Introducing the brain: general (Introduction)

by dhw, Monday, March 14, 2022, 12:31 (983 days ago) @ dhw

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

DAVID: Broca's area is not frontal lobe.

dhw:See numerous websites, such as: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Broca%27s_area
"Broca's area […] is a region in the frontal lobe of the dominant hemisphere, usually the left, of the brain with functions linked to speech production."

DAVID: My sloppiness. I was thinking of the prefrontal higher conceptualizing region. Broca's is in a back lower area of the whole frontal region.

dhw: We all make mistakes, but in any case it doesn’t alter the fact that this article categorically opposes your theory that all the vital changes to the frontal lobe began with sapiens, and that the changes took place before they were required.

DAVID: Broca's area was there long before language. I'll bet Erectus had it.

That was made clear by the article, and it therefore categorically refutes your earlier statements that the complexities of the frontal lobe are unique to sapiens. Now you are betting that this complexity was not unique to sapiens.

Memory formation

DAVID: Did our current uses occur 315,000 years ago? The neurons then anticipated the use today in the sense they easily handle them now.

dhw: […] Next, you’ll be telling us that God designed legs hundreds of millions of years ago in anticipation of humans wanting to play football. Once mechanisms are in place, they respond to new requirements as history marches on. Our brains respond by complexifying. I don’t know why you think they and earlier brains change/changed BEFORE they are/were required to do so.

DAVID: Because I believe in God who designs new organisms prepared for their future uses.

I know you do. Whether God designed each new set of cells or not, of course they were they were available for future use! So were legs! But now you have agreed that the new cells must have been used when they first arrived, i.e. they must have met a new requirement at the time. You have also agreed that earlier brains must have complexified before they expanded, and complexification takes place without your God's intervention. So even in your theory, your God provided the mechanism for autonomous change, and he did not provide new cells thousands of years before they were needed. What could this mechanism be, if it is not cellular intelligence? Or do you believe that 315,000 years ago he provided new cells with instructions on how to build centrally heated houses, write symphonies, invent nuclear weapons etc. (not to be opened for the next 314,000+ years)? As I see it, the only difference now between our theistic theories is that while accepting that your God gave cells an autonomous mechanism for complexification, you insist that he had to intervene personally when brains required new cells.

Jumping spiders

QUOTE: Although these tiny arachnids have brains that could literally fit on the head of a pin, the work of Cross and other scientists suggests that they have capabilities we’d have no problem hailing as signs of intelligence if exhibited by animals with much larger brains, like dogs or human toddlers.
“'Jumping spiders are remarkably clever animals,” says visual ecologist Nathan Morehouse […]. “I always find it delightful when something like a humble jumping spider punctures our sense of biological superiority.”

DAVID: I'm educating everyone in ID. This article is from their website illustrating how the designer gives insect brains the ability to perform these feats.

dhw: As always, my thanks for presenting material which explicitly supports the case for insect intelligence – possibly designed by your designer – so vehemently denied by your own “large organisms chauvinism”.

DAVID: Thank you.

Thank you for thanking me for thanking you for providing yet more evidence of insect intelligence.

multiple queen fire ant colony

QUOTE: …..the advantages of having multiple queens overrode the incompatibilities, and the genetic material repeatedly spread to other species from the one source species in which this new social form evolved.

DAVID: interesting new hybrid fire ant is old. Not true speciation.

dhw: I agree that it’s not true speciation, but it is still highly relevant to our discussion on the intelligent manner in which organisms discover and use new ways of improving their chances of survival.

DAVID: Certainly more queens are better.

It’s amazing what ants come up with – thereby not only proving how intelligent they are, but also illustrating the more general fact that speciation, life styles, econiches, natural wonders etc. are all geared to the same principle: improving chances of survival.