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:

> DAVID: [i]I don't accept your arguments. The excess cells were lightly used and once complexification organized very complex networks which handled heavy use, they were unnecessary and discarded.[/i]
> 
> dhw: [i]You say you don’t accept my arguments, but then you proceed to repeat them almost word for word, except for calling the new cells “excess”! I suppose I’d better repeat that in my theory, the EXTRA (not “excess”) cells were added in response to new requirements. During the period of stasis there were no major (your "heavy") new requirements, and so they would then have continued to be used (with "light" complexification) for that new purpose and any other minor requirements, until 250,000 years later. [b]Then new requirements led not to expansion but to enhanced complexification, which made some cells unnecessary.[/b] What do you disagree with?[/i]
> 
> DAVID: [i]How we view the extra cells. I'll agree they might have been useful in the beginning, and I've given you a good reason why they gave us the ability to tailor our later use of our brains, and ended up as excess and jettisoned.[/i]
> 
> Over and over again you have argued that the new sapiens cells were excessive and brains overexpanded from the beginning. I’m delighted that you now agree that the cells were useful, which can only mean that the brain was NOT overexpanded. And over and over again I have explained that they only became “excessive” when enhanced complexification took over from expansion and proved so efficient that some cells were no longer needed. Welcome to my theory. 
> 
> dhw: [i]You are fixated on the idea that our brains were oversized, and all new cells were excessive....Once more, what logical flaw can you find in this theory?[/i]
> 
> DAVID: [i]Your fixation is a total denial that extra cells removed means they were necessary. Irrational topsy-turvy reasoning. My version of your theory makes sense.[/i]
> 
> This is absurd. As I keep saying, the extra cells were necessary from the start. They only ceased to be necessary when enhanced complexification proved so efficient that they became redundant.  I have bolded it above for you. I am delighted that you have now accepted my theory, but please don’t create such a silly distortion of it to justify your earlier opposition.
> 
> DAVID: [i]We learned to use our big brains ourselves over lots of time.[/i]
> 
> dhw: [i]I’ll take that as meaning that our ancestors did indeed have the autonomous ability to invent new tools.[/i]
> 
> DAVID: [i]Of course they did. Habilis is named for his tools. Your point?[/i]
> 
> My point is that the autonomous ability to complexify and expand already existed prior to H. sapiens. There was no need for your God to perform operations to provide extra cells in anticipation of new requirements. The brain already worked autonomously as it does now, with cells RESPONDING to new requirements.
> 
> dhw:  [i]All expansions and complexifications must have reasons, as we know from the modern brain. So why would earlier brains NOT have complexified AND expanded in response to new requirements, as the modern brain does?[/i]
> 
> DAVID: [i]I think all past brains responded exactly as ours. [b]God-given oversized[/b] at each stage and complexified a bit. Our brain built on the past shows what happened in the past. That limits our theories to the facts we have. [/i](dhw’s bold)
> 
> dhw: [i]Again, I have no idea why you keep saying our brain was oversized, except that you are desperate to hold onto your idea that your God programmed or dabbled all changes IN ANTICIPATION of any requirements, whereas our brains show that the procedure is the opposite: our brains change IN RESPONSE to new requirements. Yes indeed, that limits our theories to the facts we have, despite your efforts to ignore those facts.[/i]
> 
> DAVID: [i]Same irrational "Alice in Wonderland" nonsensical thought that extra cells that are removed are therefore useful and not excess. [/i]
> 
> Please stop pretending that I have proposed anything so silly. It is you who keep claiming that the brain was oversized (bolded above) because the cells were excessive (= not necessary)! The cells were useful from the beginning onwards and only became unnecessary when enhanced complexification took over.
> 
> DAVID: [i]I've granted they once might have been useful, but when no longer necessary they become excessive and removed.[/i]
>  
> Correct. Once more, welcome to my theory.