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

by dhw, Sunday, February 25, 2018, 12:02 (2461 days ago) @ David Turell

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).