1876 days ago) @ dhw
DAVID: You want the explanation. I don't need it since it was God's choice of action.
dhw: You can’t explain why your God would have chosen to spend 3.5+ billion years not designing the only thing he wanted to design. You accept the logic behind different interpretations of the facts as we know them, but you happen to know they are all wrong because your inexplicable hypothesis is right.
DAVID: We have covered all the possible reasons why God chose to evolve human life over 3.5 billion years. A conclusion is not possible. I simply accept the history and quit wondering.
The history (for those of us who believe in evolution) is that millions of life forms, econiches, lifestyles and natural wonders extinct and extant and including humans have evolved over 3.8 billion years. It is not history that your God’s one and only purpose was to produce humans and he inexplicably chose to spend 3.5+ billion years not designing humans.
dhw: My hypotheses make perfect sense, yours is inexplicable, but you know yours is right.
DAVID: Inexplicable only to you because you don't like the pattern of history.
dhw: I don’t like your interpretation of the pattern of history, and on Tuesday you wrote: “You want to have me give you an explanation as to why God evolved humans over time. Of course I can’t explain it…it was God’s choice.” You can’t explain it, but you say it is inexplicable only to me.
I don't have to try to explain something which is God's choice. We will have no way of knowing what option is correct!
David: Haven't you realized by now, I have no idea why God chose to evolve humans over time. I've politely offered some logical possibilities at your urging to delve into it, but practically we both know the truth of God's thoughts will remain hidden. I accept the pattern of history as God's choice.dhw: Your interpretation of the pattern of history is inexplicable to you, but you accept your interpretation and reject any other. I am the one who has offered alternative logical possibilities which you have politely accepted, though also in one case volunteering the information that you are sure your God watches his creations with the same enjoyment as a painter looking at his paintings. You do not “accept” the pattern – you have created it, and you reject any other possible pattern.
I volunteered a possibility because you asked me to try out something. Note my reluctance to guess, because that is all those possibilities are, guesses. I know humans are here. God evolved them. I repeat, I don't care to try to explain God's choice of methods.
dhw:Big brain evolution: comparing chimp and brain organoids
DAVID: I don't have to try to explain something which is God's choice. We will have no way of knowing what option is correct!
There are different options concerning your God’s purpose and his choice of methods to achieve that purpose. YOUR choice of these options is so illogical that you have no idea why he chose the one option you impose on him (to specially design humans over thousands of millions of years, while specially designing anything but humans). So I would suggest that other options, which you agree are perfectly logical, must have at least an equal chance of being correct.
DAVID: Haven't you realized by now, I have no idea why God chose to evolve humans over time. I've politely offered some logical possibilities at your urging to delve into it, but practically we both know the truth of God's thoughts will remain hidden. I accept the pattern of history as God's choice.
dhw: Your interpretation of the pattern of history is inexplicable to you, but you accept your interpretation and reject any other. I am the one who has offered alternative logical possibilities which you have politely accepted, though also in one case volunteering the information that you are sure your God watches his creations with the same enjoyment as a painter looking at his paintings. You do not “accept” the pattern – you have created it, and you reject any other possible pattern.
DAVID: I volunteered a possibility because you asked me to try out something. Note my reluctance to guess, because that is all those possibilities are, guesses. I know humans are here. God evolved them. I repeat, I don't care to try to explain God's choice of methods.
Of course all the options are guesses, since we have no way of knowing the facts. But you have a fixed belief in the only one of those options which you yourself find inexplicable, and so it's quite understandable that you don’t care to try to explain something you find inexplicable.
dhw:Big brain evolution: comparing chimp and brain organoids
by David Turell , Saturday, March 02, 2019, 17:17 (1876 days ago) @ dhw
DAVID: I don't have to try to explain something which is God's choice. We will have no way of knowing what option is correct!
dhw;There are different options concerning your God’s purpose and his choice of methods to achieve that purpose. YOUR choice of these options is so illogical that you have no idea why he chose the one option you impose on him (to specially design humans over thousands of millions of years, while specially designing anything but humans). So I would suggest that other options, which you agree are perfectly logical, must have at least an equal chance of being correct.
I know you say you cannot follow my logic, but if we start with the premise that the current result of evolution is according to Adler a difference in kind, that makes us special and can easily seen s God's goal. It is just a difference in a starting point of view.
DAVID: Haven't you realized by now, I have no idea why God chose to evolve humans over time. I've politely offered some logical possibilities at your urging to delve into it, but practically we both know the truth of God's thoughts will remain hidden. I accept the pattern of history as God's choice.dhw: Your interpretation of the pattern of history is inexplicable to you, but you accept your interpretation and reject any other. I am the one who has offered alternative logical possibilities which you have politely accepted, though also in one case volunteering the information that you are sure your God watches his creations with the same enjoyment as a painter looking at his paintings. You do not “accept” the pattern – you have created it, and you reject any other possible pattern.
DAVID: I volunteered a possibility because you asked me to try out something. Note my reluctance to guess, because that is all those possibilities are, guesses. I know humans are here. God evolved them. I repeat, I don't care to try to explain God's choice of methods.
dhw: Of course all the options are guesses, since we have no way of knowing the facts. But you have a fixed belief in the only one of those options which you yourself find inexplicable, and so it's quite understandable that you don’t care to try to explain something you find inexplicable.
You can not explain God's methods either. We've covered all the possibilities, and there no conclusions, just guesses, angels on the heads of pins.
dhw:Big brain evolution: comparing chimp and brain organoids
DAVID: I don't have to try to explain something which is God's choice. We will have no way of knowing what option is correct!
dhw: There are different options concerning your God’s purpose and his choice of methods to achieve that purpose. YOUR choice of these options is so illogical that you have no idea why he chose the one option you impose on him (to specially design humans over thousands of millions of years, while specially designing anything but humans). So I would suggest that other options, which you agree are perfectly logical, must have at least an equal chance of being correct.
DAVID: I know you say you cannot follow my logic, but if we start with the premise that the current result of evolution is according to Adler a difference in kind, that makes us special and can easily seen s God's goal. It is just a difference in a starting point of view.
You keep agreeing that you cannot follow your own logic, as in statements like: “I have no idea why God chose to evolve humans over time.” You keep forcing me to repeat the alternative logical hypotheses I have offered to your fixed and inexplicably combined beliefs that your God specially designed every life form, econiche, lifestyle and natural wonder in the history of life but that H. sapiens was his one and only goal: a) he didn’t know how to do it (so his powers are limited); b) the idea didn’t occur to him till late on in the process (not his one and only goal); c) he did not specially design every life form etc. but gave evolution free rein, though sometimes dabbling. You accept that they are all logical, but you reject them all, preferring to stick with the one set of hypotheses you yourself find inexplicable.
DAVID: You can not explain God's methods either. We've covered all the possibilities, and there no conclusions, just guesses, angels on the heads of pins.
I have offered three logical alternatives to your illogical combination of purpose and method. Of course there are no conclusions but only guesses. That also applies to the existence of God. We can only speculate. You embrace logic in your design argument for God’s existence, but reject it in your argument that your God chose to spend 3.5+ billion years not designing the only thing he wanted to design.
dhw:Big brain evolution: comparing chimp and brain organoids
by David Turell , Sunday, March 03, 2019, 14:46 (1875 days ago) @ dhw
DAVID: I know you say you cannot follow my logic, but if we start with the premise that the current result of evolution is according to Adler a difference in kind, that makes us special and can easily seen s God's goal. It is just a difference in a starting point of view.
dhw: You keep agreeing that you cannot follow your own logic, as in statements like: “I have no idea why God chose to evolve humans over time.” You keep forcing me to repeat the alternative logical hypotheses I have offered to your fixed and inexplicably combined beliefs that your God specially designed every life form, econiche, lifestyle and natural wonder in the history of life but that H. sapiens was his one and only goal: a) he didn’t know how to do it (so his powers are limited); b) the idea didn’t occur to him till late on in the process (not his one and only goal); c) he did not specially design every life form etc. but gave evolution free rein, though sometimes dabbling. You accept that they are all logical, but you reject them all, preferring to stick with the one set of hypotheses you yourself find inexplicable.
There are other ways to create a logical framework when asking why God did what He did in the way He achieved the result of human beings. Re-read your comment. I make the point that humans are so special they must be God's goal, because they really do not fit the pattern of what evolution created before they arrived. My approach hangs on that magnificent point of argument. And you didn't answer it .
DAVID: You can not explain God's methods either. We've covered all the possibilities, and there no conclusions, just guesses, angels on the heads of pins.dhw: I have offered three logical alternatives to your illogical combination of purpose and method. Of course there are no conclusions but only guesses. That also applies to the existence of God. We can only speculate. You embrace logic in your design argument for God’s existence, but reject it in your argument that your God chose to spend 3.5+ billion years not designing the only thing he wanted to design.
Your possible explanations of God's methods are logical and only part of issues in which to be concerned, issues about results of the process. If evolution is, in Darwin terms, unguided, humans are a startling unexpected result. I try to encompass a holistic view of the issue, not just the method but the resultant outcome.
dhw:Big brain evolution: comparing chimp and brain organoids
DAVID: I know you say you cannot follow my logic, but if we start with the premise that the current result of evolution is according to Adler a difference in kind, that makes us special and can easily seen s God's goal. It is just a difference in a starting point of view.
dhw: You keep agreeing that you cannot follow your own logic, as in statements like: “I have no idea why God chose to evolve humans over time.” You keep forcing me to repeat the alternative logical hypotheses I have offered to your fixed and inexplicably combined beliefs that your God specially designed every life form, econiche, lifestyle and natural wonder in the history of life but that H. sapiens was his one and only goal [and you force me to repeat them again below]:
DAVID: There are other ways to create a logical framework when asking why God did what He did in the way He achieved the result of human beings. Re-read your comment. I make the point that humans are so special they must be God's goal, because they really do not fit the pattern of what evolution created before they arrived. My approach hangs on that magnificent point of argument. And you didn't answer it.
Nothing to answer. I have always agreed that human mental faculties are special (but see below for startling results). And I have indeed offered you “other ways to create a logical framework”: a) he didn’t know how to do it (limited powers); b) the idea didn’t occur to him till late on in the process (not his one and only goal); c) he did not specially design every other life form but gave evolution a free rein, apart from the odd dabble. All of them have resulted in the production of every organism, including humans. But instead you choose a framework that you cannot explain: one goal, total control, and yet takes 3.5+ billion years specially designing anything but what he wants to design, and only then does he start the itty-bitty special design of big toes, pelvises, mini to maxi brains. Hominin after hominin, human after human, until at last he specially designs H. sapiens.
DAVID: Your possible explanations of God's methods are logical and only part of issues in which to be concerned, issues about results of the process. If evolution is, in Darwin terms, unguided, humans are a startling unexpected result. I try to encompass a holistic view of the issue, not just the method but the resultant outcome.
There is nothing holistic about a process which entails one goal, total control, and a delay of 3.5+ billion years spent specially designing anything but the only thing your God wants to design. Life itself is startling, and if we take bacteria as a beginning, dinosaurs, elephants, whales etc. etc. are startling unexpected results, and I would say the human brain is the most startling result of all – but it is the culmination of thousands of millions of years of startling results, and you yourself have traced the itty-bitty steps by which H. sapiens has evolved from earlier life forms.
dhw:Big brain evolution: comparing chimp and brain organoids
by David Turell , Monday, March 04, 2019, 14:30 (1874 days ago) @ dhw
DAVID: I know you say you cannot follow my logic, but if we start with the premise that the current result of evolution is according to Adler a difference in kind, that makes us special and can easily seen s God's goal. It is just a difference in a starting point of view.
dhw: You keep agreeing that you cannot follow your own logic, as in statements like: “I have no idea why God chose to evolve humans over time.” You keep forcing me to repeat the alternative logical hypotheses I have offered to your fixed and inexplicably combined beliefs that your God specially designed every life form, econiche, lifestyle and natural wonder in the history of life but that H. sapiens was his one and only goal [and you force me to repeat them again below]:
DAVID: There are other ways to create a logical framework when asking why God did what He did in the way He achieved the result of human beings. Re-read your comment. I make the point that humans are so special they must be God's goal, because they really do not fit the pattern of what evolution created before they arrived. My approach hangs on that magnificent point of argument. And you didn't answer it.
dhw: Nothing to answer. I have always agreed that human mental faculties are special (but see below for startling results). And I have indeed offered you “other ways to create a logical framework”: a) he didn’t know how to do it (limited powers); b) the idea didn’t occur to him till late on in the process (not his one and only goal); c) he did not specially design every other life form but gave evolution a free rein, apart from the odd dabble. All of them have resulted in the production of every organism, including humans. But instead you choose a framework that you cannot explain: one goal, total control, and yet takes 3.5+ billion years specially designing anything but what he wants to design, and only then does he start the itty-bitty special design of big toes, pelvises, mini to maxi brains. Hominin after hominin, human after human, until at last he specially designs H. sapiens.
You won't accept my approach that I don't have to explain God's choice of method when no supposition can achieve nothing but discussion with no conclusions. Your logical suggestions run of in many directions and raise issues that will always hang there and just keep hanging.
DAVID: Your possible explanations of God's methods are logical and only part of issues in which to be concerned, issues about results of the process. If evolution is, in Darwin terms, unguided, humans are a startling unexpected result. I try to encompass a holistic view of the issue, not just the method but the resultant outcome.
dhw: There is nothing holistic about a process which entails one goal, total control, and a delay of 3.5+ billion years spent specially designing anything but the only thing your God wants to design. Life itself is startling, and if we take bacteria as a beginning, dinosaurs, elephants, whales etc. etc. are startling unexpected results, and I would say the human brain is the most startling result of all – but it is the culmination of thousands of millions of years of startling results, and you yourself have traced the itty-bitty steps by which H. sapiens has evolved from earlier life forms.
Why are all the advances startling? Startling results should have startling causes or cause. All of these advances require design and therefore a designer. Why does your thought pattern stop at startling?
dhw:Big brain evolution: comparing chimp and brain organoids
dhw: I have always agreed that human mental faculties are special (but see below for startling results). And I have indeed offered you “other ways to create a logical framework […] But instead you choose a framework that you cannot explain: one goal, total control, and yet takes 3.5+ billion years specially designing anything but what he wants to design, and only then does he start the itty-bitty special design of big toes, pelvises, mini to maxi brains. Hominin after hominin, human after human, until at last he specially designs H. sapiens.
DAVID: You won't accept my approach that I don't have to explain God's choice of method when no supposition can achieve nothing but discussion with no conclusions. Your logical suggestions run of in many directions and raise issues that will always hang there and just keep hanging.
As you yourself keep repeating, all our hypotheses – including that of God’s existence – are guesses which cannot lead to a provable conclusion. All we can do is test the logic of each guess. If your approach is now that we should not discuss anything that can’t lead to the objective truth, I might as well close down the website. But you are as dedicated as I am to the search for logical explanations, which is why you have written two brilliant books to try and logically prove the existence of your God. You only call off the search for logical explanations when I point out that your fixed belief in your God's purposes and methods has logical flaws in it.
DAVID: Your possible explanations of God's methods are logical and only part of issues in which to be concerned, issues about results of the process. If evolution is, in Darwin terms, unguided, humans are a startling unexpected result. I try to encompass a holistic view of the issue, not just the method but the resultant outcome.
dhw: There is nothing holistic about a process which entails one goal, total control, and a delay of 3.5+ billion years spent specially designing anything but the only thing your God wants to design. Life itself is startling, and if we take bacteria as a beginning, dinosaurs, elephants, whales etc. etc. are startling unexpected results, and I would say the human brain is the most startling result of all – but it is the culmination of thousands of millions of years of startling results, and you yourself have traced the itty-bitty steps by which H. sapiens has evolved from earlier life forms.
DAVID: Why are all the advances startling? Startling results should have startling causes or cause. All of these advances require design and therefore a designer. Why does your thought pattern stop at startling?
I am replying to your statement that “humans are an unexpected startling result”. Why does your thought pattern stop at humans? If all life forms evolved from single cells, don’t you find dinosaurs, elephants and whales startling? If you do, why do you think your God specially designed them if his sole purpose was to specially design startling humans? Your only answer so far has been because he chose to spend 3.5+ billion years designing anything but the only thing he wanted to design, and we shouldn’t ask why.
dhw:Big brain evolution: comparing chimp and brain organoids
by David Turell , Tuesday, March 05, 2019, 14:11 (1873 days ago) @ dhw
dhw: I have always agreed that human mental faculties are special (but see below for startling results). And I have indeed offered you “other ways to create a logical framework […] But instead you choose a framework that you cannot explain: one goal, total control, and yet takes 3.5+ billion years specially designing anything but what he wants to design, and only then does he start the itty-bitty special design of big toes, pelvises, mini to maxi brains. Hominin after hominin, human after human, until at last he specially designs H. sapiens.
DAVID: You won't accept my approach that I don't have to explain God's choice of method when no supposition can achieve nothing but discussion with no conclusions. Your logical suggestions run of in many directions and raise issues that will always hang there and just keep hanging.
dhw: As you yourself keep repeating, all our hypotheses – including that of God’s existence – are guesses which cannot lead to a provable conclusion. All we can do is test the logic of each guess. If your approach is now that we should not discuss anything that can’t lead to the objective truth, I might as well close down the website. But you are as dedicated as I am to the search for logical explanations, which is why you have written two brilliant books to try and logically prove the existence of your God. You only call off the search for logical explanations when I point out that your fixed belief in your God's purposes and methods has logical flaws in it.
My problem is I do not see 'logical flaws'. We have covered all the possible reasons God used an evolutionary process. I've agreed all of our reasoning is logical, but I've made as choice in what I believe is the most likely, which is God's goal was human beings and am happy to accept it as part of my belief system. I fully understand your position tah t you cannot make a choice.
DAVID: Your possible explanations of God's methods are logical and only part of issues in which to be concerned, issues about results of the process. If evolution is, in Darwin terms, unguided, humans are a startling unexpected result. I try to encompass a holistic view of the issue, not just the method but the resultant outcome.
dhw: There is nothing holistic about a process which entails one goal, total control, and a delay of 3.5+ billion years spent specially designing anything but the only thing your God wants to design. Life itself is startling, and if we take bacteria as a beginning, dinosaurs, elephants, whales etc. etc. are startling unexpected results, and I would say the human brain is the most startling result of all – but it is the culmination of thousands of millions of years of startling results, and you yourself have traced the itty-bitty steps by which H. sapiens has evolved from earlier life forms.
DAVID: Why are all the advances startling? Startling results should have startling causes or cause. All of these advances require design and therefore a designer. Why does your thought pattern stop at startling?
dhw: I am replying to your statement that “humans are an unexpected startling result”. Why does your thought pattern stop at humans? If all life forms evolved from single cells, don’t you find dinosaurs, elephants and whales startling? If you do, why do you think your God specially designed them if his sole purpose was to specially design startling humans? Your only answer so far has been because he chose to spend 3.5+ billion years designing anything but the only thing he wanted to design, and we shouldn’t ask why.
But we have 'asked why' He chose this method and found many different possible answers. I agree with you, all of life's evolutionary history is startling, but I view humans as the most startling and therefore most special in the mental way they left all others way behind. Pure Adler.
dhw:Big brain evolution: comparing chimp and brain organoids
DAVID: You won't accept my approach that I don't have to explain God's choice of method when no supposition can achieve nothing but discussion with no conclusions. Your logical suggestions run of in many directions and raise issues that will always hang there and just keep hanging.
dhw: As you yourself keep repeating, all our hypotheses – including that of God’s existence – are guesses which cannot lead to a provable conclusion. All we can do is test the logic of each guess. If your approach is now that we should not discuss anything that can’t lead to the objective truth, I might as well close down the website. But you are as dedicated as I am to the search for logical explanations, which is why you have written two brilliant books to try and logically prove the existence of your God. You only call off the search for logical explanations when I point out that your fixed belief in your God's purposes and methods has logical flaws in it.
DAVID: My problem is I do not see 'logical flaws'. We have covered all the possible reasons God used an evolutionary process. I've agreed all of our reasoning is logical, but I've made as choice in what I believe is the most likely, which is God's goal was human beings and am happy to accept it as part of my belief system. I fully understand your position tah t you cannot make a choice.
Your belief that our brain was your God’s one and only goal from the very beginning is not the ‘logical flaw’! The logical flaw is in the combination of your fixed beliefs: 1) that this was his one and only goal, 2) he is always in complete control, and yet 3) he spent 3.5+ billion years specially designing millions of other life forms, econiches, lifestyles and natural wonders and indeed anything but the only thing he wanted to design. This is what you keep admitting you cannot explain, i.e. it is illogical. Therefore at least one of those three hypotheses is likely to be wrong, i.e. we were not his only goal, he was not in complete control, or he did not specially design every other life form etc.
DAVID: Why are all the advances startling? Startling results should have startling causes or cause. All of these advances require design and therefore a designer. Why does your thought pattern stop at startling?
dhw: I am replying to your statement that “humans are an unexpected startling result”. Why does your thought pattern stop at humans? If all life forms evolved from single cells, don’t you find dinosaurs, elephants and whales startling? If you do, why do you think your God specially designed them if his sole purpose was to specially design startling humans? Your only answer so far has been because he chose to spend 3.5+ billion years designing anything but the only thing he wanted to design, and we shouldn’t ask why.
DAVID: But we have 'asked why' He chose this method and found many different possible answers. I agree with you, all of life's evolutionary history is startling, but I view humans as the most startling and therefore most special in the mental way they left all others way behind. Pure Adler.
