Big brain evolution: changes in sapiens skull shape (Evolution)

by dhw, Sunday, February 04, 2018, 10:51 (318 days ago) @ David Turell

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.


Complete thread:

 RSS Feed of thread

powered by my little forum