Big brain evolution: brain size and intelligence (Evolution)

by David Turell , Tuesday, March 27, 2018, 15:01 (2431 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: Your cute caveman dialogue befits your ability as an author of plays and Children's books but in no way offers an explanation of how pre-sapiens brains suddenly grew by 200 cc with each jump in the fossils. The only evidence we have is advanced artifacts related to larger fossil brains, indicating a larger brain has better conceptualization, nothing more. Since methods of operation in evolution uses previously developed operations, the only thing we can assume is that brain plasticity existed in the pre-sapiens and their brains responded like ours does so there is plasticity and specific brain area growth, but no change in brain/skull size. All we show is shrinkage since we arrived on the scene. I'll stick with God creating the growth.

dhw: Apparently we also show complexification and enlargement of specific areas, and if specific areas can expand now, clearly we cannot rule out expansion then – but simply on a greater scale, which required skull expansion as well. But nobody knows why pre-sapiens brains expanded.That’s why we have different hypotheses. “God did it” is yours, but if God had to do it before pre-sapiens could think up new concepts, that means the brain is the source of thought (conceptualization being a mental process). Welcome to materialism. The appearance of artefacts alongside expanded brains fits in with BOTH hypotheses: 1) they could not have appeared until the brain had expanded sufficiently to implement the concept (mine, which fits in with dualism and materialism, as I hope eventually to explain); 2) they could not have appeared until the brain had expanded sufficiently to think up the concept (yours, which = pure materialism). That is not to say that materialism is wrong. (my bold) It simply contradicts your claim to be a dualist.

You refuse to accept a different concept about the brain s/s/c interface. My point is the s/s/c in life cannot develop new concepts independent of the neural mechanisms in the brain. It is still the idea presented by our computers that complex hardware allows for more complex software development of concepts. To restate your comment, 'the brain is the source of living thought'. In life there is always a material brain role in the production of immaterial thought. And amazingly the brain also understands its equal role to the s/s/c by its plasticity, by enlarging regions and also shrinking areas. Your bolded comment is a total misstatement of my theory. In life the s/s/c doesn't float around, but is completely attached to the brain with which it must work. In death the s/s/c doesn't have to create new concepts and operates in a somewhat different way.