Introducing the brain: general (Introduction)

by David Turell , Tuesday, March 08, 2022, 22:21 (989 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: Your 'control freak' equals purposeful.

dhw: My creator of a free-for-all equals purposeful.

Yes a personal purpose for entertainment.

See “immune system” under “cells”.

DAVID: 'Admire' and 'relationship' all the result of guessing. The only defense you have is to attack my God. Your desired humanized form of God is not in any way related to my view of a real god.

dhw: Yes, your guesses are just as humanizing as my guesses,...I have no “desired” humanized form, but I appreciate the logic of your confident guess that he enjoys creation and is interested in what he creates. I have no idea what gives you the impression that you know the “real” God, and that none of my alternative versions (e.g. an experimental God, or one who likes to learn new things) can possibly be real.

I started with research in how to think about God, as Adler instructed in his book. Based on that discussion and others, what you imagine about God is totally unrecognizable to me.

New Study Changes Our Understanding of Human ... - Haaretz.com

DAVID: The article clearly shows giant sapiens brain advances long before any current needs and uses. Note the early appearance of "Broca's language area long before real language developed. All organized in advance for future use.

dhw: The quotes above [I have not reproduced them here] support my own theory: new CURRENT requirements would have led to the changes (including Broca). The author speculates that these may have been related to the need for “new capabilities and technologies” and for enhanced communication. This flatly contradicts your theory that the changes to the frontal lobe were unique to sapiens, and it directly supports the proposal that the changes RESULTED from current requirements./b] [dhw's bold] […]

DAVID: You continue a strange dichotomy of thought. Note the red phrase above. What agency responded to the new requirements? None was needed. Broca's area preceded language.

dhw: My theory is that the cells responded. The article suggests that the requirements for new abilities and technologies and enhanced communication (e.g. for hunting) led to changes in the frontal lobe. This is the direct opposite of two of your theories, as above. What is the dichotomy?

We always disagree about the ability of a group of existing neurons to form a whole new-sized brain.

Dampwood termites

DAVID: Yes God MAY HAVE done anything. The 50/50 is my original point that from the outside those are the odds. When the insides are studied, it is all automatic. You totally reject that.

dhw: I reject your authoritative dismissal of a 50/50 possibility, and I remind you above of the two methods you have offered us, each of which stretches my own imagination beyond credulity.

Yes, you deny a God exists. See today: Tuesday, March 08, 2022, 21:38 From my comment:

"Seeing something that seems to act intelligently doesn't mean it is intrinsically intelligent in and of itself. It may dimply be following instructions it has been given. Thermostats and robots are just that, looking as if they take intelligent actions and we understand how they do it by following built-in designed algorithms. So can cells and simple one-celled animals. To assume actual intelligence exists is a very thin analysis." Take note.

Memory formation

DAVID: It shows our brain is designed with neurons with specific functions for future use.

dhw: I think the article describes how different memories are formed, but of course there would not be much point in forming memories if we didn’t have the means of remembering them in the future!

We came with memory ability, without which nothing could be accomplished.