Introducing the brain: half a brain is just fine (Introduction)

by David Turell , Tuesday, March 03, 2020, 19:05 (1724 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: Your past discussion has noted specifically areas enlarged in London cabbies and Italian illiterate women who learn to read. All true, but your interpretation is entirely wrong. What type of brain use caused the enlargement? That is the key. Were there new concepts developed which involves planning and design. Of course not. Their brains were learning from known information and the process was memorization of streets and for reading a complex of learning printed words and learning the meaning of some words not known before reading.
And later: Your theory is totally debunked above if you are using the cabbies, etc.

dhw: Firstly, your attempt to “debunk” my theory does not tell us what other “knowledge“ you were referring to. Please identify it. Secondly, learning to read is not a matter of learning words but of learning a process (implementing a concept) that was new to the women themselves, and it proves that the brain responds to the demands made on it.

Learning a concept of reading is not the same as originally creating a concept of reading, which is the difference in our thoughts about our argument about how the brain enlarges.

dhw: Your post is merely distinguishing between different categories of new concept.

Your categories are blatantly wrong. Creating a new concept is NOT the same as learning an existing concept. You can't twist out if it. Creating a new concept involves much new analysis and finally a design.

dhw: The cerebellum would not have changed itself in anticipation of language development.

DAVID: But as usual you forget. In anticipation of our newer developing functions, such as grammatical language our complex brain has been given excellent plasticity to make all the necessary adaptations and still shrink 150 cc in 30-35,000 years.

dhw: Stop harping on about shrinkage unless you have a different explanation from the one we have agreed on. Of course our brain has excellent plasticity. It would not have complexified or expanded if it didn’t. That is not the issue. The issue is your claim that your God preprogrammed or dabbled every change in advance of new concepts, as opposed to the only process we can actually observe, which is that the brain changes in its efforts to implement new concepts.[/b]

DAVID: I've shown you the bold is not true.

dhw: Of course you haven’t. Reading was a new concept for the illiterate women.

Wrong!! The women did not invent the concept of reading. They simply learned it. In considering new brain size we are discussing the invention of new concepts. It is invention that is the issue and being able to analyze how to satisfy a new need and design it. We all know that. Rethink your position. It is currently untenable.

DAVID: Just to help you the only true sort-of evidence we have about enlargement is Einstein's autopsy. The area thought to relate to his theorizing was much thicker. Problem:was he born with it or did he develop it from thinking/conceptualizing? We don't know. Brilliant folks are generally born that way? No real evidence.

dhw: Thank you for your honesty in helping me. We do not know the source of thought (dualism versus materialism), but Einstein’s brain certainly does not “debunk” my theory. It fits in perfectly with what we actually know about the brain from the examples given: it makes changes according to how it is used.

I've debunked your theory. It is the nuance of developing a new concept or simply learning one. You cannot avoid the nuance that shows us the difference as it applies to our discussion. As you know I've always favored an enlarged brain with the capability of new concept/design ability as the prime way. I've puzzled over why we see it so differently. I've finally recognized our vast difference. Sorry it took so long.