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

by dhw, Thursday, April 02, 2020, 13:00 (101 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: You continue to ignore the prime point in my theory: the NEW IDEA DOES NOT REQUIRE A LARGER BRAIN because it arises out of information already known. It is the design and production that require expansion.

DAVID: I do not ignore your weird concept. I totally do not accept it as a logical theory. New design is an immaterial thought experiment requiring advanced complexity in the brain/soul. Making the tool/artifact is the easy part.

You persist in jumping straight to new design, when I keep reminding you that the initial concept is what sparks the need for new design, and the initial concept arises from EXISTING information: homo wants to kill bison – too dangerous from close-up – NEW IDEA: kill from a distance by throwing something. From that moment onwards, the brain is required to think new thoughts (design) and perform new activities (making and practising throwing new weapon). What you consider to be difficult or easy is irrelevant. The logical progression is from new idea (smaller brain) to implementation of new idea (greater brain capacity required).

dhw: 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: Against all I have read and reported to you.

dhw: You have reported that archaeologists don’t deal with possible reasons for expansion, and you simply refuse to answer my question, so I’ll bold it and ask you again to answer it.

DAVID: Once again they assume what new artifacts are found with the larger brained fossils were made by those fossils. Have you seen the opposite?

You simply refuse to answer my question. Of course the artefacts were made by the larger brained fossils! The question is what caused the brain to enlarge. Theoretical answer: designing and making a new artefact as conceived by the smaller brain which did not have the capacity to design and make said artefact. Said artefact cannot appear until brain has finished expanding. Once the brain is enlarged, it will continue to conceive, design and make new artefacts until another big idea requires another expansion. Question: how can you possibly know whether designing and making the FIRST artefact was the CAUSE of the expansion or was performed by an already expanded brain? I’ll give you the answer: you can’t know. If you think you can, please tell us how.

dhw: 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?

DAVID: Outside this natural arguing, I still say God makes all new species and enlarged all brains +/- 200 cc at a jump.

dhw: And I still ask why you think your God could not simply have created the mechanism enabling the natural progression I have described.
And I still ask you what facts you have to prove that my version is “backwards”.

DAVID: You describe a different God than the God I have my faith in.

I describe a different theory than the theory you have faith in. Mine is extrapolated from known facts (the way the modern brain functions) and you apparently have no facts at all to support your own.

Complete thread:

 RSS Feed of thread

powered by my little forum