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

by dhw, Friday, March 20, 2020, 10:34 (1719 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: Or, my opposite view, only the newly enlarged brain could develop the new concept/concepts and produce the artifact products.

dhw: I notice you again use the word “develop”. Good. You develop something which exists, and that means the concept existed before the enlargement.

DAVID: Weird. Where did the concept exist before its appearance in thought? Develop means discover the new concept from thought in a brain that has the capability of allowing the soul to think of it.

It didn’t exist before its appearance in thought! The soul has used the brain to gather the information on which it bases the concept. Enlargement is only required in order to develop the concept which, in the case of artefacts, means providing more and more details of design and translating design into material reality.

DAVID: ….the soul just doesn't just use the brain to gather information. The soul actually thinks up new concepts from recognized need and the information taken in by the brain under the soul's instruction.

Yes, the soul thinks up new concepts from recognized, EXISTING needs, and it uses the EXISTING information taken in by the brain! It also goes on to use the brain in order to implement the concept. You are saying the same as me and pretending it’s different!

dhw: For example, existing information: me hungry – need to kill bison – close up might mean bison kill me...hum...New concept: Maybe me throw something sharp. What new information has required the expansion of the brain, since in your theory it is the soul that does the thinking?

DAVID: The new brain supplies all sorts of new information under the soul's direction.

Why don’t you answer my question? I have given you the information on which the concept is based. What new information is needed, and requires brain expansion, before the concept of “throwing something sharp” is conceived?

DAVID: The bold is still your reversal theory of the series of events archaeologists appear to believe.[…]

dhw: Then what is their explanation for the brain’s expansion? If that is not an issue either, what theory do they appear to believe which reverses mine?

DAVID: Silly. They present artifacts as the result of the latest brain enlargement, nothing more. No past brains discussed.

Nothing silly about it. My theory also presents the first artefacts as the result of brain enlargement, because the concept could not have been given material reality before the brain had enlarged itself. How does this represent a reversal of what archaeologists appear to believe?