Different in degree or kind: Sapiens begin brain use (Introduction)

by dhw, Monday, October 10, 2016, 12:12 (2754 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: The author, a paleontologist, muses about when humans started to use their brains in partial and then toward full capacity using ornamental jewelry artifacts to judge when there were advances: - http://nautil.us//issue/40/learning/the-modern-mind-may-be-100000-years-old - This particular discussion began with the subject of language. You insisted that God had dabbled with (or preprogrammed) the larynx, the uvula etc., and after that, humans were able to speak. I suggested that with their enhanced consciousness, humans needed new sounds, and the attempt to create new sounds would have caused the restructuring of the voice organs. After that the new sounds evolved into language as we know it today. The physical evolution would have mirrored the way fish would have stepped onto dry land (exploring new territory), which would have created a need for the restructuring of their fins into legs as we know them today. - The great unsolved mystery here, though, is the source of consciousness. If the source is material (i.e. the brain or other material combinations), you can argue that the mechanisms are too complex to have arisen by chance, and so your God must have created them. And you can argue that human consciousness is so advanced that perhaps your God dabbled with existing brains in order to create new complexities that would enable consciousness to develop new degrees of self-awareness. But that is not your argument. You are a dualist. You claim that the brain is only a RECEIVER of consciousness. And so over and over again I point out to you that a receiver receives, it responds, it is not the generator. You have even agreed that “the brain complexifies in order to contain and process the ever increasing amount of information provided by consciousness”. It is YOUR argument that consciousness came first (and you even believe that consciousness can exist with all its attributes independently of the brain), but for some reason you refuse to recognize the dislocation between your two beliefs: 1) conscious thought is not produced by the brain, and 2) the brain had to change before conscious thought could evolve. That is why I suggested that materialism would give you a more logical case. - As for this fascinating article, it has nothing to do with how the modern brain came into being. Its speculations start when the brain is already there, and the subject is the evolution of human culture. Of course culture, technology and society evolve as one generation builds on the thoughts of its predecessors. Once again, you have a reasonable argument if you claim that God changed the brain and the RESULTANT new layers of consciousness produced an ever growing chain of new thoughts; but if you claim that immaterial consciousness PROVIDES thought which the material brain RESPONDS to, I would say you haven't a leg or fin to stand on. - Please note: I am not pretending I have any answers. I am totally mystified by consciousness. I can only point out why I find other people's answers unconvincing. But perhaps the key lies somewhere within Sheldrake's “morphic fields” and the interplay between matter and energy - a possibility I hope we shall continue to explore on that thread.