Big brain evolution: learning new tasks (Evolution)

by David Turell @, Saturday, April 28, 2018, 18:18 (226 days ago) @ dhw
edited by David Turell, Saturday, April 28, 2018, 18:26

dhw: What do you mean by “do”? Only a complex expanded capacity computer brain can implement the new complex concepts that are provided by the software s/s/c. If your computer is working perfectly well with the software you already have, you don’t get a new one. I suggest that the pre-sapiens brain (computer) could not implement the new concepts provided by the s/s/c (software), and so it required additional cells and connections (a computer with a larger capacity).
DAVID: A bigger brain requires a bigger skull and a different Mother's pelvic shape, all coordinated at once. Requires design across two sexes. Not by chance.

dhw: Where have I said it was by chance? The issue between us is whether the pre-sapiens brain expanded before he had his new thoughts, or as a result of his having new thoughts. I have used your own computer analogy to explain the illogicality of your argument, and so you scuttle off to the chance issue. I presume you now accept my argument but are reluctant to say so.

I don't accept your argument. You like to isolate issues without looking at the whole picture that surrounds them. How to go from smaller prefrontal lobe to larger is your nebulous 'push' concept, which just happens because it has to. I go back to design because it is obviously necessary.

DAVID’s comment (under “Neanderthal brain difference”): This study certainly shows a species can only think with the brain it is given, and more complexity gives more complex concepts.

dhw: Yes, it takes the materialist view for granted: that the material brain is the source of concepts. You have once again forgotten that you are a dualist.

Total misinterpretation. The s/s/c uses the brain it is given to have the level of thought complexity allowed. I view the issue as the s/s/c is confined to a level of thought complexity in the brain it is given. You like an s/s/c free as a bird, always thinking what it wants despite the brain. You accept my software/hardware analogy and then totally forget it. A new species is supposed to have new abilities, and that certainly can be a new level of thought as well as new levels of implementation all at once. This thought shows your step wise approach to the jump in pfc size is not appropriate to what we see in evolution.

The central theme of evolution is that tiny improvements in fitness can steadily accumulate resulting in a new species. The unstated assumption (usually) is that the original species was in need of improvement. That is your approach from Darwin. I have not accepted it as causing evolution. God drives the complex advances.


Complete thread:

 RSS Feed of thread

powered by my little forum