I am not questioning the startling supremacy of our mental capacities. I am questioning the illogical and to you inexplicable combination of your fixed beliefs as described in the hypotheses listed above.
dhw:Big brain evolution: comparing chimp and brain organoids
by David Turell , Wednesday, March 06, 2019, 18:38 (1872 days ago) @ dhw
DAVID: My problem is I do not see 'logical flaws'. We have covered all the possible reasons God used an evolutionary process. I've agreed all of our reasoning is logical, but I've made as choice in what I believe is the most likely, which is God's goal was human beings and am happy to accept it as part of my belief system. I fully understand your position tah t you cannot make a choice.
dhw: Your belief that our brain was your God’s one and only goal from the very beginning is not the ‘logical flaw’! The logical flaw is in the combination of your fixed beliefs: 1) that this was his one and only goal, 2) he is always in complete control, and yet 3) he spent 3.5+ billion years specially designing millions of other life forms, econiches, lifestyles and natural wonders and indeed anything but the only thing he wanted to design. This is what you keep admitting you cannot explain, i.e. it is illogical. Therefore at least one of those three hypotheses is likely to be wrong, i.e. we were not his only goal, he was not in complete control, or he did not specially design every other life form etc.
It is not illogical. If God is in control, He has the absolute right to chose his method of creation. And I have the logical right to accept that conclusion. I certainly agree with you that we both have the right to discuss why He might have made that decision, but we have never come up with anything other than unproven theories, because that is all we can accomplish. It is your confusion About God's right to chose a method that is on exhibition. I believe He is in full control. You are the one who is not sure of that because you don't accept God's powers, and I know that.
DAVID: Why are all the advances startling? Startling results should have startling causes or cause. All of these advances require design and therefore a designer. Why does your thought pattern stop at startling?dhw: I am replying to your statement that “humans are an unexpected startling result”. Why does your thought pattern stop at humans? If all life forms evolved from single cells, don’t you find dinosaurs, elephants and whales startling? If you do, why do you think your God specially designed them if his sole purpose was to specially design startling humans? Your only answer so far has been because he chose to spend 3.5+ billion years designing anything but the only thing he wanted to design, and we shouldn’t ask why.
DAVID: But we have 'asked why' He chose this method and found many different possible answers. I agree with you, all of life's evolutionary history is startling, but I view humans as the most startling and therefore most special in the mental way they left all others way behind. Pure Adler.
dhw: I am not questioning the startling supremacy of our mental capacities. I am questioning the illogical and to you inexplicable combination of your fixed beliefs as described in the hypotheses listed above.
Fully answered above.
dhw:Big brain evolution: comparing chimp and brain organoids
DAVID: My problem is I do not see 'logical flaws'. We have covered all the possible reasons God used an evolutionary process. I've agreed all of our reasoning is logical, but I've made as choice in what I believe is the most likely, which is God's goal was human beings and am happy to accept it as part of my belief system. I fully understand your position tah t you cannot make a choice.
dhw: Your belief that our brain was your God’s one and only goal from the very beginning is not the ‘logical flaw’! The logical flaw is in the combination of your fixed beliefs: 1) that this was his one and only goal, 2) he is always in complete control, and yet 3) he spent 3.5+ billion years specially designing millions of other life forms, econiches, lifestyles and natural wonders and indeed anything but the only thing he wanted to design. This is what you keep admitting you cannot explain, i.e. it is illogical. Therefore at least one of those three hypotheses is likely to be wrong, i.e. we were not his only goal, he was not in complete control, or he did not specially design every other life form etc.
DAVID: It is not illogical. If God is in control, He has the absolute right to chose his method of creation. And I have the logical right to accept that conclusion. I certainly agree with you that we both have the right to discuss why He might have made that decision, but we have never come up with anything other than unproven theories, because that is all we can accomplish. It is your confusion About God's right to chose a method that is on exhibition. I believe He is in full control. You are the one who is not sure of that because you don't accept God's powers, and I know that.
In your first post above you pinpoint the hypothesis of humans as the only goal. Now you shift to the hypothesis of full control. It is the irreconcilability of these two hypotheses plus the third that is illogical. Of course your God has the right to choose his method of creation. That is absolutely NOT what is on “exhibition”! Yet again: what is on exhibition is your fixed belief that he is in full control, that his one and only purpose was to produce the brain of H. sapiens, and yet he chose to spend 3.5+ billion years designing anything but the brain of H. sapiens. You yourself keep admitting that you cannot understand this “method”. Over and over again I have presented other perfectly logical theistic interpretations of life’s history (two of which allow for him to be in full control), but you cling to your fixed belief in the three combined hypotheses above, even though you find their combination inexplicable.
dhw:Big brain evolution: comparing chimp and brain organoids
by David Turell , Thursday, March 07, 2019, 20:04 (1870 days ago) @ dhw
DAVID: My problem is I do not see 'logical flaws'. We have covered all the possible reasons God used an evolutionary process. I've agreed all of our reasoning is logical, but I've made as choice in what I believe is the most likely, which is God's goal was human beings and am happy to accept it as part of my belief system. I fully understand your position tah t you cannot make a choice.
dhw: Your belief that our brain was your God’s one and only goal from the very beginning is not the ‘logical flaw’! The logical flaw is in the combination of your fixed beliefs: 1) that this was his one and only goal, 2) he is always in complete control, and yet 3) he spent 3.5+ billion years specially designing millions of other life forms, econiches, lifestyles and natural wonders and indeed anything but the only thing he wanted to design. This is what you keep admitting you cannot explain, i.e. it is illogical. Therefore at least one of those three hypotheses is likely to be wrong, i.e. we were not his only goal, he was not in complete control, or he did not specially design every other life form etc.
DAVID: It is not illogical. If God is in control, He has the absolute right to chose his method of creation. And I have the logical right to accept that conclusion. I certainly agree with you that we both have the right to discuss why He might have made that decision, but we have never come up with anything other than unproven theories, because that is all we can accomplish. It is your confusion About God's right to chose a method that is on exhibition. I believe He is in full control. You are the one who is not sure of that because you don't accept God's powers, and I know that.
dhw: In your first post above you pinpoint the hypothesis of humans as the only goal. Now you shift to the hypothesis of full control. It is the irreconcilability of these two hypotheses plus the third that is illogical. Of course your God has the right to choose his method of creation. That is absolutely NOT what is on “exhibition”! Yet again: what is on exhibition is your fixed belief that he is in full control, that his one and only purpose was to produce the brain of H. sapiens, and yet he chose to spend 3.5+ billion years designing anything but the brain of H. sapiens. You yourself keep admitting that you cannot understand this “method”. Over and over again I have presented other perfectly logical theistic interpretations of life’s history (two of which allow for him to be in full control), but you cling to your fixed belief in the three combined hypotheses above, even though you find their combination inexplicable.
We go 'round and 'round and talk past each other. You won't accept God's right to chose, and it is you, not me who questions why He waited so long to reach a goal. I don't care that He waited so long, since that is what history shows. I don't have questions. You do. Nothing I've done is illogical by my accepting God. My bold indicates hour inconsistencies.
dhw:Big brain evolution: comparing chimp and brain organoids
DAVID: It is not illogical. If God is in control, He has the absolute right to chose his method of creation. And I have the logical right to accept that conclusion. I certainly agree with you that we both have the right to discuss why He might have made that decision, but we have never come up with anything other than unproven theories, because that is all we can accomplish. It is your confusion About God's right to chose a method that is on exhibition. I believe He is in full control. You are the one who is not sure of that because you don't accept God's powers, and I know that.
dhw: In your first post above you pinpoint the hypothesis of humans as the only goal. Now you shift to the hypothesis of full control. It is the irreconcilability of these two hypotheses plus the third that is illogical.[/b] (dhw's bold) Of course your God has the right to choose his method of creation. That is absolutely NOT what is on “exhibition”! (DAVID'S bold) Yet again: what is on exhibition is your fixed belief that he is in full control, that his one and only purpose was to produce the brain of H. sapiens, and yet he chose to spend 3.5+ billion years designing anything but the brain of H. sapiens. You yourself keep admitting that you cannot understand this “method”. Over and over again I have presented other perfectly logical theistic interpretations of life’s history (two of which allow for him to be in full control), but you cling to your fixed belief in the three combined hypotheses above, even though you find their combination inexplicable.
DAVID: We go 'round and 'round and talk past each other. You won't accept God's right to chose, and it is you, not me who questions why He waited so long to reach a goal. I don't care that He waited so long, since that is what history shows. I don't have questions. You do. Nothing I've done is illogical by my accepting God. My bold indicates your inconsistencies.
First it’s the only goal hypothesis, then it’s the full control hypothesis, and now it’s God’s right to choose, and you bold my acceptance of God’s right to choose in order to prove that I don’t accept your God’s right to choose! Of course I do, but that does not mean he chose the purpose and method you ascribe to him! History does not show that your God’s one and only goal from the very beginning was the brain of H. sapiens or that despite his full control he chose to fulfil his goal by not fulfilling his goal for 3.5+ billion years. It only shows that the brain of H. sapiens arrived approximately 300,000 years ago, preceded by billions of unrelated life forms, econiches, lifestyles and natural wonders and by various forms of ape and hominin and human. Your acceptance of God does not give credence to your fixed beliefs in the above mentioned combination of purpose and method, and all the hypotheses I have offered you allow for God. You have repeated over and over again that you have no idea why he chose the method you attribute to him in order to achieve the one and only goal you attribute to him, so please don’t tell us that you can’t understand why God acted in the way you think he did, but nevertheless it’s logical.
dhw:Big brain evolution: comparing chimp and brain organoids
by David Turell , Friday, March 08, 2019, 19:13 (1870 days ago) @ dhw
DAVID: It is not illogical. If God is in control, He has the absolute right to chose his method of creation. And I have the logical right to accept that conclusion. I certainly agree with you that we both have the right to discuss why He might have made that decision, but we have never come up with anything other than unproven theories, because that is all we can accomplish. It is your confusion About God's right to chose a method that is on exhibition. I believe He is in full control. You are the one who is not sure of that because you don't accept God's powers, and I know that.
dhw: In your first post above you pinpoint the hypothesis of humans as the only goal. Now you shift to the hypothesis of full control. It is the irreconcilability of these two hypotheses plus the third that is illogical.[/b] (dhw's bold) Of course your God has the right to choose his method of creation. That is absolutely NOT what is on “exhibition”! (DAVID'S bold) Yet again: what is on exhibition is your fixed belief that he is in full control, that his one and only purpose was to produce the brain of H. sapiens, and yet he chose to spend 3.5+ billion years designing anything but the brain of H. sapiens. You yourself keep admitting that you cannot understand this “method”. Over and over again I have presented other perfectly logical theistic interpretations of life’s history (two of which allow for him to be in full control), but you cling to your fixed belief in the three combined hypotheses above, even though you find their combination inexplicable.
DAVID: We go 'round and 'round and talk past each other. You won't accept God's right to chose, and it is you, not me who questions why He waited so long to reach a goal. I don't care that He waited so long, since that is what history shows. I don't have questions. You do. Nothing I've done is illogical by my accepting God. My bold indicates your inconsistencies.
Dhw: First it’s the only goal hypothesis, then it’s the full control hypothesis, and now it’s God’s right to choose, and you bold my acceptance of God’s right to choose in order to prove that I don’t accept your God’s right to choose! Of course I do, but that does not mean he chose the purpose and method you ascribe to him! History does not show that your God’s one and only goal from the very beginning was the brain of H. sapiens or that despite his full control he chose to fulfil his goal by not fulfilling his goal for 3.5+ billion years. It only shows that the brain of H. sapiens arrived approximately 300,000 years ago, preceded by billions of unrelated life forms, econiches, lifestyles and natural wonders and by various forms of ape and hominin and human. Your acceptance of God does not give credence to your fixed beliefs in the above mentioned combination of purpose and method, and all the hypotheses I have offered you allow for God. You have repeated over and over again that you have no idea why he chose the method you attribute to him in order to achieve the one and only goal you attribute to him, so please don’t tell us that you can’t understand why God acted in the way you think he did, but nevertheless it’s logical.
Part of my thought pattern is the recognition, to which you also ascribe, that living organisms need energy to exist during all the 3.8 billion years of evolution. But above you ignore all that. I accept that God is in charge. You obviously, as an agnostic, don't, but give lip service to the possibility. Since He decided to slowly evolve the human brain, all of the necessary bush of life had to be in place so every form at every advancing stage had to be part of an econiche of the balance of nature to eat the food needed for energy to exist until the next stage was designed. You try to present a picture of God running helter-skelter in all directions at once until He got His act together and got to the point of popping in our advanced brains. I view God as fully purposeful and fully aware of His goals. The history supports every bit of my description. Note your statement in bold. Everything is totally related in my view as evolution advances from single cells to very complex forms ending in the most highly complex item in the universe, the current human brain, different in kind, not degree, which Adler notes, cannot be by chance. Your objections are reasonable, as long as you don't accept God and recognize His purpose.
dhw:Big brain evolution: comparing chimp and brain organoids
Dhw: [History] only shows that the brain of H. sapiens arrived approximately 300,000 years ago, preceded by billions of unrelated life forms, econiches, lifestyles and natural wonders and by various forms of ape and hominin and human. […]
DAVID: Part of my thought pattern is the recognition, to which you also ascribe, that living organisms need energy to exist during all the 3.8 billion years of evolution. But above you ignore all that.
The obvious fact that all organisms need food provides no support for your combination of hypotheses: sole purpose H. sapiens, full control, and billions of years spent designing anything but H. sapiens.
DAVID: I accept that God is in charge. You obviously, as an agnostic, don't, but give lip service to the possibility.
If God exists, then of course he is in charge. My agnosticism does not magic away the illogicality of the above combined hypotheses or the logicality of alternative theistic hypotheses.
DAVID: Since He decided to slowly evolve the human brain, all of the necessary bush of life had to be in place so every form at every advancing stage had to be part of an econiche of the balance of nature to eat the food needed for energy to exist until the next stage was designed.
The whole issue revolves round your fixed belief that your God decided to “slowly evolve the human brain”, which was his one and only purpose. See above for the illogical combination of your hypotheses, but you cling to them as if they were a fact: “Since he decided…” Maybe he decided to create a bush of life!
DAVID: You try to present a picture of God running helter-skelter in all directions at once until He got His act together and got to the point of popping in our advanced brains.
That is YOUR hypothesis! You have him designing millions of life forms etc. extant and extinct (helter-skelter in all directions) until he specially designed the only thing he wanted to design (got his act together).
DAVID: I view God as fully purposeful and fully aware of His goals.
If he exists, I have no doubt that he is fully purposeful and aware of his goals. That doesn't mean your interpretation of his goal (you only allow him one), and method of achieving it, is correct.
DAVID: The history supports every bit of my description.
See the first comment for what history tells us.
DAVID: Note your statement in bold. Everything is totally related in my view as evolution advances from single cells to very complex forms ending in the most highly complex item in the universe, the current human brain, different in kind, not degree, which Adler notes, cannot be by chance. Your objections are reasonable, as long as you don't accept God and recognize His purpose.
I do not recognize that dinosaurs, whales, elephants, cuttlefish camouflage, monarch migrations and weaverbirds’ nests – all apparently specially designed by your God – were/are all “totally related” to his specially designing the current human brain. As regards my objections, you acknowledge that you cannot explain your version of God’s purpose and method, and that alternative theistic interpretations are possible and indeed logical, but now apparently they are only reasonable if they are NOT theistic! I do not accept your inexplicable (and hence unreasonable) version of his combined purpose and method, and that is why I offer theistic alternatives which you recognize as being logical and reasonable, but regard as unacceptable because I am agnostic and because they contradict your fixed beliefs.
dhw:Big brain evolution: comparing chimp and brain organoids
by David Turell , Saturday, March 09, 2019, 18:17 (1869 days ago) @ dhw
DAVID: Part of my thought pattern is the recognition, to which you also ascribe, that living organisms need energy to exist during all the 3.8 billion years of evolution. But above you ignore all that.
dhw: The obvious fact that all organisms need food provides no support for your combination of hypotheses: sole purpose H. sapiens, full control, and billions of years spent designing anything but H. sapiens.
Again you question why God waited and evolved life in stages. I can only answer it was His
choice. And therefore a big bush of life to supply food for all stages. Totally logical.
DAVID: Since He decided to slowly evolve the human brain, all of the necessary bush of life had to be in place so every form at every advancing stage had to be part of an econiche of the balance of nature to eat the food needed for energy to exist until the next stage was designed.
dhw: The whole issue revolves round your fixed belief that your God decided to “slowly evolve the human brain”, which was his one and only purpose. See above for the illogical combination of your hypotheses, but you cling to them as if they were a fact: “Since he decided…” Maybe he decided to create a bush of life!
Of course the bush was His decision.
DAVID: You try to present a picture of God running helter-skelter in all directions at once until He got His act together and got to the point of popping in our advanced brains.dhw: That is YOUR hypothesis! You have him designing millions of life forms etc. extant and extinct (helter-skelter in all directions) until he specially designed the only thing he wanted to design (got his act together).
Not helter-skelter but obviously as food supply.
DAVID: The history supports every bit of my description.dhw: See the first comment for what history tells us.
DAVID: Note your statement in bold. Everything is totally related in my view as evolution advances from single cells to very complex forms ending in the most highly complex item in the universe, the current human brain, different in kind, not degree, which Adler notes, cannot be by chance. Your objections are reasonable, as long as you don't accept God and recognize His purpose.
dhw: I do not recognize that dinosaurs, whales, elephants, cuttlefish camouflage, monarch migrations and weaverbirds’ nests – all apparently specially designed by your God – were/are all “totally related” to his specially designing the current human brain. As regards my objections, you acknowledge that you cannot explain your version of God’s purpose and method, and that alternative theistic interpretations are possible and indeed logical, but now apparently they are only reasonable if they are NOT theistic! I do not accept your inexplicable (and hence unreasonable) version of his combined purpose and method, and that is why I offer theistic alternatives which you recognize as being logical and reasonable, but regard as unacceptable because I am agnostic and because they contradict your fixed beliefs.
I have my fixed beliefs which I have logically explained to my satisfaction. Observers can decide for themselves who is closer to the truth, which we cannot fully ascertain.
dhw:Big brain evolution: comparing chimp and brain organoids
DAVID: Part of my thought pattern is the recognition, to which you also ascribe, that living organisms need energy to exist during all the 3.8 billion years of evolution. But above you ignore all that.
dhw: The obvious fact that all organisms need food provides no support for your combination of hypotheses: sole purpose H. sapiens, full control, and billions of years spent designing anything but H. sapiens.
DAVID: Again you question why God waited and evolved life in stages. I can only answer it was His choice. And therefore a big bush of life to supply food for all stages. Totally logical.
I am not questioning why your God evolved LIFE in stages. I am questioning why, if your God’s only aim was to produce the brain of H. sapiens, he produced anything but that brain for billions of years until 300,000 years ago. Totally illogical.
DAVID: Since He decided to slowly evolve the human brain, all of the necessary bush of life had to be in place so every form at every advancing stage had to be part of an econiche of the balance of nature to eat the food needed for energy to exist until the next stage was designed.
dhw: The whole issue revolves round your fixed belief that your God decided to “slowly evolve the human brain”, which was his one and only purpose. See above for the illogical combination of your hypotheses, but you cling to them as if they were a fact: “Since he decided…” Maybe he decided to create a bush of life!
DAVID: Of course the bush was His decision.
So maybe he set out with the purpose of creating a bush, and not with the purpose of “slowly evolving the human brain”.
DAVID: You try to present a picture of God running helter-skelter in all directions at once until He got His act together and got to the point of popping in our advanced brains.
dhw: That is YOUR hypothesis! You have him designing millions of life forms etc. extant and extinct (helter-skelter in all directions) until he specially designed the only thing he wanted to design (got his act together).
DAVID: Not helter-skelter but obviously as food supply.
And God said: “I am in full control and I do desire to produce nothing but the brain of H. sapiens, and therefore I will specially produce millions of different non-sapiens life forms to eat or not eat one another, and to come and go, until I decide to specially produce the brain of H. sapiens.” And you think this is “totally logical”.
dhw: I do not accept your inexplicable (and hence unreasonable) version of his combined purpose and method, and that is why I offer theistic alternatives which you recognize as being logical and reasonable, but regard as unacceptable because I am agnostic and because they contradict your fixed beliefs.
DAVID: I have my fixed beliefs which I have logically explained to my satisfaction. Observers can decide for themselves who is closer to the truth, which we cannot fully ascertain.
On Friday 1 March 2019, you wrote: “Haven’t you realized by now, I have no idea why God chose to evolve humans over time.” Now all of a sudden you have logically explained it to your satisfaction. Do please share the secret with us.
dhw:Big brain evolution: comparing chimp and brain organoids
by David Turell , Sunday, March 10, 2019, 18:53 (1868 days ago) @ dhw
DAVID: Again you question why God waited and evolved life in stages. I can only answer it was His choice. And therefore a big bush of life to supply food for all stages. Totally logical.
dhw: I am not questioning why your God evolved LIFE in stages. I am questioning why, if your God’s only aim was to produce the brain of H. sapiens, he produced anything but that brain for billions of years until 300,000 years ago. Totally illogical.
That is simple human logic. I don't know why God made His choice, but that is what I have to accept. We've already tried out all the possible reasons. WE can't prove any of them. It is your problem, not mine.
DAVID: Of course the bush was His decision.dhw: So maybe he set out with the purpose of creating a bush, and not with the purpose of “slowly evolving the human brain”.
You are back with another guess.
DAVID: You try to present a picture of God running helter-skelter in all directions at once until He got His act together and got to the point of popping in our advanced brains.dhw: That is YOUR hypothesis! You have him designing millions of life forms etc. extant and extinct (helter-skelter in all directions) until he specially designed the only thing he wanted to design (got his act together).
DAVID: Not helter-skelter but obviously as food supply.
dhw: And God said: “I am in full control and I do desire to produce nothing but the brain of H. sapiens, and therefore I will specially produce millions of different non-sapiens life forms to eat or not eat one another, and to come and go, until I decide to specially produce the brain of H. sapiens.” And you think this is “totally logical”.
