Introducing the brain: general (Introduction)

by dhw, Saturday, March 26, 2022, 12:54 (971 days ago) @ David Turell

Memory formation

DAVID: But you've complained about my use of the word autonomous. The car follows a computer program just as autonomous cells are following God's instructions.

dhw: The analogy was of car and cell acting without human/divine involvement. Now you want to change it to the car/cell acting on instructions. Instructions are a form of involvement!

DAVID: You have totally twisted my analogy. The car is programmed for automatic action nd can drive autonomously as a result, by human input in the programming. God's input is in the autonomously acting cell. Perfect explanation of how I correctly use the word 'autonomously' in a different sense than you insisted upon.

The quote made no mention of a programme for “automatic” action, but I am quite happy with the second part of your analogy: “God’s input is in the autonomously acting cell.” Once he has “programmed” it (i.e. given it the intelligence) to act without his intervention, it acts without his intervention, i.e. he does not programme its actions but provides it with the intelligence to decide what to do and when to do it. Autonomy entails "the ability to make decisions by yourself without being controlled by anyone else" (Longman) - the exact opposite of obeying instructions.

dhw: You have several times agreed that complexification takes place without your God’s intervention, and I keep asking why the same autonomous mechanism should not also have been capable of increasing the number of cells when needed.

DAVID: Remember my objection to second hand design?

dhw: That simply means he would not give cells the mechanism to add new cells. Calling it “second-hand design” doesn’t change the meaning. Or should I change the question: if God gave cells an autonomous mechanism to do second-hand complexification, why would he not give cells the same ability to do second-hand expansion?

DAVID: Cells do not have insight into future needs. Only designing minds do. Fully covered before.

And answered a hundred times: cells RESPOND to current needs. They don’t gaze into a crystal ball to forecast possible future needs. In some cases, their RESPONSE to current needs and conditions is what enables them actually to have a future. That process is called adaptation.

DAVID: The neurons have a full set of instructions.

dhw: To do what? Tell themselves to remember to use the mechanism your God gave them? Or instructions on how to tackle each and every problem that will arise for the rest of time?

DAVID: Just like the self-driving car.

At least a car will be limited to what cars can do. Imagine a programme that gives precise instructions on how all brains are to cope with every single situation in every context for the rest of life’s history! Do you really believe there could be such a programme?

neuron density

dhw: I don’t know where you found the word “sudden” in the article. Even human intelligence has evolved very gradually. […]

DAVID: A sudden major advance in erectus;

He was around for about 2 million years, during which his brain size increased from about 900cc to about 1200 cc. “Sudden”? The word was not used in the article.

Libet’s timer gaps

dhw: What happened to memory? We learn that green means go, and from then on we remember the lesson. We have already planned to go, otherwise we wouldn’t be on our way, would we? So “going” is not “triggered” by the green light and our brain looking into the future. Our brain simply reminds us that we mustn’t continue our “going” until the light is green. is that too simple an explanation?

DAVID: No. It seems you repeated what is in the article with a strange twist. Let's just see how it explains Libet's findings of microseconds delays!

dhw: I’m lost. Please explain why it is so important (and even surprising) to know that it takes a fraction of a second for a feeling to pass from skin to brain, and how on earth this denotes the brain knowing the future, which would have to be the other way round – brain knowing before touch happening? And please explain what is strange in my comment.

DAVID: All I've done is present new explanations for Libet's time gap which Romansh and Matt used to tell us the brain runs us and there is no free will. Why are you looking for an argument? Have you forgotten the past discussions here?

It seems quite logical to me that there should be a tiny interval between the moment of contact and the brain’s awareness of it, so I don’t understand why it is so important. And I don’t see how that conveys the idea of the brain “knowing the future”. And I can see no connection at all between this purely chemical process and the subject of free will. I am not looking for an argument. I am asking you to explain something I don’t understand. You raised the subject, but if you can’t explain it, then let’s drop it.