Post reply

Reply to the message by dhw

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: [b][i]If it is a known fact that hard thinking causes changes to the modern brain, why is not possible that hard thinking also caused changes to the ancient brain?[/b]  And [b]why is this on a different “level” to ancient souls being incapable of having new thoughts until God enlarged their brains?[/i][/b]
> 
> DAVID: [i]As antecedent brains, the ancient ones may have had some tiny growth areas from complexification as ours does currently. I'll stick with the declaration that an ancient brain/soul could only think to the level that its complexity allowed.[/i]
> 
> It is not “tiny growth areas” we are discussing, but the process that leads to brain change! Sticking to your beliefs does not provide any answer to my two questions, now bolded.
> 
> dhw: […] [i]I suppose I had better repeat for the umpteenth time that [b]once each brain had expanded, the bigger brain would have continued to produce better artefacts than the previous brain until the next “big idea” required further expansion[/b].[/i]
> 
> DAVID: [i]I can accept that much bolded of your hopeful wishful theory. [/i]
> 
> Thank you. I only repeated it because of your continued refusal to focus on the process whereby the initial thought (“kill from distance”) would come from the smaller brain, and the implementation of the initial thought would expand the brain, so that the FIRST artefacts would only appear once the brain had finished expanding. You only focus on the fact that artefacts and bigger brains are found together.
> 
> dhw: [i]And still the only fault you can find with my theory is that it is a different pipe dream from yours.[/i]
> 
> DAVID: [i]My faith in God is not a pipe dream.[/i]
> 
> dhw: [i]I didn’t say it was. It is your rigid faith in your subjective interpretation of your God’s thoughts, intentions and methods that produce theories which are certainly no less of a pipe dream than my alternative theories about his possible thoughts, intentions and methods[/i].
> 
> DAVID: [i]I wish we could go before a jury of our clear thinking peers to see who would win this debate. Of course I favor me.[/i]
> 
> You still haven’t explained why my theory, extrapolated from known facts, is more of a pipe dream than yours, which is based on no facts at all.