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

by dhw, Tuesday, March 31, 2020, 11:15 (1696 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: My logic is based upon archaeological studies and reports that better improved artifacts always are found in places where the fossils have the bigger brains.
dhw: Of course they are! But archaeological studies don’t explain why the brains got bigger in the first place! And so you continue to ignore the fact that there is no way anyone can possibly know if the FIRST artefact in the history of each larger brained species was conceived before or after the expansion. It could only exist after the brain had expanded sufficiently to produce it.

DAVID: Backwards: The smaller earlier brain can produce the concept, but not the production!
What you are proposing is conceptualization is easy and production difficult.

If by that you mean that having a new idea does not require a larger brain, but designing and producing the implement does, then yes. It is the effort to implement the original concept that causes the brain to change, as we see in the modern brain, which complexifies or enlarges separate sections when performing new tasks. Are you still trying to blot out the original new idea based on existing information, and skipping straight to design?

dhw: I don’t like to delve too deep into precise figures. […] The fossil record does not provide a continuous record of expansions!

DAVID: Let's stick to what is found and accepted as size jumps.

dhw: May I also ask you if you think the fossil record is complete? It’s also worth noting that even in the human brain there are variations in volume. One website says the average is 1300 cc – 1500 cc (oh, a gap of 200 cc!) but there is a range from about 1000 cc to 1800 cc. So perhaps you can understand why I wouldn’t like to be as precise as you about a 200 cc jump from one homo to another.

DAVID:I give the average finding of jump in size, all big.

The average means some are smaller and some are bigger.

DAVID: We know that Erectus knew what Habilis had created and used those tools. We know, as above, increased brain size and advance in artifacts are correlated, always being found together. That is the way archaeologists view it, and they are not at our level of wondering about jumps in brain size and its cause.

dhw: And you continue to echo what I keep saying, except that you conveniently forget the argument concerning the FIRST artefacts.

DAVID: I don't forget, I reject completely.

How can you possibly reject the argument that nobody can know whether the first artefacts were produced by an already enlarged brain, or their design and production were the cause of the brain’s enlargement?

DAVID: the idea is in total reverse of the facts we have. Conceptualization of new ideas/designs is difficult, production much easier.

And yet again, you choose to blot out the point made at the start of this post! The smaller brain produces the original concept. The design and making of the product require a bigger brain. The only facts we have are that the modern brain complexifies and enlarges sections of itself in order to perform new tasks. What facts does my theory reverse?

DAVID: Remember, this discussion is at your non-god level, looking at a possible natural reason for expansion. I prefer God for the expansion.

dhw: What is wrong with the proposal that God organized Nature so that it would work naturally?

DAVID: My God is in total control. That proposal reduces His control as I view him.

dhw: So all that’s wrong with my proposal is that it's different from yours. Not much of an argument, is it?

DAVID: See above. There are lots of your ideas that are backwards. Answer my points at the natural level.

The natural level is that the smaller brain has an idea and the effort to implement (design and produce) the original concept requires greater capacity – hence enlargement. What facts do you have to prove that this is backwards?