It doesn't fit your human logic. So?
dhw: I do not accept your inexplicable (and hence unreasonable) version of his combined purpose and method, and that is why I offer theistic alternatives which you recognize as being logical and reasonable, but regard as unacceptable because I am agnostic and because they contradict your fixed beliefs.DAVID: I have my fixed beliefs which I have logically explained to my satisfaction. Observers can decide for themselves who is closer to the truth, which we cannot fully ascertain.
dhw: On Friday 1 March 2019, you wrote: “Haven’t you realized by now, I have no idea why God chose to evolve humans over time.” Now all of a sudden you have logically explained it to your satisfaction. Do please share the secret with us.
My honest answer to your question is above as you quote. I do not, and cannot, know. It is logically explained to those of us who have accepted God that He is in change and has the right to choose a method. You have agreed to that in the past.
dhw:Big brain evolution: comparing chimp and brain organoids
DAVID: Again you question why God waited and evolved life in stages. I can only answer it was His choice. And therefore a big bush of life to supply food for all stages. Totally logical.
dhw: I am not questioning why your God evolved LIFE in stages. I am questioning why, if your God’s only aim was to produce the brain of H. sapiens, he produced anything but that brain for billions of years until 300,000 years ago. Totally illogical.
DAVID: That is simple human logic. I don't know why God made His choice, but that is what I have to accept. We've already tried out all the possible reasons. WE can't prove any of them. It is your problem, not mine.
You don’t know why your God would have made the choice you insist he made, so maybe that is not the choice he made. You don’t HAVE to accept your own illogical theistic interpretation, especially if there are other theistic interpretations that are logical.
DAVID: Of course the bush was His decision.
dhw: So maybe he set out with the purpose of creating a bush, and not with the purpose of “slowly evolving the human brain”.
DAVID: You are back with another guess.
Of course. But my guess explains why your in-full-control God created a bush instead of – as in your guess – the only thing he wanted to create, the brain of H. sapiens. And now your only reply is:
DAVID: It doesn't fit your human logic. So?
And it doesn’t fit your human logic either. So why do you assume that your God would act in ways you believe to be illogical when there are other explanations of his actions which you accept as perfectly logical? Imagine your response to an atheist who told you that your two books presenting the logical arguments for design and hence for your God’s existence were wrong because an impersonal universe doesn't follow your "simple human logic". Would you accept such reasoning?
DAVID: I have my fixed beliefs which I have logically explained to my satisfaction. Observers can decide for themselves who is closer to the truth, which we cannot fully ascertain.
dhw: On Friday 1 March 2019, you wrote: “Haven’t you realized by now, I have no idea why God chose to evolve humans over time.” Now all of a sudden you have logically explained it to your satisfaction. Do please share the secret with us.
DAVID: My honest answer to your question is above as you quote. I do not, and cannot, know. It is logically explained to those of us who have accepted God that He is in charge and has the right to choose a method. You have agreed to that in the past.
I agree 100% that if he exists he is in charge and has the right to choose a method, and I agree 100% that neither you nor I can know the objective truth. That is no reason for rejecting my logical hypotheses and trying to justify your own illogical hypotheses on the grounds that I am only human. Aren’t you human too?
dhw:Big brain evolution: comparing chimp and brain organoids
by David Turell , Monday, March 11, 2019, 17:15 (1867 days ago) @ dhw
DAVID: Again you question why God waited and evolved life in stages. I can only answer it was His choice. And therefore a big bush of life to supply food for all stages. Totally logical.
dhw: I am not questioning why your God evolved LIFE in stages. I am questioning why, if your God’s only aim was to produce the brain of H. sapiens, he produced anything but that brain for billions of years until 300,000 years ago. Totally illogical.
DAVID: That is simple human logic. I don't know why God made His choice, but that is what I have to accept. We've already tried out all the possible reasons. WE can't prove any of them. It is your problem, not mine.
You don’t know why your God would have made the choice you insist he made, so maybe that is not the choice he made. You don’t HAVE to accept your own illogical theistic interpretation, especially if there are other theistic interpretations that are logical.
DAVID: Of course the bush was His decision.
dhw: So maybe he set out with the purpose of creating a bush, and not with the purpose of “slowly evolving the human brain”.
DAVID: You are back with another guess.
Of course. But my guess explains why your in-full-control God created a bush instead of – as in your guess – the only thing he wanted to create, the brain of H. sapiens. And now your only reply is:
DAVID: It doesn't fit your human logic. So?
dhw: And it doesn’t fit your human logic either. So why do you assume that your God would act in ways you believe to be illogical when there are other explanations of his actions which you accept as perfectly logical?
Don't transpose your style of human reasoning to me. I have never said His choice of using evolution to create was illogical. What I admit is I have no way of knowing why He made that choice and you and I have discussed all the possibilities thoroughly, but none are provable.
DAVID: I have my fixed beliefs which I have logically explained to my satisfaction. Observers can decide for themselves who is closer to the truth, which we cannot fully ascertain.dhw: On Friday 1 March 2019, you wrote: “Haven’t you realized by now, I have no idea why God chose to evolve humans over time.” Now all of a sudden you have logically explained it to your satisfaction. Do please share the secret with us.
DAVID: My honest answer to your question is above as you quote. I do not, and cannot, know. It is logically explained to those of us who have accepted God that He is in charge and has the right to choose a method. You have agreed to that in the past.
dhw: I agree 100% that if he exists he is in charge and has the right to choose a method, and I agree 100% that neither you nor I can know the objective truth. That is no reason for rejecting my logical hypotheses and trying to justify your own illogical hypotheses on the grounds that I am only human. Aren’t you human too?
Nothing I have written in this post is illogical. You are puzzled as to why God waited instead of early direct creation of everything in life that is present now. You've admitted He has the right to wait and use evolution. Humans are currently the most complex of all created. It is easy to read what has been created as God's purpose. Otherwise why create any specific item? Frankly, it is difficult to visualize anything more complex than our brains. Yes, they could evolve to being more complex. And I've admitted you have the right to your own hypotheses which are no more logical than mine. The difference is I put more weight on certain aspects of the factors/considerations than you do.
dhw:Big brain evolution: comparing chimp and brain organoids
dhw: […] my guess explains why your in-full-control God created a bush instead of – as in your guess – the only thing he wanted to create, the brain of H. sapiens. And now your only reply is:
DAVID: It doesn't fit your human logic. So?
dhw: And it doesn’t fit your human logic either. So why do you assume that your God would act in ways you believe to be illogical when there are other explanations of his actions which you accept as perfectly logical?
DAVID: Don't transpose your style of human reasoning to me. I have never said His choice of using evolution to create was illogical. What I admit is I have no way of knowing why He made that choice and you and I have discussed all the possibilities thoroughly, but none are provable.
You have said your hypothesis doesn’t fit my human logic. You have also said you have no idea why your always-in-full-control God would have chosen to spend billions of years specially designing millions of life forms to eat or not eat one another until he specifically designed the only thing he wanted to design. The fact that no hypothesis is provable is not the point. If you can’t find a logical explanation, may I suggest that your hypothesis doesn’t fit your human logic either?
DAVID: […] I do not, and cannot, know. It is logically explained to those of us who have accepted God that He is in charge and has the right to choose a method. You have agreed to that in the past.
dhw: I agree 100% that if he exists he is in charge and has the right to choose a method, and I agree 100% that neither you nor I can know the objective truth. That is no reason for rejecting my logical hypotheses and trying to justify your own illogical hypotheses on the grounds that I am only human. Aren’t you human too?
DAVID: Nothing I have written in this post is illogical. You are puzzled as to why God waited instead of early direct creation of everything in life that is present now. You've admitted He has the right to wait and use evolution.
We are not talking about God’s rights but about an interpretation of your God’s purpose and method for which even you cannot find a logical explanation. I am therefore suggesting that your explanation has less chance of being right than others which even you agree are logical.
DAVID: Humans are currently the most complex of all created. It is easy to read what has been created as God's purpose. Otherwise why create any specific item?
Your question is right to the point. According to you, he specially created millions and millions of specific items, so if the human brain was his only purpose, why specially create specific items such as dinosaurs, whale flippers, cuttlefish camouflage and weaverbirds’ nests?
DAVID: Frankly, it is difficult to visualize anything more complex than our brains. Yes, they could evolve to being more complex. And I've admitted you have the right to your own hypotheses which are no more logical than mine. The difference is I put more weight on certain aspects of the factors/considerations than you do.
As usual, you now pick on part of just one of the three hypotheses, in this case the superiority of the human brain, which of course I accept. And if this was his one and only purpose, I have offered you a logical explanation for the delay (experimentation). What is not logical is the combination of your three hypotheses: God always in control, God with one purpose (H. sapiens’ brain), God specially designing anything but H. sapiens brain until 300,000 years ago. Please stop separating your three hypotheses – it is the combination that you cannot explain, because it is the combination that is illogical.
dhw:Big brain evolution: comparing chimp and brain organoids
by David Turell , Tuesday, March 12, 2019, 18:23 (1866 days ago) @ dhw
DAVID: Don't transpose your style of human reasoning to me. I have never said His choice of using evolution to create was illogical. What I admit is I have no way of knowing why He made that choice and you and I have discussed all the possibilities thoroughly, but none are provable.
dhw: You have said your hypothesis doesn’t fit my human logic. You have also said you have no idea why your always-in-full-control God would have chosen to spend billions of years specially designing millions of life forms to eat or not eat one another until he specifically designed the only thing he wanted to design. The fact that no hypothesis is provable is not the point. If you can’t find a logical explanation, may I suggest that your hypothesis doesn’t fit your human logic either?
Your insistence on a 'logical' explanation cannot affect my position, since I have no way of knowing why He made choice to evolve life to this point. Logic is accepting God's choice.
DAVID: Humans are currently the most complex of all created. It is easy to read what has been created as God's purpose. Otherwise why create any specific item?dhw: Your question is right to the point. According to you, he specially created millions and millions of specific items, so if the human brain was his only purpose, why specially create specific items such as dinosaurs, whale flippers, cuttlefish camouflage and weaverbirds’ nests?
To repeat: a bush of life creates the ecosystems that provide food for all, so evolution can take the time it needs.
DAVID: Frankly, it is difficult to visualize anything more complex than our brains. Yes, they could evolve to being more complex. And I've admitted you have the right to your own hypotheses which are no more logical than mine. The difference is I put more weight on certain aspects of the factors/considerations than you do.dhw: As usual, you now pick on part of just one of the three hypotheses, in this case the superiority of the human brain, which of course I accept. And if this was his one and only purpose, I have offered you a logical explanation for the delay (experimentation). What is not logical is the combination of your three hypotheses: God always in control, God with one purpose (H. sapiens’ brain), God specially designing anything but H. sapiens brain until 300,000 years ago. Please stop separating your three hypotheses – it is the combination that you cannot explain, because it is the combination that is illogical.
You cannot reconcile why God-in-charge chose to wait to evolve the most complex item of all, our brain. I don't have to try to reconcile it. God demonstrates His pattern of development. God started the universe with the Big Bang and it evolved over time. Our Milky Way is about 3.5 byo, about 0.3 billion years after the BB. Our sun is about 5 byo, the Earth is about 4.5 byo. The Earth then evolved enough for the start of life to appear at 3.5+ byo. As I've pointed out in the past, God obviously appears to prefer evolving His purposes. That is my accepted historical evidence. You surely can understand this approach to the issue. My theories don't just pop up out of thin air!
dhw:Big brain evolution: comparing chimp and brain organoids
dhw: You have said your hypothesis doesn’t fit my human logic. You have also said you have no idea why your always-in-full-control God would have chosen to spend billions of years specially designing millions of life forms to eat or not eat one another until he specifically designed the only thing he wanted to design. The fact that no hypothesis is provable is not the point. If you can’t find a logical explanation, may I suggest that your hypothesis doesn’t fit your human logic either?
DAVID: Your insistence on a 'logical' explanation cannot affect my position, since I have no way of knowing why He made choice to evolve life to this point. Logic is accepting God's choice.
What you are now saying is that it is logical to accept your personal INTERPRETATION of God’s choice, even though you find your interpretation inexplicable (which can only be because it is illogical).
DAVID: Humans are currently the most complex of all created. It is easy to read what has been created as God's purpose. Otherwise why create any specific item?
dhw: Your question is right to the point. According to you, he specially created millions and millions of specific items, so if the human brain was his only purpose, why specially create specific items such as dinosaurs, whale flippers, cuttlefish camouflage and weaverbirds’ nests?
DAVID: To repeat: a bush of life creates the ecosystems that provide food for all, so evolution can take the time it needs.
I can certainly accept the obvious fact that evolution can only continue if there is food to enable some of its products to survive. In your hypothesis, though, it’s not evolution but your always-in-control God who “takes the time he needs” to fulfil his one and only purpose (the brain of H. sapiens). This is the illogicality which you continue to acknowledge and then to gloss over (as you do below in your “Neanderthal” comment).
DAVID: You cannot reconcile why God-in-charge chose to wait to evolve the most complex item of all, our brain. I don't have to try to reconcile it. God demonstrates His pattern of development. God started the universe with the Big Bang and it evolved over time. Our Milky Way is about 3.5 byo, about 0.3 billion years after the BB. Our sun is about 5 byo, the Earth is about 4.5 byo. The Earth then evolved enough for the start of life to appear at 3.5+ byo. As I've pointed out in the past, God obviously appears to prefer evolving His purposes. That is my accepted historical evidence. You surely can understand this approach to the issue. My theories don't just pop up out of thin air!
Since you and I both believe in evolution, and if God exists, then all the above is true, and God must have used evolution to fulfil his purpose. But as usual you have completely ignored the point at issue between us: if he is in full control, and his one and only purpose was to produce us, you cannot explain why he chose to specially design millions and millions of other life forms, econiches, lifestyles and natural wonders until 300,000 years ago, when he specially designed us. So do please stop pretending that your potted history of the universe supports your anthropocentric interpretation of your God’s purpose and method. It doesn’t. (See also under “Anthropic Principle”).
Under “How sapiens were Neanderthals: Very”
QUOTE: Far from some primitive offshoot, Neanderthals should be more accurately understood as another of nature’s experiments in humanity."
DAVID: this article shows H. sapiens chauvinism clouded our proper and present view of Neanderthals. Not much different than early sapiens.
I like your phrase “H. sapiens chauvinism”, bearing in mind your insistence that the brain of H. sapiens was your God’s one and only purpose, and I wonder why you have ignored the concept of “nature’s experiments in humanity”. According to you, it was God who specially designed all the variations. Why do you think he specially designed Neanderthal when all he wanted was H. sapiens? Could he have been experimenting, then, as opposed to being in full control, or could he even have left all the experimentation to the intelligent mechanisms he had designed so that they could do their own designing?
dhw: big brain evolution:comparing chimp and brain organoids
by David Turell , Sunday, March 17, 2019, 18:47 (1861 days ago) @ dhw
DAVID: Your insistence on a 'logical' explanation cannot affect my position, since I have no way of knowing why He made choice to evolve life to this point. Logic is accepting God's choice.
dhw: What you are now saying is that it is logical to accept your personal INTERPRETATION of God’s choice, even though you find your interpretation inexplicable (which can only be because it is illogical).
God made an obvious choice, since other methods were available. It's your problem, not mine.
DAVID: You cannot reconcile why God-in-charge chose to wait to evolve the most complex item of all, our brain. I don't have to try to reconcile it. God demonstrates His pattern of development. God started the universe with the Big Bang and it evolved over time. Our Milky Way is about 3.5 byo, about 0.3 billion years after the BB. Our sun is about 5 byo, the Earth is about 4.5 byo. The Earth then evolved enough for the start of life to appear at 3.5+ byo. As I've pointed out in the past, God obviously appears to prefer evolving His purposes. That is my accepted historical evidence. You surely can understand this approach to the issue. My theories don't just pop up out of thin air!dhw: Since you and I both believe in evolution, and if God exists, then all the above is true, and God must have used evolution to fulfil his purpose. But as usual you have completely ignored the point at issue between us: if he is in full control, and his one and only purpose was to produce us, you cannot explain why he chose to specially design millions and millions of other life forms, econiches, lifestyles and natural wonders until 300,000 years ago, when he specially designed us. So do please stop pretending that your potted history of the universe supports your anthropocentric interpretation of your God’s purpose and method. It doesn’t.
You have again produced your non sequitur of doubting God's choice after agreeing God had the right to make His own choices. Human brains are the latest, and perhaps last evolutionary creation. It is obviously God's current purpose, now achieved, skipping over a debate about future events. If He chose to use evolution in the beginning, which you agree is reasonable, He must have had human brains in His mind as an eventual goal. Evolution takes lots of time. I've satisfactorily explained the need for food supply which explains the bush of life. You've agreed about the food supply. So I view your comments as totally illogical and ignoring your own agreements.
Under “How sapiens were Neanderthals: Very”
QUOTE: Far from some primitive offshoot, Neanderthals should be more accurately understood as another of nature’s experiments in humanity."
DAVID: this article shows H. sapiens chauvinism clouded our proper and present view of Neanderthals. Not much different than early sapiens.
dhw: I like your phrase “H. sapiens chauvinism”, bearing in mind your insistence that the brain of H. sapiens was your God’s one and only purpose, and I wonder why you have ignored the concept of “nature’s experiments in humanity”. According to you, it was God who specially designed all the variations. Why do you think he specially designed Neanderthal when all he wanted was H. sapiens? Could he have been experimenting, then, as opposed to being in full control, or could he even have left all the experimentation to the intelligent mechanisms he had designed so that they could do their own designing?
You've forgotten that Neanderthal/sapiens interbreeding has been shown to provide a better immune system for the resultant sapiens now existing. That was partially due to the fact they lived in a harsher environment than the sapiens who came from Africa. The Dinosivans might have provided something else. Note: Friday, February 24, 2017, 22:12. God might have had different groups develop different aspects of DNA in just this way. Not experimenting, purposeful, as usual.
dhw: big brain evolution:comparing chimp and brain organoids
DAVID: Your insistence on a 'logical' explanation cannot affect my position, since I have no way of knowing why He made choice to evolve life to this point. Logic is accepting God's choice.
dhw: What you are now saying is that it is logical to accept your personal INTERPRETATION of God’s choice, even though you find your interpretation inexplicable (which can only be because it is illogical).
DAVID: God made an obvious choice, since other methods were available. It's your problem, not mine.
You cannot explain why an always-in-control God would choose to spend 3.5+ billion years designing anything but the only thing he wanted to design (the brain of H. sapiens). But you are right: in any discussion, if one interlocutor acknowledges that his belief is inexplicable but refuses to consider other explanations which even he recognizes as being logical, it’s the other guy who has a problem. How can you argue with someone who rejects logic? I wonder how you would respond to an atheist who agreed that your design argument for the existence of God was perfectly logical, but it’s obvious that there is no God.
[…]
DAVID: You have again produced your non sequitur of doubting God's choice after agreeing God had the right to make His own choices.
Of course he had the right. I am doubting your interpretation of his choice – not the choice of evolution, but the choice to spend 3.5+ billion years designing anything but the one thing he wanted to design!
DAVID: Human brains are the latest, and perhaps last evolutionary creation. It is obviously God's current purpose, now achieved, skipping over a debate about future events. If He chose to use evolution in the beginning, which you agree is reasonable, He must have had human brains in His mind as an eventual goal. Evolution takes lots of time. I've satisfactorily explained the need for food supply which explains the bush of life. You've agreed about the food supply. So I view your comments as totally illogical and ignoring your own agreements.
And so once again you ignore the point at issue, which is the illogical COMBINATION of your hypotheses. The one you have left out here is that your God is always in control. What you yourself cannot explain is why a God 1) who is in full control and 2) whose one and only goal is the brain of H. sapiens, 3) specially designed millions of other life forms so that they could eat or not eat one another until he specially designed the only thing he wanted to design. You can make a logical case for either of the first two, but you cannot combine them logically with 3). That is why I have offered you a range of alternatives, all of which you agree are logical.
dhw: Why do you think he specially designed Neanderthal when all he wanted was H. sapiens? Could he have been experimenting, then, as opposed to being in full control, or could he even have left all the experimentation to the intelligent mechanisms he had designed so that they could do their own designing?
DAVID: You've forgotten that Neanderthal/sapiens interbreeding has been shown to provide a better immune system for the resultant sapiens now existing. […] God might have had different groups develop different aspects of DNA in just this way. Not experimenting, purposeful, as usual.
If your God was in full control and H. sapiens was his one and only goal, why could he not have directly provided H. sapiens with the better immune system? Possible answers: he was not in full control; H. sapiens was not his one and only goal; he deliberately designed different groups in the course of his “experiments in humanity”; he gave free rein to the evolutionary mechanisms he had designed. Or of course your own answer: he chose to do it that way, and you have no idea why.
dhw: big brain evolution:comparing chimp and brain organoids
by David Turell , Monday, March 18, 2019, 22:32 (1859 days ago) @ dhw
DAVID: God made an obvious choice, since other methods were available. It's your problem, not mine.
dhw: You cannot explain why an always-in-control God would choose to spend 3.5+ billion years designing anything but the only thing he wanted to design (the brain of H. sapiens).
Of course I can't explain it. No one can. What you keep harping on is God's choice of method. I don't read His mind so how do I know why? You and I have covered all the theoretical possibilities and cannot prove any answer. My reasoning stays logical to me. It is your problem only.
dhw: Why do you think he specially designed Neanderthal when all he wanted was H. sapiens? Could he have been experimenting, then, as opposed to being in full control, or could he even have left all the experimentation to the intelligent mechanisms he had designed so that they could do their own designing?
DAVID: You've forgotten that Neanderthal/sapiens interbreeding has been shown to provide a better immune system for the resultant sapiens now existing. […] God might have had different groups develop different aspects of DNA in just this way. Not experimenting, purposeful, as usual.
dhw: If your God was in full control and H. sapiens was his one and only goal, why could he not have directly provided H. sapiens with the better immune system? Possible answers: he was not in full control; H. sapiens was not his one and only goal; he deliberately designed different groups in the course of his “experiments in humanity”; he gave free rein to the evolutionary mechanisms he had designed. Or of course your own answer: he chose to do it that way, and you have no idea why.
