Brain Expansion (Evolution)

by David Turell @, Thursday, April 23, 2020, 19:31 (102 days ago) @ dhw
edited by David Turell, Thursday, April 23, 2020, 19:45

dhw: I keep asking you what you mean by “learn to use” (divine lessons, instruction manuals, for sapiens 260,000 years of trial and nothing but error?). Never answered.

DAVID: Why can't you envision self-learning with a new instrument? Developing new info (your mantra) and new simple concepts exchanged with others.

Addendum: all that new use and learning from each other adds nothing to size until the next jump.


dhw: I like your explanation. So why do you make such a fuss about the gap between sapiens’ new brain and the great leap forward?It fits in with my proposal and with the pattern of all phases between expansions: I called it stasis, but let’s say comparative stasis – just minor matters for thousands of years until the next big idea causes expansion (earlier phases), and minor matters for 260,000 years before the great leap forward (sapiens)

'Stasis' is like your 'effort' term. Sounds good, really explains nothing, as my discussion above is extremely logical. The size gaps are real, and simple acceptance that new brain size causes new artifacts is seen in all the articles. Soul/brain complex assumed) All you want is a non-God explanation, as atheists do.

DAVID: God is capable of whatever you wish to propose, but it would help if you tried to analyze from exactly what God produced as a guide to thoughts about His purpose. From the evidence God is very powerful in his ability to create. What He created is what we see. Of course you can create abilities for God that I don't think He used.

dhw: Stop flannelling. You wrote that he invented a mechanism whereby complexification and mini-expansion take place without his intervention. The fact that you don’t think he invented a mechanism whereby the brain could expand as well as complexify does not invalidate my theory!

No your imagined theory cannot be invalidated. There are no facts supporting it and none refuting it, because it is all in your imagination. Of course you can present your theory as anything imagined can be possible. There is no refutation for that approach. I'm still with God did it, and at the natural level of argument I view it as totally contrived from our advanced brain, and doesn't fit what archaeological articles present. See below for my thoughts about creating an artifact: thinking of it hard, making it always easy.


DAVID: My God, to use your words is the 'control freak' you bring up as a supposed derogatory term. Nothing wrong with God firmly in control. Your idea again relinquishes God from carefully designing each step in brain enlargement/complexity. […] Once again you want a weak God who gives up control and allows newly-sized brains to self-invent their new size and networks. That implies they are already as smart as God in engineering brains.

dhw: Sorry, but this is silly. I propose (theistic version) that he invented a mechanism which allows complexification without his intervention (acknowledged by you) and also expansion. There is “nothing wrong” with God not needing to intervene, it does not make him weak, and if he invented a self-improving brain, that does make the brain into the smart inventor of self-improving brains.

God not needing to intervene, means God, in your terms, created a perfect brain expansion program of about 200 cc each stage, with perfect pre-programming. That fits my pre-programming proposal. Fine. We are together, finally, that God perfectly pre-planned evolution


DAVID: Then why do they need any further improvement? You have invented a theory with no substance, just seizing on the fact that our brain, with its massive complexity, well beyond those previous iterations, can have very small areas of enlargement to handle new mental and muscular activities. You are trying to make grapes into pineapples.

dhw: I keep proposing that the smaller brains needed further improvement because they could not implement the new big ideas.

dhw from the other expansion thread: "It is not “thinking of” a new concept but IMPLEMENTING a new concept (i.e. designing, working out details, learning to rectify mistakes, and making the new concept into a material artefact) that demands brain changes."

Your concept above is backward. Visualizing the design is always the key.The 'new big idea' requires intense abstract thought, requiring some advance in brain complexity. That is the only hard part. Where you go totally off the rails is in my experience, if I can think if it I can build it. Implementation requires no advanced thought, just manual activity with brain direction. Have you ever imagined something and built it? I have all my life. At about 12 I built a wooden reading lamp for my bed: shaped wooden pieces, painted, lined with the shiny inside of a tin can nailed in place. Socket and cord. At 14 I designed and built a brick fireplace for cooking steaks in our backyard. I'm not a junior Edison, but trial and error not needed. Your theory is totally unacceptable for me.


Complete thread:

 RSS Feed of thread

powered by my little forum