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

by David Turell @, Friday, March 02, 2018, 15:25 (287 days ago) @ dhw
edited by David Turell, Friday, March 02, 2018, 15:54

DAVID: It is not one circumstance or issue for the s/s/c. It plays two roles, one in life interfaced with the brain and one in the afterlife. The s/s/c MUST work with the brain during life and an injured brain can create a skewed appearance to the s/s/c. In the afterlife the s/s/c will be whatever it will be, not skewed.

dhw: Of course in life it must work with the brain, using the information the brain provides and using the material brain to give material expression/implementation to its immaterial thoughts. But if NDEs are to be believed, the s/s/c plays the same role in life and in death: it is the thinking, experiencing, remembering, decision-making YOU. Yes or no?

Yes.


dhw: Changes to the brain, whether temporary or permanent, are known to change the thoughts and behaviour of the s/s/c, and that is evidence for materialism.
DAVID: The brain is material, the s/s/c is not.

dhw: That is indeed the essence of dualism. Two separate things that work together.

DAVID: A sick brain stands in the way of the s/s/c expressing itself properly. Interfaced!

dhw: A materialist will argue that if a change to the brain entails a change to the personality, that is clear evidence that the basis of the personality is material. If a dementia victim - i'm thinking of an extreme case here - could be cured (if only…), then their former self would be restored, but this suggests that the brain makes the self – not that the self is actually present trying in vain to get the brain to say/do what he/she wants it to say/do!

I see no problem. The material brain only allows expression to an immaterial s/s/c. A sick brain gives a sick improper expression. I use the idea of the brain receiving the s/s/c as an explanation, just as a damaged radio gives a garbled output. The underlying s/s/c is really the same and normal.

DAVID: You and I come from very different viewpoints about the interaction of the brain and the s/s/c. They are not resolved, but as I see it, remain very far apart. As a result I cannot accept your theory that the need to implement concepts forces the brain to enlarge. God makes major speciation changes. We have no materialistic explanation for speciation. I see a designer must be present.

dhw: Fact 1): pre-sapiens brains underwent enlargement. Fact 2): nobody knows the cause. Fact 3): implementation of concepts is known to modify the brain.
Hypothesis 1): the thinking, conceptualizing s/s/c is a separate entity from the information-providing, concept-implementing brain, but they work together. Hypothesis 2): if implementation of s/s/c-generated concepts is known to modify the brain, maybe pre-sapiens brains needed greater capacity to implement new concepts, and so implementation caused modification in the form of expansion. Hypothesis 3): although concepts are generated by the s/s/c and not the brain, the s/s/c could not generate new concepts until God had enlarged the brain.

I suggest that Hypothesis 2) is logical. I suggest that Hypothesis 3) is illogical. A designer can be present in both hypotheses.

I'm still with Hypo 3. The theory of implementation requiring enlargement where development of complex concepts does not, is an inconsistent thought. Einstein's brain is a point in my favor. His conceptual area was almost a centimeter thicker than the average human, but his overall brain was the same size as the rest of us. He was obviously born a genius. (Page 209 of The Atheist Delusion)


Complete thread:

 RSS Feed of thread

powered by my little forum