I do have a reasonable idea for this question: Neanderthal and Denisovan groups lived in different environments, and produced different patterns of immunity, which with interbreeding allowed current humans who now live everywhere to have a broad pattern of immunity. Why He didn't do direct creation goes back to the original decision by God to evolve whatever He desired. And please don't go back to questioning His choices. It is your sole problem.I have no factual proof of any answer.
dhw: big brain evolution:comparing chimp and brain organoids
DAVID: God made an obvious choice, since other methods were available. It's your problem, not mine.
dhw: You cannot explain why an always-in-control God would choose to spend 3.5+ billion years designing anything but the only thing he wanted to design (the brain of H. sapiens).
DAVID: Of course I can't explain it. No one can. What you keep harping on is God's choice of method. I don't read His mind so how do I know why? You and I have covered all the theoretical possibilities and cannot prove any answer. My reasoning stays logical to me. It is your problem only.
What you keep “harping on” about is 1) God is in total control, 2) his one and only purpose was to produce the brain of H. sapiens, 3) he specially designed millions of life forms, econiches, lifestyles and natural wonders so that organisms could eat or not eat one another until he specially designed the brain of H. sapiens. These are your fixed beliefs, you say their combination is logical, but you can’t explain the logic. Yes, inexplicable logic is a problem for me. On the other hand, you have acknowledged that my different alternatives are logical, but you reject them all. The fact that NO explanations are provable does not alter the fact that you continue to “harp on” about each of your three hypotheses although you are fully aware that in combination they do not make sense. Your justification for doing so is to say that they do make sense, although you can’t explain how. (Previously you just happened to know that God’s logic is different from ours.)
dhw: If your God was in full control and H. sapiens was his one and only goal, why could he not have directly provided H. sapiens with the better immune system? Possible answers: he was not in full control; H. sapiens was not his one and only goal; he deliberately designed different groups in the course of his “experiments in humanity”; he gave free rein to the evolutionary mechanisms he had designed. Or of course your own answer: he chose to do it that way, and you have no idea why.
DAVID: I do have a reasonable idea for this question: Neanderthal and Denisovan groups lived in different environments, and produced different patterns of immunity, which with interbreeding allowed current humans who now live everywhere to have a broad pattern of immunity. Why He didn't do direct creation goes back to the original decision by God to evolve whatever He desired. And please don't go back to questioning His choices. It is your sole problem. I have no factual proof of any answer.
I have no objection to your immunity theory. It is the problem of your fully-in-control God opting out of direct creation that is the issue between us, and you know full well that I am not questioning his choice. I am questioning your INTERPRETATION of his choices and methods. I have offered you four logical alternatives above, but you have ignored them all and opted for the fifth: “he chose to do it that way, and you have no idea why”.
dhw: big brain evolution:comparing chimp and brain organoids
by David Turell , Tuesday, March 19, 2019, 18:29 (1859 days ago) @ dhw
DAVID: God made an obvious choice, since other methods were available. It's your problem, not mine.
dhw: You cannot explain why an always-in-control God would choose to spend 3.5+ billion years designing anything but the only thing he wanted to design (the brain of H. sapiens).
DAVID: Of course I can't explain it. No one can. What you keep harping on is God's choice of method. I don't read His mind so how do I know why? You and I have covered all the theoretical possibilities and cannot prove any answer. My reasoning stays logical to me. It is your problem only.
What you keep “harping on” about is 1) God is in total control, 2) his one and only purpose was to produce the brain of H. sapiens, 3) he specially designed millions of life forms, econiches, lifestyles and natural wonders so that organisms could eat or not eat one another until he specially designed the brain of H. sapiens. These are your fixed beliefs, you say their combination is logical, but you can’t explain the logic. Yes, inexplicable logic is a problem for me. On the other hand, you have acknowledged that my different alternatives are logical, but you reject them all. The fact that NO explanations are provable does not alter the fact that you continue to “harp on” about each of your three hypotheses although you are fully aware that in combination they do not make sense.
Of course I have explained it, but not to your satisfaction. The only thing I can't explain, because I can't read God's mind as to why He chose evolution as a method. But I can interpret the real history. If God is fully in charge and all-powerful, He has, and you've agreed, the right to choose His method of producing whatever He wishes. He has produced the most complex of all living things, the human mind in the human brain. I follow Adler's logic, a leading American philosopher, that we are different in kind and that predicts the existence of God in action and His intention. You love to quote beloved experts whose ideas you live by. I have the same right to live by Adler. I offer Adler's logical argument to answer you. When will you fully accept God made His choice of method to achieve goals? Evolution, obviously, must work toward desired endpoints.
dhw: If your God was in full control and H. sapiens was his one and only goal, why could he not have directly provided H. sapiens with the better immune system? Possible answers: he was not in full control; H. sapiens was not his one and only goal; he deliberately designed different groups in the course of his “experiments in humanity”; he gave free rein to the evolutionary mechanisms he had designed. Or of course your own answer: he chose to do it that way, and you have no idea why.
DAVID: I do have a reasonable idea for this question: Neanderthal and Denisovan groups lived in different environments, and produced different patterns of immunity, which with interbreeding allowed current humans who now live everywhere to have a broad pattern of immunity. Why He didn't do direct creation goes back to the original decision by God to evolve whatever He desired. And please don't go back to questioning His choices. It is your sole problem. I have no factual proof of any answer.
dhw: I have no objection to your immunity theory. It is the problem of your fully-in-control God opting out of direct creation that is the issue between us, and you know full well that I am not questioning his choice. I am questioning your INTERPRETATION of his choices and methods. I have offered you four logical alternatives above, but you have ignored them all and opted for the fifth: “he chose to do it that way, and you have no idea why”.
Not knowing 'why' is an illogical response to me. You have no right to demand I must know why He made His choice or I am illogical. Talk about illogical thinking. Every evidence in reality shows God chooses to evolve: the Universe, conditions on Earth, and life itself. And it fits human immunity, as I've shown above. My interpretation fits history, and that cannot be denied. I'm still with Adler and the theological importance of human consciousness.
dhw: big brain evolution:comparing chimp and brain organoids
Dhw: […] The fact that NO explanations are provable does not alter the fact that you continue to “harp on” about each of your three hypotheses although you are fully aware that in combination they do not make sense.
DAVID: Of course I have explained it, but not to your satisfaction. The only thing I can't explain, because I can't read God's mind as to why He chose evolution as a method. But I can interpret the real history. If God is fully in charge and all-powerful, He has, and you've agreed, the right to choose His method of producing whatever He wishes. He has produced the most complex of all living things, the human mind in the human brain. I follow Adler's logic, a leading American philosopher, that we are different in kind and that predicts the existence of God in action and His intention. You love to quote beloved experts whose ideas you live by. I have the same right to live by Adler. I offer Adler's logical argument to answer you. When will you fully accept God made His choice of method to achieve goals? Evolution, obviously, must work toward desired endpoints.
You simply refuse to recognize that it is the COMBINATION of your hypotheses that doesn’t make sense. Instead you separate them, and each one on its own is logical. Yes, your God may be all-powerful. Yes, if he exists, of course he chose evolution as his method to achieve his goals (though you keep insisting there was only one: H. sapiens. What do you think were his other goals?) Yes, the human mind is special. Why in this summary have you left out your hypothesis that he specially designed every innovation, econiche, lifestyle and natural wonder in the history of life? THAT is the issue you continually sidestep: not why he chose evolution as a method, but why until 300,000 years ago he chose to design anything but the one thing he wanted to design. You use the same dodge in our next exchange, which we needn’t repeat.
You force me to repeat alternative theistic interpretations of life’s “real history”: maybe your God had other goals, maybe he’s not all-powerful, maybe he was experimenting, maybe he did not specially design every life form, econiche etc., maybe he didn’t want to be “fully in charge”, maybe he wanted an evolutionary free-for-all. But no, you refuse to consider such logical alternatives, all of which fit in with the "real history", and you stick to your illogical COMBINATION of hypotheses which you insist was God’s choice: “I, the all-powerful God, only want to design H. sapiens, and therefore I choose to design millions of life forms to eat or not eat one another until I design the only life form I want to design.” That is not your God’s choice, that is your interpretation of your God’s choice, and it doesn’t make sense even to you.
dhw: big brain evolution:comparing chimp and brain organoids
by David Turell , Wednesday, March 20, 2019, 17:29 (1858 days ago) @ dhw
Dhw: […] The fact that NO explanations are provable does not alter the fact that you continue to “harp on” about each of your three hypotheses although you are fully aware that in combination they do not make sense.
DAVID: Of course I have explained it, but not to your satisfaction. The only thing I can't explain, because I can't read God's mind as to why He chose evolution as a method. But I can interpret the real history. If God is fully in charge and all-powerful, He has, and you've agreed, the right to choose His method of producing whatever He wishes. He has produced the most complex of all living things, the human mind in the human brain. I follow Adler's logic, a leading American philosopher, that we are different in kind and that predicts the existence of God in action and His intention. You love to quote beloved experts whose ideas you live by. I have the same right to live by Adler. I offer Adler's logical argument to answer you. When will you fully accept God made His choice of method to achieve goals? Evolution, obviously, must work toward desired endpoints.
dhw; You simply refuse to recognize that it is the COMBINATION of your hypotheses that doesn’t make sense. Instead you separate them, and each one on its own is logical. Yes, your God may be all-powerful. Yes, if he exists, of course he chose evolution as his method to achieve his goals (though you keep insisting there was only one: H. sapiens. What do you think were his other goals?) Yes, the human mind is special. Why in this summary have you left out your hypothesis that he specially designed every innovation, econiche, lifestyle and natural wonder in the history of life? THAT is the issue you continually sidestep: not why he chose evolution as a method, but why until 300,000 years ago he chose to design anything but the one thing he wanted to design. You use the same dodge in our next exchange, which we needn’t repeat.
It is not a dodge. Evolution implies using time to create. It took until 300,000 years ago to reach the point He wanted. The rest is still food supply to get there. And you are skipping the importance of Adler's analysis.
dhw: You force me to repeat alternative theistic interpretations of life’s “real history”: maybe your God had other goals, maybe he’s not all-powerful, maybe he was experimenting, maybe he did not specially design every life form, econiche etc., maybe he didn’t want to be “fully in charge”, maybe he wanted an evolutionary free-for-all. But no, you refuse to consider such logical alternatives, all of which fit in with the "real history", and you stick to your illogical COMBINATION of hypotheses which you insist was God’s choice: “I, the all-powerful God, only want to design H. sapiens, and therefore I choose to design millions of life forms to eat or not eat one another until I design the only life form I want to design.” That is not your God’s choice, that is your interpretation of your God’s choice, and it doesn’t make sense even to you.
Stop telling me what to think. It makes perfect sense. God's choice is God's choice. There is no other interpretation except your constant struggling to read God's mind in a humanizing way.
dhw: big brain evolution:comparing chimp and brain organoids
dhw: You simply refuse to recognize that it is the COMBINATION of your hypotheses that doesn’t make sense. Instead you separate them, and each one on its own is logical. Yes, your God may be all-powerful. Yes, if he exists, of course he chose evolution as his method to achieve his goals (though you keep insisting there was only one: H. sapiens. What do you think were his other goals?) Yes, the human mind is special. Why in this summary have you left out your hypothesis that he specially designed every innovation, econiche, lifestyle and natural wonder in the history of life? THAT is the issue you continually sidestep: not why he chose evolution as a method, but why until 300,000 years ago he chose to design anything but the one thing he wanted to design.You use the same dodge in our next exchange, which we needn’t repeat.(Newly bolded by dhw)
DAVID: It is not a dodge. Evolution implies using time to create. It took until 300,000 years ago to reach the point He wanted. The rest is still food supply to get there. And you are skipping the importance of Adler's analysis.
I have acknowledged that the human mind is special. Evolution has gone on for 3.8 billion years, so of course it takes time. That does not explain why an all-powerful God with a single purpose decided to create billions of other life forms, econiches, lifestyles and natural wonders so that organisms could eat or not eat one another until in his all-powerfulness he specially designed the only thing he wanted to design. You can’t explain it. Please tell me Adler’s explanation. If Adler doesn’t explain it, then there is no point in referring to Adler as if he does.
dhw: You force me to repeat alternative theistic interpretations of life’s “real history”: maybe your God had other goals, maybe he’s not all-powerful, maybe he was experimenting, maybe he did not specially design every life form, econiche etc., maybe he didn’t want to be “fully in charge”, maybe he wanted an evolutionary free-for-all. […]
DAVID: Stop telling me what to think. It makes perfect sense. God's choice is God's choice. There is no other interpretation except your constant struggling to read God's mind in a humanizing way.
Of course God’s choice is God’s choice, but your interpretation of his choice and method is inexplicable even to you, and so I am not telling you what to think, but I am offering you different alternatives for consideration. Identifying God’s purpose and choice of method entails attempting to read God’s mind. Why do you think your own inexplicable reading of his mind is the only true one, when you have acknowledged that all the other interpretations of purpose and method I have offered fit in logically with the “real history” of life?
dhw: big brain evolution:comparing chimp and brain organoids
by David Turell , Thursday, March 21, 2019, 18:43 (1857 days ago) @ dhw
DAVID: It is not a dodge. Evolution implies using time to create. It took until 300,000 years ago to reach the point He wanted. The rest is still food supply to get there. And you are skipping the importance of Adler's analysis.
dhw: I have acknowledged that the human mind is special. Evolution has gone on for 3.8 billion years, so of course it takes time. That does not explain why an all-powerful God with a single purpose decided to create billions of other life forms, econiches, lifestyles and natural wonders so that organisms could eat or not eat one another until in his all-powerfulness he specially designed the only thing he wanted to design. You can’t explain it. Please tell me Adler’s explanation. If Adler doesn’t explain it, then there is no point in referring to Adler as if he does.
Once again you have donned the mantle of religion's pundit: God is all-powerful so why decide to wait through 3.8 billion years. That is impatient human reasoning, not God's. We've been over this before: God may not be totally all-everything, and although He could easily produce a universe made of elementary particles at the Big Bang, even it evolved after that. Since living organisms are so much more complex, perhaps He had limits, and had to evolve or just as simply, He chose this method (and we don't know why using our human reasoning). History makes it plain God chose to evolve because that it was happened. In your fence sitting pose as an agnostic, why do you stick to accepting God's all-powerful persona? Only because you think it allows you to argue with me. Surprise! I've taken full account of the issue: I don't know if God is really all-powerful, as I've considered the issue, and fully understand He might have limits as He directs evolution. Whether it is forced choice or not, He made a choice, and made the bush broad enough to supply food energy for all while all teh required time passed until now.
As for Adler, his only point over several hundred pages of previously given speeches mainly theological and philosophical, exploring the meaning of human differences to previous living beings. Adler gives no explanation for evolution, but as far as vastly different humans arrived, that vast difference proves God exists. In his book for atheists and 'pagans'. he uses a different proof, involving creation of and maintenance of the universe. I remind you Adler was born Jewish, became a philosophic adviser to the Catholic church and died Catholic.
dhw: You force me to repeat alternative theistic interpretations of life’s “real history”: maybe your God had other goals, maybe he’s not all-powerful, maybe he was experimenting, maybe he did not specially design every life form, econiche etc., maybe he didn’t want to be “fully in charge”, maybe he wanted an evolutionary free-for-all. […]DAVID: Stop telling me what to think. It makes perfect sense. God's choice is God's choice. There is no other interpretation except your constant struggling to read God's mind in a humanizing way.
dhw: Of course God’s choice is God’s choice, but your interpretation of his choice and method is inexplicable even to you, and so I am not telling you what to think, but I am offering you different alternatives for consideration. Identifying God’s purpose and choice of method entails attempting to read God’s mind. Why do you think your own inexplicable reading of his mind is the only true one, when you have acknowledged that all the other interpretations of purpose and method I have offered fit in logically with the “real history” of life?
It is your interpretation that is wrong: Above, I've fully explained our difference in thought. You create your own problem of interpretation. I am trying to show you why you should stop struggling. I'm at peace.
dhw: big brain evolution:comparing chimp and brain organoids
dhw: I have acknowledged that the human mind is special. Evolution has gone on for 3.8 billion years, so of course it takes time. That does not explain why an all-powerful God with a single purpose decided to create billions of other life forms, econiches, lifestyles and natural wonders so that organisms could eat or not eat one another until in his all-powerfulness he specially designed the only thing he wanted to design. You can’t explain it. Please tell me Adler’s explanation. If Adler doesn’t explain it, then there is no point in referring to Adler as if he does.
DAVID: Once again you have donned the mantle of religion's pundit: God is all-powerful so why decide to wait through 3.8 billion years. […] God may not be totally all-everything […] perhaps He had limits, […] In your fence sitting pose as an agnostic, why do you stick to accepting God's all-powerful persona? Only because you think it allows you to argue with me. […] I don't know if God is really all-powerful, as I've considered the issue, and fully understand He might have limits as He directs evolution.
I’m sorry, but one of the major problems in our discussions is that your beliefs seem to change from week to week. It is you who keep on insisting that your God is in full control, and I keep saying that IF he is in full control, it is illogical that he should spend 3.5+ billion years designing anything but the one thing he wants to design. I hate to do this to you, but here is one of your explicit statements on this thread, Wed, 6 March at 18:38:
DAVID: I believe He is in full control. You are the one who is not sure of that because you don't accept God's powers, and I know that.
Since then you have gone on insisting that he is in full control. Two days ago, I repeated my various alternatives. Note the bold.
dhw: You force me to repeat alternative theistic interpretations of life’s “real history”: maybe your God had other goals, maybe he’s not all-powerful, maybe he was experimenting, maybe he did not specially design every life form, econiche etc., maybe he didn’t want to be “fully in charge”, maybe he wanted an evolutionary free-for-all. […]
DAVID: Adler gives no explanation for evolution, but as far as vastly different humans arrived, that vast difference proves God exists.
Our issue here is not the existence of God but your insistence that your God spent 3.5+ billion years designing anything but the one thing he wanted to design. You complained that I was “skipping the importance of Adler’s analysis”. Clearly Adler is irrelevant to this particular discussion.
dhw: Why do you think your own inexplicable reading of his mind is the only true one, when you have acknowledged that all the other interpretations of purpose and method I have offered fit in logically with the “real history” of life?
DAVID: It is your interpretation that is wrong: Above, I've fully explained our difference in thought. You create your own problem of interpretation. I am trying to show you why you should stop struggling. I'm at peace.
I have several interpretations, all of which by your own admission fit in with the “real history”. You have now explicitly acknowledged that one of your hypotheses (“fully in control”) may be wrong. That opens the way to the hypothesis of experimentation. Perhaps you will open your mind to other possibilities, e.g. perhaps humans were not the sole purpose and only arrived late on in his thinking: that would also explain all the earlier designs which have no conceivable link to humans. But I have no wish to disturb your peace. My purpose in starting this forum was to have an open discussion on all the possibilities – a purpose which I would like to feel is being served by all our posts, and to the fulfilment of which you in particular have contributed more than anybody in our 11 years of debate!
dhw: big brain evolution:comparing chimp and brain organoids
by David Turell , Friday, March 22, 2019, 21:30 (1855 days ago) @ dhw
DAVID: Once again you have donned the mantle of religion's pundit: God is all-powerful so why decide to wait through 3.8 billion years. […] God may not be totally all-everything […] perhaps He had limits, […] In your fence sitting pose as an agnostic, why do you stick to accepting God's all-powerful persona? Only because you think it allows you to argue with me. […] I don't know if God is really all-powerful, as I've considered the issue, and fully understand He might have limits as He directs evolution.
dhw: I’m sorry, but one of the major problems in our discussions is that your beliefs seem to change from week to week. It is you who keep on insisting that your God is in full control, and I keep saying that IF he is in full control, it is illogical that he should spend 3.5+ billion years designing anything but the one thing he wants to design. I hate to do this to you, but here is one of your explicit statements on this thread, Wed, 6 March at 18:38:
DAVID: I believe He is in full control. You are the one who is not sure of that because you don't accept God's powers, and I know that.
dhw: Since then you have gone on insisting that he is in full control. Two days ago, I repeated my various alternatives. Note the bold.
dhw: You force me to repeat alternative theistic interpretations of life’s “real history”: maybe your God had other goals, maybe he’s not all-powerful, maybe he was experimenting, maybe he did not specially design every life form, econiche etc., maybe he didn’t want to be “fully in charge”, maybe he wanted an evolutionary free-for-all. […]
My belief He is full control covers both sides of your problem in discussion with me. Full control means He has the total right to choose His method of creation. My standard persistent position. Your view of His 'full control' means you see no reason for Him to have waited to create humans. You have the problem. I don't
DAVID: Adler gives no explanation for evolution, but as far as vastly different humans arrived, that vast difference proves God exists.dhw: Our issue here is not the existence of God but your insistence that your God spent 3.5+ billion years designing anything but the one thing he wanted to design. You complained that I was “skipping the importance of Adler’s analysis”. Clearly Adler is irrelevant to this particular discussion.
Adler is not off point. His view of the especial nature (consciousness) of humans is we are God's special creation and purpose.
dhw: Why do you think your own inexplicable reading of his mind is the only true one, when you have acknowledged that all the other interpretations of purpose and method I have offered fit in logically with the “real history” of life?DAVID: It is your interpretation that is wrong: Above, I've fully explained our difference in thought. You create your own problem of interpretation. I am trying to show you why you should stop struggling. I'm at peace.
dhw: I have several interpretations, all of which by your own admission fit in with the “real history”. You have now explicitly acknowledged that one of your hypotheses (“fully in control”) may be wrong. That opens the way to the hypothesis of experimentation. Perhaps you will open your mind to other possibilities, e.g. perhaps humans were not the sole purpose and only arrived late on in his thinking: that would also explain all the earlier designs which have no conceivable link to humans. But I have no wish to disturb your peace. My purpose in starting this forum was to have an open discussion on all the possibilities – a purpose which I would like to feel is being served by all our posts, and to the fulfilment of which you in particular have contributed more than anybody in our 11 years of debate!
