Post reply

Reply to the message by David Turell

Name:

E-mail: (optional, won't be displayed directly)

Leave this field empty:

Homepage: (optional)

Leave this field empty:

Location: (optional)

Remember me (cookie)

Category:

Subject:

Formatting help

skip to input

format text bold: [b]bold text[/b]
format text italic: [i]italic text[/i]
insert hyperlink: [link=http://example.com/]link text[/link] / [link]http://example.com/[/link]
set text color: [color=#rgb]colored text[/color]
font size: [size=small]small text[/size]; [size=large]large text[/size]
insert list: [list][*]list item[/list]
insert image: [img]http://example.com/image.jpg[/img]; left: [img=left]http://example.com/image.jpg[/img]; right: [img=right]http://example.com/image.jpg[/img]; thumbnail: [img=thumbnail]http://example.com/image.jpg[/img]; thumbnail left: [img=thumbnail-left]http://example.com/image.jpg[/img]; thumbnail right: [img=thumbnail-right]http://example.com/image.jpg[/img]

:-)
;-)
:-P
:-D
:-|
:-(

Message:

> > dhw:[i] We agree that the dualist’s immaterial soul must use the material brain, but why is its abstract thought limited to the capacities of the neuron network? [/i]
> > 
> > DAVID: [i]Simple analysis. Bigger more complex brains are related directly to advances in artifact complexity. Complex brain allowed the appearance of more complex thought by the soul.[/i]
> > 
> > dhw: I don’t disagree with this. Once the brain has expanded/complexified, then of course it will contain more information for the dualist's soul to work with, and will have developed more skills to enable it to implement the soul’s ideas. But this doesn’t tell us why the brain expanded in the first place, and it doesn’t mean that the dualist’s soul cannot have new thoughts using the existing brain!
> 
> It can have new complex thoughts limited by the complexity of the existing living brain with which it must work. Advances in successive fossil/artifacts tell us this.
> > 
> > DAVID: More talk around your original explanation that anatomically the head could get too big!!!
> > 
> > dhw: This is not “talk around” anything! Once more, I propose: the brain stopped expanding because a bigger head would have caused anatomical problems. Complexification took over, and was so efficient that the brain shrank. You want the brain to start expanding again because there is now room for expansion (as I have bolded above). Although there are indeed minor expansions, [b]I am asking you why the brain should abandon its successful method of complexification and revert to expansion though it doesn’t need to. [/b]
> 
> A non-answer. There was no anatomical problem and wouldn't be, since we know our brain/skull shrunk by 150 cc in the recent past. The bold is weird. I do not expect any new expansion. Your 'minor' expansions are simple local additions of a few new neurons in the hippocampus, nothing more. Making a mountain out of a tiny molehill.
> >  
> > DAVID: [i]You have agreed to a stasis period. That destroys your idea that compelling ideas in a previously smaller brain demanded enlargement for implementation. Where is the implied immediate implementation? No where. Delayed for over 200,000 years.[/i]
> > 
> > dhw: [i]You seem never to have understood the point I keep bolding. [b]We don’t know what “compelling ideas” demanded enlargement for implementation.[/b] We took artefacts as an example, because they are the only concrete evidence we have from the past. The trigger could have been new requirements through local environmental changes, new discoveries, new developments within a social structure. None of us were around at the time, and none of our ancestors knew how to keep a diary! As for stasis, again you persist in ignoring my previous answers. Once [color=#f00]the unknown cause had required expansion,[/color] there were no new ideas or discoveries or developments that would have required expansion. This applies to pre-sapiens AND to sapiens. There were always periods of stasis. In sapiens’ case, the stasis ended when some clever folk did have new ideas, but for the reason I have given, the brain did not expand – it complexified.[/i]
> > 
> > DAVID: [i]I fully understand your approach. The bold is irrational. We don't have to know which idea did it! Your unknown (natural) cause (in color) was an impelling idea in the earlier brain. Are you now going to retract that theory? It seems so. What drives expansion naturally, if anything. No evidence in sapiens brain history.[/i]
> > 
> > dhw: Why is it irrational to say we don’t know the cause of something? Yes, the unknown cause was an impelling idea. Why does that mean I seem to be retracting the theory? We don’t know the cause of speciation, so should we retract the theory of evolution? Nobody knows what drove expansion. Does that mean you are retracting your theory that God did it? All this is a total non sequitur. Sapiens’ brain history offers the evidence that the brain complexifies and expands on a minor scale IN RESPONSE to new requirements. Therefore it is not [b]unreasonable to suppose that the pre-sapiens brain also complexified and expanded IN RESPONSE to new requirements,[/b] as opposed to expanding in anticipation of them. But in order to forestall yet more flogging of dead horses, let me repeat: once the brain had expanded, of course it could come up with more new ideas. If it didn’t, there was stasis, both with pre-sapiens and with sapiens.
> 
> I'll stick with God drives the complexification in evolution and you can hope for natural causes. New requirements (bolded) is pure Darwinism. We will never agree what advances evolution but we both agree design is required, designer unnamed by you.