Evolution and humans: big brain size or use (Evolution)

by David Turell @, Saturday, May 27, 2017, 19:03 (391 days ago) @ dhw

dhw: …when you call your God a universal consciousness, do you mean his consciousness is on a level with yours and your dog’s?
David: My level of consciousness is advanced and approaches God's. I don't know why you brought up my dog, which is why I skipped the question before. My dog is consciousness but has no ability for introspection or conceptualization… etc.

On 25 May you wrote: “I am not implying that there are lesser and more advanced levels of consciousness. Consciousness is a single entity, one level.” Now you say your level is advanced and approaches God’s, and clearly your dog has a lower level. So what did you mean by your statement on 25 May?

My May 25th statement means my brain receives consciousness to use as one unit. My rain enlargers and becomes more complex from infanthood. As I grow from childhood and mold my personality and approach to life, I use my consciousness from simple thoughts to very complex. I developed learned processes, like the typing at this moment. Under the use of my consciousness my brain responds to develop new connections. The whole thing is seamless: me, self, brain, consciousness.


dhw: Yes, you keep saying it. I wrote: “If you agree that you are your consciousness, then you should stop trying to separate you from your consciousness when discussing whether the brain uses consciousness or consciousness uses the brain.” Your latest statement means my brain receives the mechanism of my consciousness for my consciousness to use my consciousness. More confusion. Why won’t you answer my simple question?

We are discussing at two different understanding levels, and I'm not explaining it well to you. does the above paragraph of mine help?

DAVID: Your puzzlement is because you don't recognize a giant brain grew before lots of its uses hadn't been invented yet! This study is one great example.

dhw: There is no puzzlement. You don’t seem to have recognized that this study shows usage influencing the brain, not the other way round. Once the brain had reached its optimum size, the changes had to be to the “wiring”, not to the size. The more “uses” we invent, the more complex the “wiring”. Yes, the large brain preceded all these newer uses, but what enlarged the brain in the first place?

Exactly the point: If an enlarged brain came first with parts basically unused, because thoughts and activities hadn't been invented as yet, then its plasticity allowed for it to adapt as the mental discoveries advanced.

dhw: If new concepts change the brain NOW, as the study clearly shows, I can only ask as I did before, why would the process be reversed for early humans, with changes preceding concepts?

The gaps in evolution firmly predict change first. use second.

DAVID’s comment:This study shows the intimate interconnection of our developing 'self' and how our brain changes to accommodate the integration of experience and responses. These changes are automatic but also cooperative as personality develops. We do develop ourselves. Consciousness and personality are immaterial, but based on the plasticity of the brain to fully develop and experience. (dhw’s bold)

dhw: The quote is unequivocal. If psychological improvements RESULT from changes in the brain, you have pure materialism (which may be right – I’m not taking sides). Your own comment suggests the exact opposite: we are our consciousness and personality, and the brain changes in order to accommodate the workings of immaterial consciousness and does not cause them. So why won’t you just have done with it and agree that according to your own scheme of things, consciousness uses and changes the brain, and not the other way round?

True, but it is under the seamless control of me!


Complete thread:

 RSS Feed of thread

powered by my little forum