I cannot disagree in general as to the value of the website. As usual you are confused about evolution in that if God is running it, it will start simple, as in all evolved things, and have a complex, purposeful, desired point to reach. And to this point we have. Very special humans, per Adler's analysis.
dhw: big brain evolution:comparing chimp and brain organoids
dhw: […] one of the major problems in our discussions is that your beliefs seem to change from week to week. It is you who keep on insisting that your God is in full control, and I keep saying that IF he is in full control, it is illogical that he should spend 3.5+ billion years designing anything but the one thing he wants to design.
DAVID: Wed, 6 March at 18:38:I believe He is in full control. You are the one who is not sure of that because you don't accept God's powers, and I know that. […]
DAVID: (Thursday 21 March at 18:43) I don't know if God is really all-powerful, as I've considered the issue, and fully understand He might have limits as He directs evolution.
DAVID: My belief He is full control covers both sides of your problem in discussion with me. Full control means He has the total right to choose His method of creation.
Of course he has the right to choose, but if he has limits, he can’t be in full control!
DAVID: My standard persistent position. Your view of His 'full control' means you see no reason for Him to have waited to create humans. You have the problem. I don't.
On the days when you believe he is in full control (with the powers you say I don’t accept), you have no idea why he spent 3.5+ billion years specially designing anything but the one thing he wanted to design. So can you then accept the possibility that he might deliberately have chosen NOT to maintain full control, i.e. to let evolution run its own course with the provision that he could dabble if he wanted to? On the days when you believe he may not be in full control, can you then accept the possibility that he may have been experimenting in order to find the right formula for a thinking being like himself? Or perhaps that humans came late on in his thinking, while he was designing all the things he enjoyed looking at, like a painter enjoying his own paintings?
DAVID: Adler gives no explanation for evolution, but as far as vastly different humans arrived, that vast difference proves God exists.
dhw: Our issue here is not the existence of God but your insistence that your God spent 3.5+ billion years designing anything but the one thing he wanted to design. You complained that I was “skipping the importance of Adler’s analysis”. Clearly Adler is irrelevant to this particular discussion.
DAVID: Adler is not off point. His view of the especial nature (consciousness) of humans is we are God's special creation and purpose.
The point of this discussion is your interpretation of your God’s purpose in relation to how evolution works. If humans were his sole purpose (Adler), you yourself have no idea why he specially designed countless life forms to eat or not eat one another until he specially designed H. sapiens. As above: One possible explanation is that your God has limits, and therefore was experimenting. Do you accept this as a reasonable explanation?
DAVID: […] As usual you are confused about evolution in that if God is running it, it will start simple, as in all evolved things, and have a complex, purposeful, desired point to reach. And to this point we have. Very special humans, per Adler's analysis.
There is no dispute between us over evolution starting simple and becoming more complex. If there is a God, of course he must have a purpose. Perfectly logical. The belief that H. sapiens is the desired endpoint is not in itself unreasonable. What IS unreasonable, and what you keep trying to gloss over, is the combination of this hypothesis with your OTHER hypotheses (full control, special design of everything except the only thing he wanted to specially design). Hence my asking you about the reasonableness of other possibilities.
dhw: big brain evolution:comparing chimp and brain organoids
by David Turell , Saturday, March 23, 2019, 14:12 (1855 days ago) @ dhw
DAVID: My belief He is full control covers both sides of your problem in discussion with me. Full control means He has the total right to choose His method of creation.
dhw: Of course he has the right to choose, but if he has limits, he can’t be in full control!
If you choose to turn right or left, aren't you in full control? You imply He might be constrained by limits. WE have no idea if your supposition that He has limits is true.
DAVID: My standard persistent position. Your view of His 'full control' means you see no reason for Him to have waited to create humans. You have the problem. I don't.dhw: On the days when you believe he is in full control (with the powers you say I don’t accept), you have no idea why he spent 3.5+ billion years specially designing anything but the one thing he wanted to design. So can you then accept the possibility that he might deliberately have chosen NOT to maintain full control, i.e. to let evolution run its own course with the provision that he could dabble if he wanted to? On the days when you believe he may not be in full control, can you then accept the possibility that he may have been experimenting in order to find the right formula for a thinking being like himself? Or perhaps that humans came late on in his thinking, while he was designing all the things he enjoyed looking at, like a painter enjoying his own paintings?
Your doubts about God's abilities are all reasonable for you to entertain, since we are in an area where there is no factual material to study except the path of evolution..
DAVID: Adler gives no explanation for evolution, but as far as vastly different humans arrived, that vast difference proves God exists.dhw: Our issue here is not the existence of God but your insistence that your God spent 3.5+ billion years designing anything but the one thing he wanted to design. You complained that I was “skipping the importance of Adler’s analysis”. Clearly Adler is irrelevant to this particular discussion.
DAVID: Adler is not off point. His view of the especial nature (consciousness) of humans is we are God's special creation and purpose.
dhw: The point of this discussion is your interpretation of your God’s purpose in relation to how evolution works. If humans were his sole purpose (Adler), you yourself have no idea why he specially designed countless life forms to eat or not eat one another until he specially designed H. sapiens. As above: One possible explanation is that your God has limits, and therefore was experimenting. Do you accept this as a reasonable explanation?
I have agreed it is a possibility in any discussion about God's method, but it offers no consideration of the point humans are different in kind, and therefore are a special result of evolution.
DAVID: […] As usual you are confused about evolution in that if God is running it, it will start simple, as in all evolved things, and have a complex, purposeful, desired point to reach. And to this point we have. Very special humans, per Adler's analysis.dhw: There is no dispute between us over evolution starting simple and becoming more complex. If there is a God, of course he must have a purpose. Perfectly logical. The belief that H. sapiens is the desired endpoint is not in itself unreasonable. What IS unreasonable, and what you keep trying to gloss over, is the combination of this hypothesis with your OTHER hypotheses (full control, special design of everything except the only thing he wanted to specially design). Hence my asking you about the reasonableness of other possibilities.
Your asking just reflects your own doubts about God's powers. You keep harping on 'delay' of human appearance . That is a human 'impatient' style judgment.
dhw: big brain evolution:comparing chimp and brain organoids
DAVID: Wed, 6 March at 18:38:I believe He is in full control. You are the one who is not sure of that because you don't accept God's powers, and I know that. […]
DAVID: (Thursday 21 March at 18:43) I don't know if God is really all-powerful, as I've considered the issue, and fully understand He might have limits as He directs evolution.
DAVID: My belief He is full control covers both sides of your problem in discussion with me. Full control means He has the total right to choose His method of creation.
dhw: Of course he has the right to choose, but if he has limits, he can’t be in full control!
DAVID: If you choose to turn right or left, aren't you in full control? You imply He might be constrained by limits. WE have no idea if your supposition that He has limits is true.
It is not my supposition! I offer different hypotheses, all of which fit in with what you call the “real history” of life, and I do not profess to believe in any of them. I am trying to make sense of your own pronouncements, which vary from one week to the next, as bolded above. The hypothesis that he has limits would support the hypothesis that the bush of life resulted from experimentation if his aim was to produce a thinking being like himself. The hypothesis that he is all-powerful in conjunction with the bush of life negates the hypothesis that his one and only aim right from the start was humans; but it supports the hypothesis that he deliberately gave evolution a free rein though still allowing for dabbles.
DAVID (under “Genome complexity”): God chose to evolve humans over time. The only thing I do not know is His thought process in making that choice. You have agreed He has the right to choose, and I've agreed He might have limits as a reason. Nothing wrong with my hypothesis under those circumstances.
Precisely. That leads to the experimentation hypothesis but negates your hypothesis of “full control” (6 March).
DAVID: Your doubts about God's abilities are all reasonable for you to entertain, since we are in an area where there is no factual material to study except the path of evolution.
They are not my doubts. Once more: they are hypotheses that offer logical explanations for the bush of life. As above, the limits which you now accept as a possibility would explain why he did not directly fulfil what you believe was his one and only purpose. But that means he is not in “full control” (contradicting your statement on 6 March).
DAVID: Adler is not off point. His view of the especial nature (consciousness) of humans is we are God's special creation and purpose.
dhw: The point of this discussion is your interpretation of your God’s purpose in relation to how evolution works. If humans were his sole purpose (Adler), you yourself have no idea why he specially designed countless life forms to eat or not eat one another until he specially designed H. sapiens. As above: One possible explanation is that your God has limits, and therefore was experimenting. Do you accept this as a reasonable explanation?
DAVID: I have agreed it is a possibility in any discussion about God's method, but it offers no consideration of the point humans are different in kind, and therefore are a special result of evolution.
I have no problem with the argument that humans are special. And experimentation is precisely the hypothesis that can explain why a God whose only purpose was to design a thinking being like himself spent 3.5+ billion years designing millions of other life forms.
DAVID: Your asking just reflects your own doubts about God's powers. You keep harping on 'delay' of human appearance . That is a human 'impatient' style judgment.
As always you try to gloss over the fact that it is the combination of your hypotheses that defies all logic. All powerful God + one and only purpose + special design of millions of econiches, life forms, lifestyles and lifestyles before specially design of only thing he wants to design = scenario which even you admit you cannot understand.
dhw: big brain evolution:comparing chimp and brain organoids
by David Turell , Sunday, March 24, 2019, 18:26 (1854 days ago) @ dhw
DAVID: Wed, 6 March at 18:38:I believe He is in full control. You are the one who is not sure of that because you don't accept God's powers, and I know that. […]
DAVID: (Thursday 21 March at 18:43) I don't know if God is really all-powerful, as I've considered the issue, and fully understand He might have limits as He directs evolution.
DAVID: My belief He is full control covers both sides of your problem in discussion with me. Full control means He has the total right to choose His method of creation.
dhw: Of course he has the right to choose, but if he has limits, he can’t be in full control!
DAVID: If you choose to turn right or left, aren't you in full control? You imply He might be constrained by limits. WE have no idea if your supposition that He has limits is true.
dhw: It is not my supposition! I offer different hypotheses, all of which fit in with what you call the “real history” of life, and I do not profess to believe in any of them. I am trying to make sense of your own pronouncements, which vary from one week to the next, as bolded above. The hypothesis that he has limits would support the hypothesis that the bush of life resulted from experimentation if his aim was to produce a thinking being like himself. The hypothesis that he is all-powerful in conjunction with the bush of life negates the hypothesis that his one and only aim right from the start was humans; but it supports the hypothesis that he deliberately gave evolution a free rein though still allowing for dabbles.
I do not vary. God is in 'full' control, even if He is limited in powers. He runs the show either way. If He cannot have biblical direct creation, and has limits He chooses to evolve. Still in charge. What is your problem?
DAVID (under “Genome complexity”): God chose to evolve humans over time. The only thing I do not know is His thought process in making that choice. You have agreed He has the right to choose, and I've agreed He might have limits as a reason. Nothing wrong with my hypothesis under those circumstances.dhw: Precisely. That leads to the experimentation hypothesis but negates your hypothesis of “full control” (6 March).
Your concept of full control is not mine; see above.
DAVID: I have agreed it is a possibility in any discussion about God's method, but it offers no consideration of the point humans are different in kind, and therefore are a special result of evolution.dhw:I have no problem with the argument that humans are special. And experimentation is precisely the hypothesis that can explain why a God whose only purpose was to design a thinking being like himself spent 3.5+ billion years designing millions of other life forms.
DAVID: Your asking just reflects your own doubts about God's powers. You keep harping on 'delay' of human appearance . That is a human 'impatient' style judgment.
dhw: As always you try to gloss over the fact that it is the combination of your hypotheses that defies all logic. All powerful God + one and only purpose + special design of millions of econiches, life forms, lifestyles and lifestyles before specially design of only thing he wants to design = scenario which even you admit you cannot understand.
I do understand it. You refuse to follow my reasoning, since your definition of full control differs from mine, See above. .
dhw: big brain evolution:comparing chimp and brain organoids
DAVID: Wed, 6 March at 18:38:I believe He is in full control. You are the one who is not sure of that because you don't accept God's powers, and I know that. […]
DAVID: (Thursday 21 March at 18:43) I don't know if God is really all-powerful, as I've considered the issue, and fully understand He might have limits as He directs evolution.
DAVID: […] Full control means He has the total right to choose His method of creation.
dhw: Of course he has the right to choose, but if he has limits, he can’t be in full control!
DAVID: I do not vary. God is in 'full' control, even if He is limited in powers. He runs the show either way. If He cannot have biblical direct creation, and has limits He chooses to evolve. Still in charge. What is your problem?
Running the show and being in charge are not synonymous with having full control, but in any case, why couldn’t he have biblical direct creation? Your two methods of creation have always been preprogramming and dabbling (= direct creation). It makes no sense to endow him with the power to preprogramme/dabble every stage of humans and yet insist that first he had to preprogramme/dabble millions of other life forms, econiches, lifestyles and natural wonders extant and extinct. You keep agreeing that you have no idea why he would have chosen to spend 3.5+ billion years not designing the only thing he wanted to design, so perhaps we should just leave it at that, since you are happy with your inexplicable mixture of hypotheses and presumably with your earlier explanation that God’s logic is different from ours (i.e. yours and mine).
dhw: As always you try to gloss over the fact that it is the combination of your hypotheses that defies all logic. All powerful God + one and only purpose + special design of millions of econiches, life forms, lifestyles and lifestyles before specially design of only thing he wants to design = scenario which even you admit you cannot understand.
DAVID: I do understand it. You refuse to follow my reasoning, since your definition of full control differs from mine, See above.
So when you say you have no idea why your God "chose to evolve humans over time", you mean you do understand it: he chose this method because “full control” means he couldn’t do it any other way, i.e. he had no choice.
dhw: big brain evolution:comparing chimp and brain organoids
by David Turell , Monday, March 25, 2019, 14:34 (1853 days ago) @ dhw
DAVID: Wed, 6 March at 18:38:I believe He is in full control. You are the one who is not sure of that because you don't accept God's powers, and I know that. […]
DAVID: (Thursday 21 March at 18:43) I don't know if God is really all-powerful, as I've considered the issue, and fully understand He might have limits as He directs evolution.
DAVID: […] Full control means He has the total right to choose His method of creation.
dhw: Of course he has the right to choose, but if he has limits, he can’t be in full control!
DAVID: I do not vary. God is in 'full' control, even if He is limited in powers. He runs the show either way. If He cannot have biblical direct creation, and has limits He chooses to evolve. Still in charge. What is your problem?
dhw: Running the show and being in charge are not synonymous with having full control, but in any case, why couldn’t he have biblical direct creation? Your two methods of creation have always been preprogramming and dabbling (= direct creation). It makes no sense to endow him with the power to preprogramme/dabble every stage of humans and yet insist that first he had to preprogramme/dabble millions of other life forms, econiches, lifestyles and natural wonders extant and extinct. You keep agreeing that you have no idea why he would have chosen to spend 3.5+ billion years not designing the only thing he wanted to design, so perhaps we should just leave it at that, since you are happy with your inexplicable mixture of hypotheses and presumably with your earlier explanation that God’s logic is different from ours (i.e. yours and mine).
dhw: As always you try to gloss over the fact that it is the combination of your hypotheses that defies all logic. All powerful God + one and only purpose + special design of millions of econiches, life forms, lifestyles and lifestyles before specially design of only thing he wants to design = scenario which even you admit you cannot understand.
DAVID: I do understand it. You refuse to follow my reasoning, since your definition of full control differs from mine, See above.
dhw: So when you say you have no idea why your God "chose to evolve humans over time", you mean you do understand it: he chose this method because “full control” means he couldn’t do it any other way, i.e. he had no choice.
Exactly as in the second bold above. You finally understand my thinking, and it is not illogical. But, and there is always a second possibility, He simply made a choice despite being unlimited. We cannot know for sure which is correct. Your constant complaint about an all-powerful God choosing to wait is purely a human 'impatience' style of thinking.
dhw: big brain evolution:comparing chimp and brain organoids
Transferred from the Behe thread.
DAVID: […[ God chose to delay the appearance of humans because He chose to evolve them over time, which fits the history. They appeared last. Therefore the complexity of food supply had to exist for evolution to continue. By the way, divergent pathways and contemporaneous pathways obviously can be the same. As for goal, read Adler's argument.
dhw: Your first statement is not a reason but is pure tautology: he chose not to directly create the one thing he wanted because he chose not to directly create the one thing he wanted. And you keep admitting you have no idea why he did so. Of course divergent paths can be contemporaneous, but parallel paths are not divergent, and it is the divergence of pathways or the “bush of life” that renders your single goal plus “full control” illogical. (See “Big brain evolution”)
DAVID: Of course I cannot know why God chose evolution. Which does not make me illogical. It is your definition of full control that is incorrect. If God created the universe, evolved it, then the very special Earth and evolved its conditions, than started life and evolved it, God is fully in charge. IF in the evolution of living forms He found He had some limiting circumstances, He is still in full control in the sense that He is the sole driving force.
If God exists, then of course he did all this and is in charge. But if he can’t fulfil his one and only purpose unless he follows one particular path dictated by limiting circumstances, he is NOT in full control! He is dictated to by those circumstances. And that makes for a mighty peculiar mode of fulfilment, since he would have created the circumstances in the first place!
DAVID: Wed, 6 March at 18:38:I believe He is in full control. You are the one who is not sure of that because you don't accept God's powers, and I know that. […]
DAVID: (Thursday 21 March at 18:43) I don't know if God is really all-powerful, as I've considered the issue, and fully understand He might have limits as He directs evolution.
DAVID: […] Full control means He has the total right to choose His method of creation.
dhw: Of course he has the right to choose, but if he has limits, he can’t be in full control!
dhw: As always you try to gloss over the fact that it is the combination of your hypotheses that defies all logic. All powerful God + one and only purpose + special design of millions of econiches, life forms, lifestyles and lifestyles before specially design of only thing he wants to design = scenario which even you admit you cannot understand.
DAVID: I do understand it. You refuse to follow my reasoning, since your definition of full control differs from mine, See above.
dhw: So when you say you have no idea why your God "chose to evolve humans over time", you mean you do understand it: he chose this method because “full control” means he couldn’t do it any other way, i.e. he had no choice.
DAVID: Exactly as in the second bold above. You finally understand my thinking, and it is not illogical. But, and there is always a second possibility, He simply made a choice despite being unlimited. We cannot know for sure which is correct. Your constant complaint about an all-powerful God choosing to wait is purely a human 'impatience' style of thinking.
We are making progress. At least you are now considering two different hypotheses (limited versus unlimited powers), but you have not yet considered the implications, because you still refuse to recognize that it is the COMBINATION of hypotheses that makes your thinking illogical. 1) In order to fulfil his only purpose (to design H. sapiens), he created circumstances which prevented him from doing so unless he specially preprogrammed or dabbled every single innovation leading to every single life form, econiche, lifestyle and natural wonder extant and extinct in the history of life, including those leading from ape to H. sapiens. Does that make sense? On the other hand, he may be in full control, i.e. have the power to do whatever he wants. In that case, he deliberately did all the above preprogramming and dabbling, even though all he actually wanted was H. sapiens. Does that make sense? Since you admit that you have no idea why he “chose to evolve humans over time”, it obviously doesn’t. I shan’t repeat all the different hypotheses I have offered in order to resolve these illogicalities. You have admitted that they fit in with the real history of life, and so the only point of agreement here is that we cannot know anything for sure.
dhw: big brain evolution:comparing chimp and brain organoids
by David Turell , Tuesday, March 26, 2019, 16:50 (1852 days ago) @ dhw
Transferred from the Behe thread.
DAVID: […[ God chose to delay the appearance of humans because He chose to evolve them over time, which fits the history. They appeared last. Therefore the complexity of food supply had to exist for evolution to continue. By the way, divergent pathways and contemporaneous pathways obviously can be the same. As for goal, read Adler's argument.dhw: Your first statement is not a reason but is pure tautology: he chose not to directly create the one thing he wanted because he chose not to directly create the one thing he wanted. And you keep admitting you have no idea why he did so. Of course divergent paths can be contemporaneous, but parallel paths are not divergent, and it is the divergence of pathways or the “bush of life” that renders your single goal plus “full control” illogical. (See “Big brain evolution”)
DAVID: Of course I cannot know why God chose evolution. Which does not make me illogical. It is your definition of full control that is incorrect. If God created the universe, evolved it, then the very special Earth and evolved its conditions, than started life and evolved it, God is fully in charge. IF in the evolution of living forms He found He had some limiting circumstances, He is still in full control in the sense that He is the sole driving force.
dhw: If God exists, then of course he did all this and is in charge. But if he can’t fulfil his one and only purpose unless he follows one particular path dictated by limiting circumstances, he is NOT in full control! He is dictated to by those circumstances. And that makes for a mighty peculiar mode of fulfilment, since he would have created the circumstances in the first place!
Again, your definition of 'full control' and mine differ. I state He is the 'sole driver' of events. As such He is in full control, even if He finds that His invention of life has limits for Him so that He is forced to evolve the Forms He want. You want 'all-powerful' without limits, but you have suggested limits in the past. I'll stick to my approach.
DAVID: I do understand it. You refuse to follow my reasoning, since your definition of full control differs from mine, See above.dhw: So when you say you have no idea why your God "chose to evolve humans over time", you mean you do understand it: he chose this method because “full control” means he couldn’t do it any other way, i.e. he had no choice.
DAVID: Exactly as in the second bold above. You finally understand my thinking, and it is not illogical. But, and there is always a second possibility, He simply made a choice despite being unlimited. We cannot know for sure which is correct. Your constant complaint about an all-powerful God choosing to wait is purely a human 'impatience' style of thinking.
dhw: We are making progress. At least you are now considering two different hypotheses (limited versus unlimited powers), but you have not yet considered the implications, because you still refuse to recognize that it is the COMBINATION of hypotheses that makes your thinking illogical. 1) In order to fulfil his only purpose (to design H. sapiens), he created circumstances which prevented him from doing so unless he specially preprogrammed or dabbled every single innovation leading to every single life form, econiche, lifestyle and natural wonder extant and extinct in the history of life, including those leading from ape to H. sapiens. Does that make sense?
