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

by dhw, Wednesday, February 28, 2018, 14:10 (291 days ago) @ David Turell

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.


Complete thread:

 RSS Feed of thread

powered by my little forum