Note my point above: We do not know if God sees His own future with omniscience, a religious interpretation. He might not have foreseen that life is difficult to create without evolution.
dhw: On the other hand, he may be in full control, i.e. have the power to do whatever he wants. In that case, he deliberately did all the above preprogramming and dabbling, even though all he actually wanted was H. sapiens. Does that make sense? Since you admit that you have no idea why he “chose to evolve humans over time”, it obviously doesn’t.
Sorry, but it makes complete sense. Obviously, I cannot know why He chose the course He did, so not knowing why is no fault of mine. And you've agreed He has the right to choose his methodology.
dhw: I shan’t repeat all the different hypotheses I have offered in order to resolve these illogicalities. You have admitted that they fit in with the real history of life, and so the only point of agreement here is that we cannot know anything for sure.
I've admitted your hypothesis have alternate logical bases, but I have the right to choose the one I think is more correct.
dhw: big brain evolution:comparing chimp and brain organoids
dhw: ...if [God] can’t fulfil his one and only purpose unless he follows one particular path dictated by limiting circumstances, he is NOT in full control! He is dictated to by those circumstances. And that makes for a mighty peculiar mode of fulfilment, since he would have created the circumstances in the first place!
DAVID: Again, your definition of 'full control' and mine differ. I state He is the 'sole driver' of events. As such He is in full control, even if He finds that His invention of life has limits for Him so that He is forced to evolve the Forms He want. You want 'all-powerful' without limits, but you have suggested limits in the past. I'll stick to my approach.
I cannot see how being the sole driver or having limits can be equated with having full control, but in any case I don’t “want” omnipotence or limitations. I am merely pointing out that, as you have so frequently acknowledged, you cannot explain why your God should have spent 3.5+ billion years specially designing dinosaurs, whale fins, cuttlefish camouflage, and umpteen different apes, hominins and homos before specially designing the only thing he wanted to design, the brain of H. sapiens. Hence the different hypotheses you are now at last beginning to accept as possible alternatives to your own.
DAVID: Note my point above: We do not know if God sees His own future with omniscience, a religious interpretation. He might not have foreseen that life is difficult to create without evolution.
You have now moved from omnipotence to omniscience – but that’s fine with me. In this latest hypothesis, perhaps he only learned how to specially design H. sapiens after 3.5+ billion years of not being able to do it (= limitations), and at the beginning he didn’t realize how difficult it would be (= ignorance). I’m pleased to see that your vision of your God is now allowing for these hypotheses. We are making progress.
dhw: On the other hand, he may be in full control, i.e. have the power to do whatever he wants. In that case, he deliberately did all the above preprogramming and dabbling, even though all he actually wanted was H. sapiens. Does that make sense? Since you admit that you have no idea why he “chose to evolve humans over time”, it obviously doesn’t.
DAVID: Sorry, but it makes complete sense. Obviously, I cannot know why He chose the course He did, so not knowing why is no fault of mine. And you've agreed He has the right to choose his methodology.
As usual, you say it makes sense, but you can’t explain how your GUESS at your God’s purpose ties in with your GUESS at his choice of method unless you accept the possibility that he is limited and unable to see what will happen in the future. That ties in with one of the hypotheses I proposed: experimentation. If he is in full control and is omnipotent, then that ties in with the hypothesis that he CHOSE to give evolution a free rein (hence the higgledy-piggledy bush), and that humans may have been an afterthought – perhaps a late dabble – or even a natural consequence of the process he set in motion.
dhw: I shan’t repeat all the different hypotheses I have offered in order to resolve these illogicalities. You have admitted that they fit in with the real history of life, and so the only point of agreement here is that we cannot know anything for sure.
DAVID: I've admitted your hypothesis have alternate logical bases, but I have the right to choose the one I think is more correct.
Of course. So what have you now chosen? That God was limited and ignorant of the future, and that is why he could not specially design the only thing he wanted to design? Or he was all-powerful and omniscient, but chose not to design the only thing he wanted to design, and you don’t know why?
dhw: big brain evolution:comparing chimp and brain organoids
by David Turell , Tuesday, April 02, 2019, 15:35 (1845 days ago) @ dhw
DAVID: Again, your definition of 'full control' and mine differ. I state He is the 'sole driver' of events. As such He is in full control, even if He finds that His invention of life has limits for Him so that He is forced to evolve the Forms He want. You want 'all-powerful' without limits, but you have suggested limits in the past. I'll stick to my approach.
dhw: I cannot see how being the sole driver or having limits can be equated with having full control, but in any case I don’t “want” omnipotence or limitations. I am merely pointing out that, as you have so frequently acknowledged, you cannot explain why your God should have spent 3.5+ billion years specially designing dinosaurs, whale fins, cuttlefish camouflage, and umpteen different apes, hominins and homos before specially designing the only thing he wanted to design, the brain of H. sapiens. Hence the different hypotheses you are now at last beginning to accept as possible alternatives to your own.
I still don't understand your demand that I explain God's choice. I simply accept it and you don't. History is there for all to see and since I believe God is in charge, that ends the point for me. I don't have to try to explain. Since you keep demanding, unchanged in your approach, it is obvious you have not have anything else to bring forth.
DAVID: Note my point above: We do not know if God sees His own future with omniscience, a religious interpretation. He might not have foreseen that life is difficult to create without evolution.
dhw: You have now moved from omnipotence to omniscience – but that’s fine with me. In this latest hypothesis, perhaps he only learned how to specially design H. sapiens after 3.5+ billion years of not being able to do it (= limitations), and at the beginning he didn’t realize how difficult it would be (= ignorance). I’m pleased to see that your vision of your God is now allowing for these hypotheses. We are making progress.
All guess work, since you demand to know what cannot be known.
DAVID: Sorry, but it makes complete sense. Obviously, I cannot know why He chose the course He did, so not knowing why is no fault of mine. And you've agreed He has the right to choose his methodology.dhw: As usual, you say it makes sense, but you can’t explain how your GUESS at your God’s purpose ties in with your GUESS at his choice of method unless you accept the possibility that he is limited and unable to see what will happen in the future. That ties in with one of the hypotheses I proposed: experimentation. If he is in full control and is omnipotent, then that ties in with the hypothesis that he CHOSE to give evolution a free rein (hence the higgledy-piggledy bush), and that humans may have been an afterthought – perhaps a late dabble – or even a natural consequence of the process he set in motion.
Your guesses, not mine, as i am satisfied accepting his choices.
dhw: I shan’t repeat all the different hypotheses I have offered in order to resolve these illogicalities. You have admitted that they fit in with the real history of life, and so the only point of agreement here is that we cannot know anything for sure.DAVID: I've admitted your hypothesis have alternate logical bases, but I have the right to choose the one I think is more correct.
dhw: Of course. So what have you now chosen? That God was limited and ignorant of the future, and that is why he could not specially design the only thing he wanted to design? Or he was all-powerful and omniscient, but chose not to design the only thing he wanted to design, and you don’t know why?
Not choices, forced guesses to try and satisfy your unanswerable questions.
dhw: big brain evolution:comparing chimp and brain organoids
DAVID: Again, your definition of 'full control' and mine differ. I state He is the 'sole driver' of events. As such He is in full control, even if He finds that His invention of life has limits for Him so that He is forced to evolve the Forms He want. You want 'all-powerful' without limits, but you have suggested limits in the past. I'll stick to my approach.
dhw: I cannot see how being the sole driver or having limits can be equated with having full control, but in any case I don’t “want” omnipotence or limitations. I am merely pointing out that, as you have so frequently acknowledged, you cannot explain why your God should have spent 3.5+ billion years specially designing dinosaurs, whale fins, cuttlefish camouflage, and umpteen different apes, hominins and homos before specially designing the only thing he wanted to design, the brain of H. sapiens. Hence the different hypotheses you are now at last beginning to accept as possible alternatives to your own.
DAVID: I still don't understand your demand that I explain God's choice.
That is because you insist that your guess as to his choice is actually his choice! It is YOUR choice that is under scrutiny: you have chosen to believe that your God’s ONLY purpose was to design H. sapiens, and yet that he also chose to spend 3.5+ billion years designing anything and everything EXCEPT H. sapiens.
DAVID: I simply accept it and you don't. History is there for all to see and since I believe God is in charge, that ends the point for me. I don't have to try to explain. Since you keep demanding, unchanged in your approach, it is obvious you have not have anything else to bring forth.
It is not a matter of “acceptance” but of belief. The only facts we both “accept” are that all those life forms etc. exist/existed, and humans were a late arrival on the scene. It is your single and for you and me inexplicable interpretation of those facts that remains rigidly unchanged, whereas I have “brought forth” a range of different interpretations, all of which you agree make perfect sense.
DAVID: Note my point above: We do not know if God sees His own future with omniscience, a religious interpretation. He might not have foreseen that life is difficult to create without evolution.
dhw: You have now moved from omnipotence to omniscience – but that’s fine with me. In this latest hypothesis, perhaps he only learned how to specially design H. sapiens after 3.5+ billion years of not being able to do it (= limitations), and at the beginning he didn’t realize how difficult it would be (= ignorance). I’m pleased to see that your vision of your God is now allowing for these hypotheses. We are making progress.
DAVID: All guess work, since you demand to know what cannot be known.
Of course the true explanation cannot be “known” and it’s all guesswork. Why are you now so bashful at having accepted the feasibility of your hypothesis that your God might not have known what was coming?
DAVID: I've admitted your hypothesis have alternate logical bases, but I have the right to choose the one I think is more correct.
dhw: Of course. So what have you now chosen? That God was limited and ignorant of the future, and that is why he could not specially design the only thing he wanted to design? Or he was all-powerful and omniscient, but chose not to design the only thing he wanted to design, and you don’t know why?
DAVID: Not choices, forced guesses to try and satisfy your unanswerable questions.
Of course they are choices. Nobody knows the truth, but if someone has a fixed belief in one particular guess, at least he should be able to defend the logic of his choice of guess – as you do so admirably in your use of design as an argument for the existence of your God. It is you who volunteered the possibility that God has limitations (and even falsely accused me of sticking rigidly to the conventional view of an all-powerful God), so I don’t know why you are suddenly so reluctant to answer a straight question. If you can’t choose between those two options, then you must be open to both, as well as to their implications.
dhw: big brain evolution:comparing chimp and brain organoids
by David Turell , Wednesday, April 03, 2019, 17:59 (1844 days ago) @ dhw
DAVID: I still don't understand your demand that I explain God's choice.
dhw: That is because you insist that your guess as to his choice is actually his choice! It is YOUR choice that is under scrutiny: you have chosen to believe that your God’s ONLY purpose was to design H. sapiens, and yet that he also chose to spend 3.5+ billion years designing anything and everything EXCEPT H. sapiens.
Whether it is God's free choice or a forced choice makes no difference. The history is how He did it.
DAVID: I simply accept it and you don't. History is there for all to see and since I believe God is in charge, that ends the point for me. I don't have to try to explain. Since you keep demanding, unchanged in your approach, it is obvious you have not have anything else to bring forth.dhw: It is not a matter of “acceptance” but of belief. The only facts we both “accept” are that all those life forms etc. exist/existed, and humans were a late arrival on the scene. It is your single and for you and me inexplicable interpretation of those facts that remains rigidly unchanged, whereas I have “brought forth” a range of different interpretations, all of which you agree make perfect sense.
Answered above as a free or forced choice. If God is in control, history shows how He did it.
DAVID: All guess work, since you demand to know what cannot be known.
dhw: Of course the true explanation cannot be “known” and it’s all guesswork. Why are you now so bashful at having accepted the feasibility of your hypothesis that your God might not have known what was coming?
DAVID: I've admitted your hypothesis have alternate logical bases, but I have the right to choose the one I think is more correct.
dhw: Of course. So what have you now chosen? That God was limited and ignorant of the future, and that is why he could not specially design the only thing he wanted to design? Or he was all-powerful and omniscient, but chose not to design the only thing he wanted to design, and you don’t know why?
DAVID: Not choices, forced guesses to try and satisfy your unanswerable questions.
dhw: Of course they are choices. Nobody knows the truth, but if someone has a fixed belief in one particular guess, at least he should be able to defend the logic of his choice of guess – as you do so admirably in your use of design as an argument for the existence of your God. It is you who volunteered the possibility that God has limitations (and even falsely accused me of sticking rigidly to the conventional view of an all-powerful God), so I don’t know why you are suddenly so reluctant to answer a straight question. If you can’t choose between those two options, then you must be open to both, as well as to their implications.
We've covered all the possible reasons for God's actions. I have a right to choose one, while you have the right to sit atop your indecisive fence.
dhw: big brain evolution:comparing chimp and brain organoids
DAVID: I still don't understand your demand that I explain God's choice.
dhw: That is because you insist that your guess as to his choice is actually his choice! It is YOUR choice that is under scrutiny: you have chosen to believe that your God’s ONLY purpose was to design H. sapiens, and yet that he also chose to spend 3.5+ billion years designing anything and everything EXCEPT H. sapiens.
DAVID: Whether it is God's free choice or a forced choice makes no difference. The history is how He did it.
You continue to miss the point. If your God exists, the history consists only in the fact that all the life forms exist/existed, and humans came late on the scene. It is NOT history that humans were his only purpose, and it is NOT history that he specially preprogrammed or dabbled every life form, and it is NOT history that he did so because that was the only way he could fulfil his only purpose! That is YOUR inexplicable combination of guesses.
DAVID: I've admitted your hypothesis have alternate logical bases, but I have the right to choose the one I think is more correct.
dhw: Of course. So what have you now chosen? That God was limited and ignorant of the future, and that is why he could not specially design the only thing he wanted to design? Or he was all-powerful and omniscient, but chose not to design the only thing he wanted to design, and you don’t know why?
DAVID: We've covered all the possible reasons for God's actions. I have a right to choose one, while you have the right to sit atop your indecisive fence.
So do please tell us which of the above reasons for the 3.5+ billion years of non-humans you have chosen: a limited God who couldn’t do what he wanted to do, or an all-powerful one who could do what he wanted to do and you don’t know why he didn’t? Or do you prefer to sit atop my indecisive fence?
dhw: big brain evolution:comparing chimp and brain organoids
by David Turell , Thursday, April 04, 2019, 15:23 (1843 days ago) @ dhw
DAVID: Whether it is God's free choice or a forced choice makes no difference. The history is how He did it.
dhw: You continue to miss the point. If your God exists, the history consists only in the fact that all the life forms exist/existed, and humans came late on the scene. It is NOT history that humans were his only purpose, and it is NOT history that he specially preprogrammed or dabbled every life form, and it is NOT history that he did so because that was the only way he could fulfil his only purpose! That is YOUR inexplicable combination of guesses.
I'm allowed my interpretation as much as you have your diffuse group of them.
DAVID: I've admitted your hypothesis have alternate logical bases, but I have the right to choose the one I think is more correct.dhw: Of course. So what have you now chosen? That God was limited and ignorant of the future, and that is why he could not specially design the only thing he wanted to design? Or he was all-powerful and omniscient, but chose not to design the only thing he wanted to design, and you don’t know why?
DAVID: We've covered all the possible reasons for God's actions. I have a right to choose one, while you have the right to sit atop your indecisive fence.
dhw: So do please tell us which of the above reasons for the 3.5+ billion years of non-humans you have chosen: a limited God who couldn’t do what he wanted to do, or an all-powerful one who could do what he wanted to do and you don’t know why he didn’t? Or do you prefer to sit atop my indecisive fence?
Logic: it is proposed God is in charge of creation. Therefore what is seen in history is a result of His actions. We cannot tell if God can directly create or must evolve living forms. Evidence tells us it appears He created the universe in one instant and then evolved its form to its present state. Our special Earth was also evolved over time. We cannot know if His choice of methodology to evolve, as above, is due to limits or is pure choice. To answer your unanswerable question simply, under the proposition the demanded answer doesn't matter. Evolution means change to something different. In our case, life evolved from simple forms to the most complex organ every created, the human brain, and the human form which can perform actions not capable of by any other animal. If evolution has directionality, and it does, what is present now must be interpreted as goals of its director, God.
dhw: big brain evolution:comparing chimp and brain organoids
DAVID: Logic: it is proposed God is in charge of creation. Therefore what is seen in history is a result of His actions. We cannot tell if God can directly create or must evolve living forms. Evidence tells us it appears He created the universe in one instant and then evolved its form to its present state. Our special Earth was also evolved over time. We cannot know if His choice of methodology to evolve, as above, is due to limits or is pure choice. To answer your unanswerable question simply, under the proposition the demanded answer doesn't matter. Evolution means change to something different. In our case, life evolved from simple forms to the most complex organ every created, the human brain, and the human form which can perform actions not capable of by any other animal. If evolution has directionality, and it does, what is present now must be interpreted as goals of its director, God.
An excellent compilation of logical arguments, which as usual leaves out the fact that in post after post you insist that your God specially designed every life form, econiche, lifestyle and natural wonder: evolution for you apparently means that he preprogrammed or personally dabbled every single evolutionary development, and yet you continue to insist that his sole purpose in specially designing the whale’s flippers, the cuttlefish’s camouflage and the weaverbird’s nest was to keep life going until he could specially design each hominin and human prior to specially designing his one and only goal, the brain of H. sapiens. Your “logic” demands total disregard of the dislocation between these separate hypotheses.
The history of life shows us a vast diversity – not a straight line to H. sapiens. This leaves open the possibility that your God’s goal was a vast diversity. It also leaves open the possibility that instead of your God supplying the very first cells with a programme for every single undabbled life form etc. throughout the history of life, he supplied them with the means of doing their own design (cellular intelligence) – though always retaining the power to dabble. Your fierce opposition to this theistic hypothesis (theistic, as it allows for God being the designer of cellular intelligence), and hence to a concept which is clearly gaining favour in the scientific community, lies at the heart of our whole discussion on evolution, on cellular intelligence, and on the logic of each proposed interpretation of life's history.
dhw: big brain evolution:comparing chimp and brain organoids
by David Turell , Friday, April 05, 2019, 15:34 (1842 days ago) @ dhw
DAVID: Logic: it is proposed God is in charge of creation. Therefore what is seen in history is a result of His actions. We cannot tell if God can directly create or must evolve living forms. Evidence tells us it appears He created the universe in one instant and then evolved its form to its present state. Our special Earth was also evolved over time. We cannot know if His choice of methodology to evolve, as above, is due to limits or is pure choice. To answer your unanswerable question simply, under the proposition the demanded answer doesn't matter. Evolution means change to something different. In our case, life evolved from simple forms to the most complex organ every created, the human brain, and the human form which can perform actions not capable of by any other animal. If evolution has directionality, and it does, what is present now must be interpreted as goals of its director, God.
dhw: An excellent compilation of logical arguments, which as usual leaves out the fact that in post after post you insist that your God specially designed every life form, econiche, lifestyle and natural wonder: evolution for you apparently means that he preprogrammed or personally dabbled every single evolutionary development, and yet you continue to insist that his sole purpose in specially designing the whale’s flippers, the cuttlefish’s camouflage and the weaverbird’s nest was to keep life going until he could specially design each hominin and human prior to specially designing his one and only goal, the brain of H. sapiens. Your “logic” demands total disregard of the dislocation between these separate hypotheses.
The history of life shows us a vast diversity – not a straight line to H. sapiens. This leaves open the possibility that your God’s goal was a vast diversity. It also leaves open the possibility that instead of your God supplying the very first cells with a programme for every single undabbled life form etc. throughout the history of life, he supplied them with the means of doing their own design (cellular intelligence) – though always retaining the power to dabble. Your fierce opposition to this theistic hypothesis (theistic, as it allows for God being the designer of cellular intelligence), and hence to a concept which is clearly gaining favour in the scientific community, lies at the heart of our whole discussion on evolution, on cellular intelligence, and on the logic of each proposed interpretation of life's history.
A goal of the human brain does not require a straight line development as you seem to demand, if evolution is used as the method. You again ignore that your proposed 'goal of diversity' has its own secondary purpose of affording food supply so evolution can continue and therefore was part of God's purpose, but not a separate goal. As far as cells are concerned we both recognize they act intelligently, which swell may be due to intelligent instructions from God.
dhw: big brain evolution:comparing chimp and brain organoids
dhw: The history of life shows us a vast diversity – not a straight line to H. sapiens.
DAVID: A goal of the human brain does not require a straight line development as you seem to demand, if evolution is used as the method.
Let me repeat that for you evolution apparently means your God specially designing or dabbling every development. Your statement amounts to saying: if God’s method of specially designing the human brain – his one and only purpose – entailed specially designing the whale’s flippers, the cuttlefish’s camouflage and the weaverbird’s nest, then there is no need for a straight human line. Unsurprisingly you have no idea why your God would have chosen this method to specially design the brain of H. sapiens! So maybe he didn’t specially design all the unrelated life forms, or maybe his sole purpose wasn’t to specially design the brain of H. sapiens. Once more, it is the combination of your hypotheses that makes no sense.
DAVID: You again ignore that your proposed 'goal of diversity' has its own secondary purpose of affording food supply so evolution can continue and therefore was part of God's purpose, but not a separate goal.
Of course evolution could not continue without food. That does not mean your God specially designed every single food chain for the sole purpose of letting life go on for 3.5+ billion years until he specially designed the brain of H. sapiens!
dhw: (transferred from “Early Whale”) May I suggest that over the course of time, the whale’s ancestors found life at sea to be more productive than life on land, and consequently the cell communities that form legs restructured themselves to form flippers, which are better adapted to life in the water. All the other changes would have taken place in the same way and for the same reason. Too obvious? I find this considerably more convincing than the theory that your God changed legs into flippers before pre-whales entered the water, and I would also like to know why he left these particular pre-whales with legs but gave them a tail.
DAVID: Yes, it is a fascinating transitional form, but never answers my eternal question: Why bother with all the attendant physiological changes required to be invented or designed.
But that is my eternal question to you! If your God’s one and only purpose was to specially design the brain of H. sapiens, why bother specially designing whale flippers and all the “attendant physiological changes”, not to mention every other non-human life form, econiche, lifestyle and natural wonder in the history of evolution? And that is why I ask you to consider the theistic possibility that ALL of these are the result of your God designing the mechanisms which enabled intelligent cell communities to restructure themselves in order to cope with or exploit changing environmental conditions.
dhw: big brain evolution:comparing chimp and brain organoids
by David Turell , Saturday, April 06, 2019, 20:08 (1841 days ago) @ dhw
dhw: The history of life shows us a vast diversity – not a straight line to H. sapiens.
DAVID: A goal of the human brain does not require a straight line development as you seem to demand, if evolution is used as the method.
dhw: Let me repeat that for you evolution apparently means your God specially designing or dabbling every development. Your statement amounts to saying: if God’s method of specially designing the human brain – his one and only purpose – entailed specially designing the whale’s flippers, the cuttlefish’s camouflage and the weaverbird’s nest, then there is no need for a straight human line. Unsurprisingly you have no idea why your God would have chosen this method to specially design the brain of H. sapiens! So maybe he didn’t specially design all the unrelated life forms, or maybe his sole purpose wasn’t to specially design the brain of H. sapiens. Once more, it is the combination of your hypotheses that makes no sense.
As usual your objections make no sense. You do not recognize the extreme evolutionary event that human brain/consciousness represents, as Adler points out. You simply give lip service to our consciousness, without realizing the deep meaning it represents.
DAVID: You again ignore that your proposed 'goal of diversity' has its own secondary purpose of affording food supply so evolution can continue and therefore was part of God's purpose, but not a separate goal.dhw: Of course evolution could not continue without food. That does not mean your God specially designed every single food chain for the sole purpose of letting life go on for 3.5+ billion years until he specially designed the brain of H. sapiens!
How would life get to humans without the food chains? You keep refusing to accept humans are the goal. As long as that is your position we will never agree.
dhw: (transferred from “Early Whale”) May I suggest that over the course of time, the whale’s ancestors found life at sea to be more productive than life on land, and consequently the cell communities that form legs restructured themselves to form flippers, which are better adapted to life in the water. All the other changes would have taken place in the same way and for the same reason. Too obvious? I find this considerably more convincing than the theory that your God changed legs into flippers before pre-whales entered the water, and I would also like to know why he left these particular pre-whales with legs but gave them a tail.DAVID: Yes, it is a fascinating transitional form, but never answers my eternal question: Why bother with all the attendant physiological changes required to be invented or designed.
dhw; But that is my eternal question to you! If your God’s one and only purpose was to specially design the brain of H. sapiens, why bother specially designing whale flippers and all the “attendant physiological changes”, not to mention every other non-human life form, econiche, lifestyle and natural wonder in the history of evolution? And that is why I ask you to consider the theistic possibility that ALL of these are the result of your God designing the mechanisms which enabled intelligent cell communities to restructure themselves in order to cope with or exploit changing environmental conditions.
I've presented pre-programming strongly suggested in the other thread today.
dhw: big brain evolution:comparing chimp and brain organoids
dhw: The history of life shows us a vast diversity – not a straight line to H. sapiens.
DAVID: A goal of the human brain does not require a straight line development as you seem to demand, if evolution is used as the method.
dhw: Let me repeat that for you evolution apparently means your God specially designing or dabbling every development. Your statement amounts to saying: if God’s method of specially designing the human brain – his one and only purpose – entailed specially designing the whale’s flippers, the cuttlefish’s camouflage and the weaverbird’s nest, then there is no need for a straight human line. Unsurprisingly you have no idea why your God would have chosen this method to specially design the brain of H. sapiens! So maybe he didn’t specially design all the unrelated life forms, or maybe his sole purpose wasn’t to specially design the brain of H. sapiens. Once more, it is the combination of your hypotheses that makes no sense.
DAVID: As usual your objections make no sense. You do not recognize the extreme evolutionary event that human brain/consciousness represents, as Adler points out. You simply give lip service to our consciousness, without realizing the deep meaning it represents.
You know very well that I have never denied that human consciousness is exceptional. That does not mean it hasn’t evolved from lesser forms of consciousness, and it has absolutely nothing to do with the incongruity of your belief that your God’s purpose in specially designing whale flippers, cuttlefish camouflage and the weaverbird’s nest was to keep life going until he could specially design our brain. Yet again you refuse to see that the problem lies in the combination of your hypotheses. Hence your “eternal question” below: why bother with all the whale changes if his one and only purpose was to design the human brain?
DAVID: You again ignore that your proposed 'goal of diversity' has its own secondary purpose of affording food supply so evolution can continue and therefore was part of God's purpose, but not a separate goal.
dhw: Of course evolution could not continue without food. That does not mean your God specially designed every single food chain for the sole purpose of letting life go on for 3.5+ billion years until he specially designed the brain of H. sapiens!
DAVID: How would life get to humans without the food chains? You keep refusing to accept humans are the goal. As long as that is your position we will never agree.
Yet again you keep refusing to accept that if the human brain – which according to you was specially designed by your God - was his one and only goal, it makes no sense that he should have specially designed billions of other life forms etc. to eat or not each other until he specially designed the only form he wanted to design! Hence the alternative hypotheses I have offered you, including one in which humans really were the goal: namely, he knew what he wanted, but didn’t know how to achieve it (i.e. an experimental God with limitations).
dhw: (transferred from “Early Whale”) May I suggest that over the course of time, the whale’s ancestors found life at sea to be more productive than life on land, and consequently the cell communities that form legs restructured themselves to form flippers, which are better adapted to life in the water. All the other changes would have taken place in the same way and for the same reason. Too obvious? I find this considerably more convincing than the theory that your God changed legs into flippers before pre-whales entered the water, and I would also like to know why he left these particular pre-whales with legs but gave them a tail.
DAVID: Yes, it is a fascinating transitional form, but never answers my eternal question: Why bother with all the attendant physiological changes required to be invented or designed.
dhw: But that is my eternal question to you! If your God’s one and only purpose was to specially design the brain of H. sapiens, why bother specially designing whale flippers and all the “attendant physiological changes”, not to mention every other non-human life form, econiche, lifestyle and natural wonder in the history of evolution? And that is why I ask you to consider the theistic possibility that ALL of these are the result of your God designing the mechanisms which enabled intelligent cell communities to restructure themselves in order to cope with or exploit changing environmental conditions.
DAVID: I've presented pre-programming strongly suggested in the other thread today.
Dealt with on that thread, and you still haven’t answered your own eternal question.
dhw: big brain evolution:comparing chimp and brain organoids
by David Turell , Sunday, April 07, 2019, 18:42 (1840 days ago) @ dhw
DAVID: As usual your objections make no sense. You do not recognize the extreme evolutionary event that human brain/consciousness represents, as Adler points out. You simply give lip service to our consciousness, without realizing the deep meaning it represents.
dhw: You know very well that I have never denied that human consciousness is exceptional. That does not mean it hasn’t evolved from lesser forms of consciousness, and it has absolutely nothing to do with the incongruity of your belief that your God’s purpose in specially designing whale flippers, cuttlefish camouflage and the weaverbird’s nest was to keep life going until he could specially design our brain. Yet again you refuse to see that the problem lies in the combination of your hypotheses. Hence your “eternal question” below: why bother with all the whale changes if his one and only purpose was to design the human brain?
I've answered that question continuously with the need for ecosystems supplying food for life to continue. Dead whales provide food for all the ocean creatures. History tells us God did not choose direct creation so food systems are necessary. My issue with God and whales is simple: He created sharks and other fish by simple evolution. Evolving land animals to develop seagoing mammals shows His power of creation, But I still have no idea why He bothered with that route. And my doubts don't damage my logic.
DAVID: You again ignore that your proposed 'goal of diversity' has its own secondary purpose of affording food supply so evolution can continue and therefore was part of God's purpose, but not a separate goal.dhw: Of course evolution could not continue without food. That does not mean your God specially designed every single food chain for the sole purpose of letting life go on for 3.5+ billion years until he specially designed the brain of H. sapiens!
Again you assume direct creation by a Biblically-described God is what God should have done.
DAVID: How would life get to humans without the food chains? You keep refusing to accept humans are the goal. As long as that is your position we will never agree.dhw: Yet again you keep refusing to accept that if the human brain – which according to you was specially designed by your God - was his one and only goal, it makes no sense that he should have specially designed billions of other life forms etc. to eat or not each other until he specially designed the only form he wanted to design! Hence the alternative hypotheses I have offered you, including one in which humans really were the goal: namely, he knew what he wanted, but didn’t know how to achieve it (i.e. an experimental God with limitations).
All you are doing is second-guessing God. Accept history as His obvious choice,
dhw: But that is my eternal question to you! If your God’s one and only purpose was to specially design the brain of H. sapiens, why bother specially designing whale flippers and all the “attendant physiological changes”,
Answered above.
dhw: big brain evolution:comparing chimp and brain organoids
DAVID: As usual your objections make no sense. You do not recognize the extreme evolutionary event that human brain/consciousness represents, as Adler points out. You simply give lip service to our consciousness, without realizing the deep meaning it represents.
dhw: You know very well that I have never denied that human consciousness is exceptional. That does not mean it hasn’t evolved from lesser forms of consciousness, and it has absolutely nothing to do with the incongruity of your belief that your God’s purpose in specially designing whale flippers, cuttlefish camouflage and the weaverbird’s nest was to keep life going until he could specially design our brain. Yet again you refuse to see that the problem lies in the combination of your hypotheses. Hence your “eternal question” below: why bother with all the whale changes if his one and only purpose was to design the human brain?
DAVID: I've answered that question continuously with the need for ecosystems supplying food for life to continue. Dead whales provide food for all the ocean creatures. History tells us God did not choose direct creation so food systems are necessary. My issue with God and whales is simple: He created sharks and other fish by simple evolution. Evolving land animals to develop seagoing mammals shows His power of creation, But I still have no idea why He bothered with that route. And my doubts don't damage my logic.
So now apparently you are puzzled that your God chose a roundabout route to create whales, whereas you are not puzzled that your God chose a roundabout route to create the brain of H. sapiens. I don't see why land to sea is any more complex than sea to land, and I don't know how you can call any aspect of evolution "simple" when apparently even a food trap (not to mention the weaverbird's nest) requires your God to give special courses to antlions.
DAVID: You again ignore that your proposed 'goal of diversity' has its own secondary purpose of affording food supply so evolution can continue and therefore was part of God's purpose, but not a separate goal.
dhw: Of course evolution could not continue without food. That does not mean your God specially designed every single food chain for the sole purpose of letting life go on for 3.5+ billion years until he specially designed the brain of H. sapiens!
DAVID: Again you assume direct creation by a Biblically-described God is what God should have done.
I don’t assume anything. I simply question the logic of your version of God specially designing billions of life forms, econiches, lifestyles and natural wonders so that they could eat or not eat one other until he specially designed the only thing he wanted to design.
dhw: Hence the alternative hypotheses I have offered you, including one in which humans really were the goal: namely, he knew what he wanted, but didn’t know how to achieve it (i.e. an experimental God with limitations).
DAVID: All you are doing is second-guessing God. Accept history as His obvious choice.
It is not history that I reject, but your insistence that your own reading of God’s mind (he only wants to design the human brain, and so he designs billions of other life forms to keep eating each other until he does what he wants to do) is logical.
dhw: big brain evolution:comparing chimp and brain organoids
by David Turell , Monday, April 08, 2019, 15:17 (1839 days ago) @ dhw
DAVID: As usual your objections make no sense. You do not recognize the extreme evolutionary event that human brain/consciousness represents, as Adler points out. You simply give lip service to our consciousness, without realizing the deep meaning it represents.
dhw: You know very well that I have never denied that human consciousness is exceptional. That does not mean it hasn’t evolved from lesser forms of consciousness, and it has absolutely nothing to do with the incongruity of your belief that your God’s purpose in specially designing whale flippers, cuttlefish camouflage and the weaverbird’s nest was to keep life going until he could specially design our brain. Yet again you refuse to see that the problem lies in the combination of your hypotheses. Hence your “eternal question” below: why bother with all the whale changes if his one and only purpose was to design the human brain?
DAVID: I've answered that question continuously with the need for ecosystems supplying food for life to continue. Dead whales provide food for all the ocean creatures. History tells us God did not choose direct creation so food systems are necessary. My issue with God and whales is simple: He created sharks and other fish by simple evolution. Evolving land animals to develop seagoing mammals shows His power of creation, But I still have no idea why He bothered with that route. And my doubts don't damage my logic.
dhw: So now apparently you are puzzled that your God chose a roundabout route to create whales, whereas you are not puzzled that your God chose a roundabout route to create the brain of H. sapiens. I don't see why land to sea is any more complex than sea to land, and I don't know how you can call any aspect of evolution "simple" when apparently even a food trap (not to mention the weaverbird's nest) requires your God to give special courses to antlions.
You missed the entire point. Whale changes requires extraordinary physiological changes, a point I've constantly made. Evolving humans was simply part of evolving everything. You continue to be the direct creationist in this discussion. We both agree, if God is in charge, evolution 1s/was his choice.
DAVID: You again ignore that your proposed 'goal of diversity' has its own secondary purpose of affording food supply so evolution can continue and therefore was part of God's purpose, but not a separate goal.dhw: Of course evolution could not continue without food. That does not mean your God specially designed every single food chain for the sole purpose of letting life go on for 3.5+ billion years until he specially designed the brain of H. sapiens!
DAVID: Again you assume direct creation by a Biblically-described God is what God should have done.
dhw: I don’t assume anything. I simply question the logic of your version of God specially designing billions of life forms, econiches, lifestyles and natural wonders so that they could eat or not eat one other until he specially designed the only thing he wanted to design.
Total misdirection. God wanted to evolve the whole bush of life to reach His goal of humans, a vastly different version of your distortion.
dhw: Hence the alternative hypotheses I have offered you, including one in which humans really were the goal: namely, he knew what he wanted, but didn’t know how to achieve it (i.e. an experimental God with limitations).DAVID: All you are doing is second-guessing God. Accept history as His obvious choice.
dhw: It is not history that I reject, but your insistence that your own reading of God’s mind (he only wants to design the human brain, and so he designs billions of other life forms to keep eating each other until he does what he wants to do) is logical.
Your illogical version is answered above. God designed everything He wanted to reach His goal.
dhw: big brain evolution:comparing chimp and brain organoids
DAVID: My issue with God and whales is simple: He created sharks and other fish by simple evolution. Evolving land animals to develop seagoing mammals shows His power of creation, But I still have no idea why He bothered with that route. And my doubts don't damage my logic.
dhw: So now apparently you are puzzled that your God chose a roundabout route to create whales, whereas you are not puzzled that your God chose a roundabout route to create the brain of H. sapiens. I don't see why land to sea is any more complex than sea to land, and I don't know how you can call any aspect of evolution "simple" when apparently even a food trap (not to mention the weaverbird's nest) requires your God to give special courses to antlions.
DAVID: You missed the entire point. Whale changes requires extraordinary physiological changes, a point I've constantly made. Evolving humans was simply part of evolving everything. You continue to be the direct creationist in this discussion.
What does “simply part of evolving everything mean”? You have spent years describing the extraordinary physiological changes required to evolve H. sapiens, and insisting that every innovation, lifestyle and natural wonder is the direct result of God’s preprogramming or dabbling. All that is left of evolution is common descent, which means your God programmed or dabbled all changes to take place in existing organisms. Both processes are forms of direct creationism, as opposed to organisms doing their own designing. You keep admitting you “have no idea why God chose to evolve humans over time”, but then you tell us it’s logical!
dhw: I simply question the logic of your version of God specially designing billions of life forms, econiches, lifestyles and natural wonders so that they could eat or not eat one other until he specially designed the only thing he wanted to design.
DAVID: Total misdirection. God wanted to evolve the whole bush of life to reach His goal of humans, a vastly different version of your distortion.
So he wanted to preprogramme/dabble whale flippers, cuttlefish camouflage, monarch migration etc. in order to reach his goal of preprogramming/dabbling the brain of H. sapiens. How is this logical, and where is the distortion?
dhw: Hence the alternative hypotheses I have offered you, including one in which humans really were the goal: namely, he knew what he wanted, but didn’t know how to achieve it (i.e. an experimental God with limitations).
DAVID: All you are doing is second-guessing God. Accept history as His obvious choice.
dhw: It is not history that I reject, but your insistence that your own reading of God’s mind (he only wants to design the human brain, and so he designs billions of other life forms to keep eating each other until he does what he wants to do) is logical.
DAVID: Your illogical version is answered above. God designed everything He wanted to reach His goal.
You have always accepted the logic of the above version. Please explain why you now find it illogical.
dhw: big brain evolution:comparing chimp and brain organoids
by David Turell , Tuesday, April 09, 2019, 18:33 (1838 days ago) @ dhw
dhw: So now apparently you are puzzled that your God chose a roundabout route to create whales, whereas you are not puzzled that your God chose a roundabout route to create the brain of H. sapiens. I don't see why land to sea is any more complex than sea to land, and I don't know how you can call any aspect of evolution "simple" when apparently even a food trap (not to mention the weaverbird's nest) requires your God to give special courses to antlions.
DAVID: You missed the entire point. Whale changes requires extraordinary physiological changes, a point I've constantly made. Evolving humans was simply part of evolving everything. You continue to be the direct creationist in this discussion.
dhw: What does “simply part of evolving everything mean”? You have spent years describing the extraordinary physiological changes required to evolve H. sapiens, and insisting that every innovation, lifestyle and natural wonder is the direct result of God’s preprogramming or dabbling. All that is left of evolution is common descent, which means your God programmed or dabbled all changes to take place in existing organisms. Both processes are forms of direct creationism, as opposed to organisms doing their own designing. You keep admitting you “have no idea why God chose to evolve humans over time”, but then you tell us it’s logical!
The fact that I do not/can't know God's exact thought does not make my conclusions illogical. God's choice is His alone. As for 'evolving everything', evolution is a direct complexification of previous simple structures. The word 'simple' refers to a simple concept of evolution, but you are correct, the steps are, at times, very complex.
dhw: I simply question the logic of your version of God specially designing billions of life forms, econiches, lifestyles and natural wonders so that they could eat or not eat one other until he specially designed the only thing he wanted to design.DAVID: Total misdirection. God wanted to evolve the whole bush of life to reach His goal of humans, a vastly different version of your distortion.
dhw: So he wanted to preprogramme/dabble whale flippers, cuttlefish camouflage, monarch migration etc. in order to reach his goal of preprogramming/dabbling the brain of H. sapiens. How is this logical, and where is the distortion?
Please accept God's choice of method and it is all logical. Your objections are simply questioning God's motives and purposes.
dhw: Hence the alternative hypotheses I have offered you, including one in which humans really were the goal: namely, he knew what he wanted, but didn’t know how to achieve it (i.e. an experimental God with limitations).DAVID: All you are doing is second-guessing God. Accept history as His obvious choice.
dhw: It is not history that I reject, but your insistence that your own reading of God’s mind (he only wants to design the human brain, and so he designs billions of other life forms to keep eating each other until he does what he wants to do) is logical.
DAVID: Your illogical version is answered above. God designed everything He wanted to reach His goal.
dhw: You have always accepted the logic of the above version. Please explain why you now find it illogical.
Undoubtedly God followed His plan which included a food supply until He evolved humans. You are the one questioning it, implying it is not logical..
dhw: big brain evolution:comparing chimp and brain organoids
dhw: So now apparently you are puzzled that your God chose a roundabout route to create whales, whereas you are not puzzled that your God chose a roundabout route to create the brain of H. sapiens. […]
DAVID: You missed the entire point. Whale changes requires extraordinary physiological changes, a point I've constantly made. Evolving humans was simply part of evolving everything. You continue to be the direct creationist in this discussion.
dhw: What does “simply part of evolving everything mean”? You have spent years […] insisting that every innovation, lifestyle and natural wonder is the direct result of God’s preprogramming or dabbling. All that is left of evolution is common descent, which means your God programmed or dabbled all changes to take place in existing organisms. Both processes are forms of direct creationism, as opposed to organisms doing their own designing. You keep admitting you “have no idea why God chose to evolve humans over time”, but then you tell us it’s logical!
DAVID: The fact that I do not/can't know God's exact thought does not make my conclusions illogical. God's choice is His alone.
Of course your God, if he exists, chose his own method of achieving his own purpose. The fact that you have no idea why he might have chosen the method you attribute to him to achieve the purpose you attribute to him is a clear indication that there is no conceivable logic behind your combination of attributions.
DAVID: As for 'evolving everything', evolution is a direct complexification of previous simple structures. The word 'simple' refers to a simple concept of evolution, but you are correct, the steps are, at times, very complex.
Yes, indeed, and the more non-sapiens complexities your God specially designed, the less logical your fixed beliefs become.
dhw: I simply question the logic of your version of God specially designing billions of life forms, econiches, lifestyles and natural wonders so that they could eat or not eat one other until he specially designed the only thing he wanted to design.
[,,,]
DAVID: Please accept God's choice of method and it is all logical. Your objections are simply questioning God's motives and purposes.
Once more, my objections are to your personal interpretation of your God’s motives and purposes. And how can you possibly insist that you know God’s choices, can’t understand them, but find them logical?
dhw: Hence the alternative hypotheses I have offered you, including one in which humans really were the goal: namely, he knew what he wanted, but didn’t know how to achieve it (i.e. an experimental God with limitations).
DAVID: Your illogical version is answered above. God designed everything He wanted to reach His goal.
dhw: You have always accepted the logic of the above version. Please explain why you now find it illogical.
DAVID: Undoubtedly God followed His plan which included a food supply until He evolved humans. You are the one questioning it, implying it is not logical.
So how does that invalidate the proposal that he didn’t know how to achieve the goal you attribute to him, and therefore had to keep experimenting until he worked it out – as opposed to “I have no idea why God chose to evolve humans over time”?
Under "...updated Adler:)
QUOTE: "What other species builds civilizations, records history, creates art, makes music, thinks abstractly, communicates in language, envisions and fabricates machinery, improves life through science and engineering, or explores the deeper truths found in philosophy and religion? What other species can ponder “seizing control” of its own evolution, as transhumanists do? Which has true freedom? Not a one.”
DAVID: In answering the philosophy of Transhumanism he is echoing Adler's main point .
For me, all the above is blindingly obvious – yes, we are unique in our abilities. I couldn’t care less about Transhumanism. What bothers me is the assumption that our uniqueness somehow proves the existence of an unknown, sourceless mind you call God, proves that we were your God’s sole purpose from the beginning, and proves that the whole history of life extant and extinct was geared to this single purpose.
dhw: big brain evolution:comparing chimp and brain organoids
by David Turell , Wednesday, April 10, 2019, 16:05 (1837 days ago) @ dhw
DAVID: The fact that I do not/can't know God's exact thought does not make my conclusions illogical. God's choice is His alone.
dhw: Of course your God, if he exists, chose his own method of achieving his own purpose. The fact that you have no idea why he might have chosen the method you attribute to him to achieve the purpose you attribute to him is a clear indication that there is no conceivable logic behind your combination of attributions.
You are demanding knowledge of God's mind I cannot have. Your complaint is totally illogical. Read your own first sentence.
DAVID: As for 'evolving everything', evolution is a direct complexification of previous simple structures. The word 'simple' refers to a simple concept of evolution, but you are correct, the steps are, at times, very complex.dhw: Yes, indeed, and the more non-sapiens complexities your God specially designed, the less logical your fixed beliefs become.
But you've agreed God has the right to choose to use evolution over direct creation.
dhw: Once more, my objections are to your personal interpretation of your God’s motives and purposes. And how can you possibly insist that you know God’s choices, can’t understand them, but find them logical?
I simply accept God chose to evolve His purpose or purposes. You've agreed He has that right.
You simply object to my opinion that God's major purpose was human minds.
DAVID: Undoubtedly God followed His plan which included a food supply until He evolved humans. You are the one questioning it, implying it is not logical.
dhw: So how does that invalidate the proposal that he didn’t know how to achieve the goal you attribute to him, and therefore had to keep experimenting until he worked it out – as opposed to “I have no idea why God chose to evolve humans over time”?
We've discussed possible reasons for God choosing evolution over direct creation ad nauseum. We simply cannot know why He chose the method He chose.
Under "...updated Adler:)
QUOTE: "What other species builds civilizations, records history, creates art, makes music, thinks abstractly, communicates in language, envisions and fabricates machinery, improves life through science and engineering, or explores the deeper truths found in philosophy and religion? What other species can ponder “seizing control” of its own evolution, as transhumanists do? Which has true freedom? Not a one.”DAVID: In answering the philosophy of Transhumanism he is echoing Adler's main point .
dhw: For me, all the above is blindingly obvious – yes, we are unique in our abilities. I couldn’t care less about Transhumanism. What bothers me is the assumption that our uniqueness somehow proves the existence of an unknown, sourceless mind you call God, proves that we were your God’s sole purpose from the beginning, and proves that the whole history of life extant and extinct was geared to this single purpose.
This is why you persist in agnosticism which is your right. You still accept the possibility that we are here by chance mechanisms, producing the extraordinary result of 'us'.
dhw: big brain evolution:comparing chimp and brain organoids
DAVID: The fact that I do not/can't know God's exact thought does not make my conclusions illogical. God's choice is His alone.
dhw: Of course your God, if he exists, chose his own method of achieving his own purpose. The fact that you have no idea why he might have chosen the method you attribute to him to achieve the purpose you attribute to him is a clear indication that there is no conceivable logic behind your combination of attributions.
DAVID: You are demanding knowledge of God's mind I cannot have. Your complaint is totally illogical. Read your own first sentence.
But you claim that you do have knowledge of your God’s mind: his one and only purpose was to design the brain of H. sapiens, and he chose to spend 3.5+ billion years designing every other life form so that they could eat or not eat one another until he designed the only thing he wanted to design, and you have no idea why. My first sentence accepts that he would have had a purpose and would have chosen his method to achieve that purpose. And I have proposed different purposes and methods, all of which you have agreed fit logically into the history of life on Earth.
dhw: Once more, my objections are to your personal interpretation of your God’s motives and purposes. And how can you possibly insist that you know God’s choices, can’t understand them, but find them logical?
DAVID: I simply accept God chose to evolve His purpose or purposes. You've agreed He has that right. You simply object to my opinion that God's major purpose was human minds.
I have offered you a logical explanation of evolution IF God’s one and only purpose was H. sapiens’ brain. I “simply” object to your combined opinions that humans were his only purpose and he therefore chose to design anything but humans for 3.5+ billion years, and you have no idea why. I note your reference to purpose or purposes and to major purpose. When I asked you before to name other purposes, you said that your God might enjoy watching his creations as a painter enjoys looking at his paintings, but then you complained that I had made you humanize him.
Under "...updated Adler:)
QUOTE: "What other species builds civilizations, records history, creates art, makes music, thinks abstractly, communicates in language, envisions and fabricates machinery, improves life through science and engineering, or explores the deeper truths found in philosophy and religion? What other species can ponder “seizing control” of its own evolution, as transhumanists do? Which has true freedom? Not a one.”
DAVID: In answering the philosophy of Transhumanism he is echoing Adler's main point .
dhw: For me, all the above is blindingly obvious – yes, we are unique in our abilities. I couldn’t care less about Transhumanism. What bothers me is the assumption that our uniqueness somehow proves the existence of an unknown, sourceless mind you call God, proves that we were your God’s sole purpose from the beginning, and proves that the whole history of life extant and extinct was geared to this single purpose.
DAVID: This is why you persist in agnosticism which is your right. You still accept the possibility that we are here by chance mechanisms, producing the extraordinary result of 'us'.
You know perfectly well that I find major faults with all of the hypotheses, and therefore can neither accept nor reject any of them.
Under “Convoluted human evolution”:
"Once they reached the islands of south-east Asia, they could have evolved into separate species on different islands, much as occurred with tortoises and other animals on the Galapagos Islands.
“'You could have hominin species on all the different large islands in the Philippines,” says Piper. “It's absolutely incredible to think about."
DAVID: All I can say is here we go again.
And all I can say is that I sympathize with you when you say you have no idea why your God chose to design all these different hominins and hominids when the only homo he wanted to design was sapiens.
dhw: big brain evolution:comparing chimp and brain organoids
by David Turell , Thursday, April 11, 2019, 14:43 (1836 days ago) @ dhw
DAVID: You are demanding knowledge of God's mind I cannot have. Your complaint is totally illogical. Read your own first sentence.
dhw: But you claim that you do have knowledge of your God’s mind: his one and only purpose was to design the brain of H. sapiens, and he chose to spend 3.5+ billion years designing every other life form so that they could eat or not eat one another until he designed the only thing he wanted to design, and you have no idea why. My first sentence accepts that he would have had a purpose and would have chosen his method to achieve that purpose. And I have proposed different purposes and methods, all of which you have agreed fit logically into the history of life on Earth.
You have mirrored my interpretation exactly. I cannot know why God chose His method, We have discussed all the possible reasons and all are logic al guesses.
dhw: Once more, my objections are to your personal interpretation of your God’s motives and purposes. And how can you possibly insist that you know God’s choices, can’t understand them, but find them logical?DAVID: I simply accept God chose to evolve His purpose or purposes. You've agreed He has that right. You simply object to my opinion that God's major purpose was human minds.
dhw: I have offered you a logical explanation of evolution IF God’s one and only purpose was H. sapiens’ brain. I “simply” object to your combined opinions that humans were his only purpose and he therefore chose to design anything but humans for 3.5+ billion years, and you have no idea why. I note your reference to purpose or purposes and to major purpose. When I asked you before to name other purposes, you said that your God might enjoy watching his creations as a painter enjoys looking at his paintings, but then you complained that I had made you humanize him.
The majesty of the human brain declares His purpose. It cannot have appeared by chance.
dhw: Under "...updated Adler:)QUOTE: "What other species builds civilizations, records history, creates art, makes music, thinks abstractly, communicates in language, envisions and fabricates machinery, improves life through science and engineering, or explores the deeper truths found in philosophy and religion? What other species can ponder “seizing control” of its own evolution, as transhumanists do? Which has true freedom? Not a one.”
DAVID: In answering the philosophy of Transhumanism he is echoing Adler's main point .
dhw: For me, all the above is blindingly obvious – yes, we are unique in our abilities. I couldn’t care less about Transhumanism. What bothers me is the assumption that our uniqueness somehow proves the existence of an unknown, sourceless mind you call God, proves that we were your God’s sole purpose from the beginning, and proves that the whole history of life extant and extinct was geared to this single purpose.
DAVID: This is why you persist in agnosticism which is your right. You still accept the possibility that we are here by chance mechanisms, producing the extraordinary result of 'us'.
dhw: You know perfectly well that I find major faults with all of the hypotheses, and therefore can neither accept nor reject any of them.
Understood.
Under “Convoluted human evolution”:"Once they reached the islands of south-east Asia, they could have evolved into separate species on different islands, much as occurred with tortoises and other animals on the Galapagos Islands.
“'You could have hominin species on all the different large islands in the Philippines,” says Piper. “It's absolutely incredible to think about."DAVID: All I can say is here we go again.
dhw: And all I can say is that I sympathize with you when you say you have no idea why your God chose to design all these different hominins and hominids when the only homo he wanted to design was sapiens.
He certainly gave them wanderlust to travel all over and adapt to new climates and locations.
dhw: big brain evolution:comparing chimp and brain organoids
DAVID: You are demanding knowledge of God's mind I cannot have. Your complaint is totally illogical. Read your own first sentence.
dhw: But you claim that you do have knowledge of your God’s mind: his one and only purpose was to design the brain of H. sapiens, and he chose to spend 3.5+ billion years designing every other life form so that they could eat or not eat one another until he designed the only thing he wanted to design, and you have no idea why. My first sentence accepts that he would have had a purpose and would have chosen his method to achieve that purpose. And I have proposed different purposes and methods, all of which you have agreed fit logically into the history of life on Earth.
DAVID: You have mirrored my interpretation exactly. I cannot know why God chose His method, We have discussed all the possible reasons and all are logic al guesses.
Yes, it is your own interpretation of his goal and method that you cannot understand. And since you have no idea why he would have chosen such a goal and method, I have suggested different interpretations of goal and/or method, all of which we can both understand perfectly well. I suggest therefore that the least likely of all the interpretations is the one neither of us can understand.
DAVID: You simply object to my opinion that God's major purpose was human minds.
dhw: I have offered you a logical explanation of evolution IF God’s one and only purpose was H. sapiens’ brain. I “simply” object to your combined opinions that humans were his only purpose and he therefore chose to design anything but humans for 3.5+ billion years, and you have no idea why.
DAVID: The majesty of the human brain declares His purpose. It cannot have appeared by chance.
The complexity of ALL life is such that we both find it impossible to believe in chance as the cause. Chance has never been the issue between us. The dispute is over your inexplicable combination of hypotheses (single goal, 3.5+ billion years spent on not fulfilling it).
dhw: And all I can say is that I sympathize with you when you say you have no idea why your God chose to design all these different hominins and hominids when the only homo he wanted to design was sapiens.
DAVID: He certainly gave them wanderlust to travel all over and adapt to new climates and locations.
But that does not explain why he would have chosen such a roundabout way to design the only form of human that he wanted to design. The ever increasing variety suggests to me that if your God exists, he may have designed a mechanism enabling all life forms to adapt and innovate in response to ever changing environmental conditions.
dhw: big brain evolution:comparing chimp and brain organoids
by David Turell , Friday, April 12, 2019, 18:03 (1835 days ago) @ dhw
DAVID: You have mirrored my interpretation exactly. I cannot know why God chose His method, We have discussed all the possible reasons and all are logic al guesses.
dhw: Yes, it is your own interpretation of his goal and method that you cannot understand. And since you have no idea why he would have chosen such a goal and method, I have suggested different interpretations of goal and/or method, all of which we can both understand perfectly well. I suggest therefore that the least likely of all the interpretations is the one neither of us can understand.
I can fully understand why humans are the goal, based on how unusual we are, mirroring Adler. It is you, not me, who doubts the reasons for his method, all of which we have covered in our discussion.
DAVID: You simply object to my opinion that God's major purpose was human minds.dhw: I have offered you a logical explanation of evolution IF God’s one and only purpose was H. sapiens’ brain. I “simply” object to your combined opinions that humans were his only purpose and he therefore chose to design anything but humans for 3.5+ billion years, and you have no idea why.
I don't have to know why He made His choice to use evolving. It is not just 3.5+ billion years. He started evolving everything 13.78 byo. It is His obvious pattern as I have pointed out many times.
DAVID: The majesty of the human brain declares His purpose. It cannot have appeared by chance.dhw: The complexity of ALL life is such that we both find it impossible to believe in chance as the cause. Chance has never been the issue between us. The dispute is over your inexplicable combination of hypotheses (single goal, 3.5+ billion years spent on not fulfilling it).
Your same impatient complaint about God. My answer is above. He simply prefers evolving over direct creation.
dhw: And all I can say is that I sympathize with you when you say you have no idea why your God chose to design all these different hominins and hominids when the only homo he wanted to design was sapiens.DAVID: He certainly gave them wanderlust to travel all over and adapt to new climates and locations.
dhw: But that does not explain why he would have chosen such a roundabout way to design the only form of human that he wanted to design. The ever increasing variety suggests to me that if your God exists, he may have designed a mechanism enabling all life forms to adapt and innovate in response to ever changing environmental conditions.
And I agree that is certainly possible, but I object to the idea, implicit in your suggestion, that the adaptations are free flowing with no purposeful end in sight. If God supplied that mechanism it would not be free from God's guidance.
dhw: big brain evolution:comparing chimp and brain organoids
DAVID: I can fully understand why humans are the goal, based on how unusual we are, mirroring Adler. It is you, not me, who doubts the reasons for his method, all of which we have covered in our discussion.
You still refuse to recognize that it is the COMBINATION of your hypotheses which you yourself cannot understand. If humans were the goal, you “have no idea” why he chose to spend 3.5+ billion years designing anything but humans. You accept the logic of the hypothesis that he might not have known how to fulfil his goal (to create a being in his own image), and therefore had to experiment. It is equally logical to propose that he did NOT set out to design H. sapiens and the idea only came to him late on in the process. I shan’t repeat all the other alternatives, every one of which you agree provides a logical combination of purpose and method.
DAVID: The majesty of the human brain declares His purpose. It cannot have appeared by chance.
dhw: The complexity of ALL life is such that we both find it impossible to believe in chance as the cause. Chance has never been the issue between us. The dispute is over your inexplicable combination of hypotheses (single goal, 3.5+ billion years spent on not fulfilling it).
DAVID: Your same impatient complaint about God. My answer is above. He simply prefers evolving over direct creation.
I was replying to your point about chance. And as regards the problem which makes your COMBINED hypotheses impossible for you to understand, he “prefers” it is no explanation at all, but simply an astonishing assumption that you know exactly what God thinks.
DAVID: He certainly gave them [all the different hominins and hominids] wanderlust to travel all over and adapt to new climates and locations.
dhw: But that does not explain why he would have chosen such a roundabout way to design the only form of human that he wanted to design. The ever increasing variety suggests to me that if your God exists, he may have designed a mechanism enabling all life forms to adapt and innovate in response to ever changing environmental conditions.
DAVID: And I agree that is certainly possible, but I object to the idea, implicit in your suggestion, that the adaptations are free flowing with no purposeful end in sight. If God supplied that mechanism it would not be free from God's guidance.
I have offered you the experimentation hypothesis as an alternative, although I find free flow more likely – leaving open the possibility of dabbling. i.e. he could guide it if he wanted to. That would explain the long, higgledy-piggledy history of the bush and would also allow for the purposeful end you envisage, but NOT for the inexplicable combination of hypotheses you keep insisting on. (Other alternatives suggest a different purpose for the bush.)
dhw: big brain evolution:comparing chimp and brain organoids
by David Turell , Saturday, April 13, 2019, 21:50 (1833 days ago) @ dhw
DAVID: I can fully understand why humans are the goal, based on how unusual we are, mirroring Adler. It is you, not me, who doubts the reasons for his method, all of which we have covered in our discussion.
dhw: You still refuse to recognize that it is the COMBINATION of your hypotheses which you yourself cannot understand. If humans were the goal, you “have no idea” why he chose to spend 3.5+ billion years designing anything but humans.
A complete miss of my logical point: I cannot explain His decisions as I cannot read his mind but can analyze his intentions from the results. He chose to evolve humans and provided the diversity for food supply until humans were evolved. Once He formed the universe and a suitable Earth by evolutionary processes, He directly created life in the form of early bacteria, and returned to evolution from that point.
DAVID: Your same impatient complaint about God. My answer is above. He simply prefers evolving over direct creation.
dhw: I was replying to your point about chance. And as regards the problem which makes your COMBINED hypotheses impossible for you to understand, he “prefers” it is no explanation at all, but simply an astonishing assumption that you know exactly what God thinks.
So in your view God does not have the authority to choose a method of creation? Prefers equals choice in my way of thinking.
DAVID: He certainly gave them [all the different hominins and hominids] wanderlust to travel all over and adapt to new climates and locations.dhw: But that does not explain why he would have chosen such a roundabout way to design the only form of human that he wanted to design. The ever increasing variety suggests to me that if your God exists, he may have designed a mechanism enabling all life forms to adapt and innovate in response to ever changing environmental conditions.
DAVID: And I agree that is certainly possible, but I object to the idea, implicit in your suggestion, that the adaptations are free flowing with no purposeful end in sight. If God supplied that mechanism it would not be free from God's guidance.
dhw: I have offered you the experimentation hypothesis as an alternative, although I find free flow more likely – leaving open the possibility of dabbling. i.e. he could guide it if he wanted to. That would explain the long, higgledy-piggledy history of the bush and would also allow for the purposeful end you envisage, but NOT for the inexplicable combination of hypotheses you keep insisting on. (Other alternatives suggest a different purpose for the bush.)
The use of evolution is a given if God is totally in charge. I start with that premise. All the hominins and homos have interbred and provided necessary survival advantages in the contributed DNA to the current humans, as I have noted. For me everything is logically explained. You may claim to start with my premise, but raise all sorts of doubts and objections, thereafter, stemming from your inability to choose any answers, which is your right. With nothing firm in your thinking, you stay filled with conjecture.
dhw: big brain evolution:comparing chimp and brain organoids
DAVID: I can fully understand why humans are the goal, based on how unusual we are, mirroring Adler. It is you, not me, who doubts the reasons for his method, all of which we have covered in our discussion.
dhw: You still refuse to recognize that it is the COMBINATION of your hypotheses which you yourself cannot understand. If humans were the goal, you “have no idea” why he chose to spend 3.5+ billion years designing anything but humans.
DAVID: A complete miss of my logical point: I cannot explain His decisions as I cannot read his mind but can analyze his intentions from the results. He chose to evolve humans and provided the diversity for food supply until humans were evolved.
And he “chose to evolve” every life form, including all those that have no connection with humans. That is why you have no idea why he would have chosen this method if his SOLE intention was to produce humans. You use the terms “evolve” and “were evolved”, but since according to you every innovation, lifestyle and natural wonder required special design either by preprogramming or dabbling, once more you skate over the problem that if he specially designed everything else, why did he not specially design the only thing he wanted to design?
DAVID: Your same impatient complaint about God. My answer is above. He simply prefers evolving over direct creation.
dhw: […] he “prefers” it is no explanation at all, but simply an astonishing assumption that you know exactly what God thinks.
DAVID: So in your view God does not have the authority to choose a method of creation? Prefers equals choice in my way of thinking.
Of course he has the authority to choose! But you have no idea why he chose/preferred the purpose and method you ascribe to him, and so I have suggested different purposes and methods, all of which you agree make perfect sense.
DAVID (dhw in bold): The use of evolution is a given if God is totally in charge. [Yes.] I start with that premise. All the hominins and homos have interbred and provided necessary survival advantages in the contributed DNA to the current humans, as I have noted. [See below.] For me everything is logically explained. [Except that you admit you have no idea why he chose such a method, which = you can’t explain it.] You may claim to start with my premise, but raise all sorts of doubts and objections, thereafter, stemming from your inability to choose any answers, which is your right. With nothing firm in your thinking, you stay filled with conjecture. [True. You have chosen to believe in one conjecture which you find inexplicable. That is also your right. Just as an atheist might choose to believe in the chance conjecture. The fact that he has chosen one conjecture over another does not endow his belief with any more logic than your own.]
DAVID: (Under “Denisovans”) After surviving so long, there should be fossils to help us understand.
dhw: There are, and new ones are being discovered all the time. And each new discovery adds further mystification to the hypothesis that your God’s purpose from the very beginning was to specially design H. sapiens.
DAVID: Well, the one thing that is certainly true is that we are the only ones here with bits and pieces of their DNA which added to our prospects for healthier living. Not so silly after all. Everything we discover adds to knowledge of God's purposeful activities, but only if one has an open mind.
But you “have no idea” (your words) why your God chose to separately design all the different bits and pieces in different hominins and homos at different times instead of separately designing the only homo he wanted to design: H. sapiens. If you can’t explain this method of achieving his one and only goal, but you cling to it and refuse to consider other possible and completely logical interpretations of goal and/or purpose, I’m afraid the last thing you can claim for yourself is open-mindedness.
dhw: big brain evolution:comparing chimp and brain organoids
by David Turell , Sunday, April 14, 2019, 19:59 (1833 days ago) @ dhw
dhw: