People who think the human brain evolved are out of their minds. and other stuff

[Derek]

Are you aware that the brain not only has 100 billion neurons or so that it has around 100 trillion to 500 trillion connections between them? That's 500,000,000,000,000 neural synapses.
Five hundred thousand thousand thousand thousand connections. No other animal species has anywhere close to that much.

It is one thing to have confidence that we'll continue to discover all kinds of wonderful things about mathematics for example, but to just ASSUME that the human brain evolved from muck billions of years ago, based on a theory that is probably not even 200 years old seems to me to be the height of insanity.

I mean, maybe it IS true, but how can anyone just assume that based on so little?

Doesn't anyone feel that there must be much, much more to the universe than meets the eye?

WHAT in heaven's name is a subatomic particle?

WHAT is the base case of the universe, the smallest indivisible element. Will we ever be able to answer that question? We are made up of these tiniest indivisible elements, and all we can do is describe their (at least at a macroscopic level) consistent behavior.

Will we ever know WHAT and WHY?


If you take any of these questions for granted with some sort of half baked naturalist philosophy, you need to do some serious reflection on the subject and I am NOT kidding.

[thalbergmad]

Way to deep for me man.

[Derek]

All I'm encouraging anyone to do is to not take these questions for granted. I don't think I made any particularly deep observations, here. I am sometimes just dumbfounded by the arrogance some people have in just assuming naturalism really has any answers. Without thinking about it--just ASSUMING. It makes me so mad.

When people start spouting off all the same dismissive and reductionist nonsense such as ::starts talking like someone with the IQ of 75:: "OUR BRAINS ARE NOTHING BUT A BUNCH OF ELECTRICAL SIGNALS AND PHYSICAL PROCESSES."   "OF COURSE WE EVOLVED FROM APES...NATURAL SELECTION MAKES SENSE LOGICALLY SO OBVIOUSLY IT IS TRUE" ..."DURRRRRRR" "*pees in pants*"

I just feel like punching them in the face for being an arrogant, thoughtless, mindless idiot. Actually no, I feel like saying: "WELL, MAYBE *YOU* EVOLVED FROM AN APE."


Of course, people with religious ideas who take things EQUALLY for granted are ALSO irritating, but they irritate me less because their philosophy is about Love and all kinds of wonderful ideals. Anyone else who claims to hold to those ideals, I think, are borrowing on religious capital and need to give their heritage more credit.

Look how the moral fiber of the masses deteriorates to a level of depravity to which we have never before sunk in human history since the advent of naturalism. Something must be done about this and plain old Reason isn't going to convince anyone to change their ways.

[thalbergmad]

I generally don't think much about sub atomic particles.

I read a book on quantum theory once (schrodingers Kittens?).

I'll be buggered if i understood it.

[I Love Xenakis]

Well, the opposing theory that a giant old guy with a white beard in the clouds made some guy out of sand and then made some woman out of the sand guy's rib and then exiled them after they ate an apple that a snake told them to eat is probably less plausible.

[BoliverAllmon]

but not impossible

[Derek]

Well, the opposing theory that a giant old guy with a white beard in the clouds made some guy out of sand and then made some woman out of the sand guy's rib and then exiled them after they ate an apple that a snake told them to eat is probably less plausible.

Unless you were simply being facetious, which I strongly suspect you were, this is a prime example of choosing only to pick on the most intellectually impotent among the religious. Why do I never see a measured and careful argument AGAINST such christian apologetics giants as C.S. Lewis? Nobody tries, because he completely 0wnz0rz.

Anyway...until I actually read an intelligent argument by a naturalist, I will remain forever and always a devout Christian.  Note that I do not believe in some hokus pokus version of this religion involving old men with beards or literal interpretation of myths.

[pianolearner]

I retract my post

[BoliverAllmon]

how is it not based on assumption?

[westley]

Derek,

What bothers you so much about a naturalist philosophy?  Just curious.


Interesting (random) fact: C.S. Lewis was converted to Christianity by Tolkien.

[pianistimo]

why is it a bad assumption that the bible is correct.

man returns to dust.

[prometheus]

Derek, the people that know the most of these stuff come up with those ideas. If you want to tell them they don't know enough about their stuff to do anything, you go out there and tell them.

I don't really get the point. Sure, there are a great number of neurons, and those make an insane amount of synaptic connections. You also forgot the complex nature of these connections. There are several ways in which these connections can be strenghtened in terms of the electronic signal jumping over them. But the is also the neurotransmitter that modifies this electrical signal that is jumping over the synapse in a particular way. But what are you saying? That we are too stupid to know this? Well, maybe. But we do know. Should we erase this knowledge? But then again, we do have an incredible complex neural net. So we are pretty smart.

It is one thing to have confidence that we'll continue to discover all kinds of wonderful things about mathematics for example, but to just ASSUME that the human brain evolved from muck billions of years ago, based on a theory that is probably not even 200 years old seems to me to be the height of insanity.

First off, we don't assume. We have reasons. We have a working theory of evolution.

But, you assume that, when you turn on your tv or computer screen, that it will work. But the mechanics which describes the workings of this device is only about 101 years old. Further more, you probably don't know any quantum mechanics. So to believe that, when you turn on your tv, it does work, is insanity? Right? But it does work. So how insane is it? Do you expect every person that uses technology to understand how it works?

I mean, maybe it IS true, but how can anyone just assume that based on so little?

That little has lead to concrete answers and applications. So it may be relatively little, but it is still very meaningful.

Doesn't anyone feel that there must be much, much more to the universe than meets the eye?

How much of the universe has met your eye?
You must understand that large parts of science, and very much so in astronomy, is very serious. It isn't just some people speculating.

WHAT in heaven's name is a subatomic particle?

WHAT is the base case of the universe, the smallest indivisible element. Will we ever be able to answer that question? We are made up of these tiniest indivisible elements, and all we can do is describe their (at least at a macroscopic level) consistent behavior.

What is your point, and what do you actually mean. A sub-atomic particle. That's easy. It is all the particles that help make up an atom; electrons, protons, neutron, but also photons, muons, neutrinos, etc. So everything less structured than an atom. Actually, neutrons and protons are made up by quarks so they are already composite particles.

All we can do is describe their behavior? We can't; quantum mechanics. But, what else should we be able to do. What do you except?

Will we ever know WHAT and WHY?

Which what and why?

All I'm encouraging anyone to do is to not take these questions for granted.

Which ones? Which questions.

I am sometimes just dumbfounded by the arrogance some people have in just assuming naturalism really has any answers. Without thinking about it--just ASSUMING. It makes me so mad.

We aren't assuming. Look in front of you. Your computer works. Science works.

When people start spouting off all the same dismissive and reductionist nonsense such as ::starts talking like someone with the IQ of 75 [...]

Dismissive and reductionist nonsense? What are your pointing towards? Darwinism? If so, then you are arrogant and ignorant. Deep and profound thought has been put into this. Have you read a book on darwinism? You have no idea what you are talking about. For example, humans share a common ancestor with apes. That's what science claims. What you are talking about is a straw man made by fundamentalist muslims or christians.

Of course, people with religious ideas who take things EQUALLY for granted are ALSO irritating, but they irritate me less because their philosophy is about Love and all kinds of wonderful ideals. Anyone else who claims to hold to those ideals, I think, are borrowing on religious capital and need to give their heritage more credit.

Taking things for granted. I still do not understand what you mean. Yes, our brains are made up by nothing more than electrical signals and physical processe. But this is actually very profound. You don't appriciate the complexity of all of it because you don't seem to be aware of it. Even I am not aware about everything humans know and you are right that we know very little about the concrete function of our brain.
Lets take a simple neuron. I already talked about the neuron in the brain being a relatively complex neuron. But let's take a very basic artificial neuron. If you make a neural net with these very simple neurons you can get profound results because of their numbers and about the sheer number of combined calculations. Try to get your mind around this, how can a neural net learn to do complex things like pattern recognition. Now if you take the human brain, which still has neurons which are in itself simple to see  how they function; but to comprehend their results, the number of connections made and their strenghts, the patterns that are being created is a totally different issue. A neuron is a simple thing. We can dissect it under a microscope and find out the all their parts and their functionality. There is nothing magical about it. But all those things together; magic does happen there. And then you can talk about the effects on a higher, psychological level. Eventhough the neuron itself is a stupid simple processor functioning through electrical current and neurotransmitter chemicals.

Look how the moral fiber of the masses deteriorates to a level of depravity to which we have never before sunk in human history since the advent of naturalism. Something must be done about this and plain old Reason isn't going to convince anyone to change their ways.

Uuh. Have you read the history books? What you are saying here doesn't make any sense at all. First, 'plain old reason', hmm. Does this exist? This is new to me.
Naturalism affected the moral fiber of society. Let's look at history. Look at the dark ages. The greeks and roman may not have had the moral fiber you would prefer, but they did have knowledge. In the dark ages, the rise of christianity, life turned very grim. Knowledge was lost and the people were butchered even more than in the times of the romans and the greeks.
Moral fiber, there has never been a real moral fiber.

Yes, I think you should centainly thing a bit, and especially read, about all these things, because they are very profound.

[pianistimo]

no class that i've taken in science, physics (one beginning class), and biology has ever taught the idea of spirit being part of the brain.  yet, this one element is spoken of over and over in the bible.  it explains why we can't see it.  it is an element of God in our nature.  that is why we are 'like him' - and able to reason at a higher level.  of course, having the 'down payment' of spirit - doesn't mean we accept his sacrifice and use this knowledge to our best interest.  instead of being humble toward our Maker, we become arrogant, thus becoming fools in our wisdom.

solomon prayed for wisdom and it was given to him.  our minds are a gift.

as far as morality, you should stick to the here and now.  people will always try to convince you that historic christianity was the way it was written down.  but, history is elusive.  not everything that is written is fact, and some of the facts have been distorted. if you just take what you know, and use it - that is the best.  then at least you know in your own life you've been true to yourself.

col. 3 : if then you have been raised up with Christ, keep seeking the things above, where Christ is, seated at the right hand of God.  set your mind on the things above, not on the things that are on earth. (kinda hard - but not impossible - otherwise He wouldn't have said it).  for you have died (to sin) and your life is hidden with Christ in God.  When Christ, WHO IS OUR LIFE, is revealed, then you also will be revealed with Him in glory.  therefore consider the members of your earthly body as dead to immorality, impurity, passion, evil desire, and greed, which amounts to idolatry.  for it is on account of these things that the wrath of God will come, and in them you also once walked, when you were living in them.  but now you also, put them all aside: anger, wrath, malice, slander, and abusive speech from your mouth.  do not lie to one another, since you laid aside the old self with it's evil practices, and have put on the new self who is being renewed to a true knowledge according to the image of the One who created him ... and so, as those who have been chosen of God, holy and beloved, put on a heart of compassion, kindness, humilty, gentleness, patience; bearing with one another, forgiving each other, whoever has a complaint against anyone; just as the Lord forgave you, so also should you.  and beyond all these things, put on love, which is the perfect bond of unity.

if this were taught in school - people would be sort of bored.  getting along, being pure, these things are not intellectual enough.

[prometheus]

Something can only be invisible if it has no influence. If it has no influence it has no influence, no function no relevance. If there is a spiritual part of the brain, let's say a sort of special divine form of energy, it's influence on the brain would be observable.

[cziffra]

*** "god" and you *** retards who so blindly follow "him".  seriously, get your head out of your ass, you dumb piece of sh*t.  I am so fed up of you self righteous religious fucktards who completely ignore any fact and have the ignorance, arrogance, and and down right assholeness to tell people who actually seek truth to follow your way.   

***

it is really depressing to see that evolution has not withered out buffoons like you shitheads yet.

[pianistimo]

it is by the spirit.  so, if you have the Holy Spirit, you instantly recognize someone else who does.  Christ used to walk through crowds fairly anonymously when he wanted to.  how was this?  yet, when he performed miracles and people saw the life example he led (and i don't believe in the mary magdalene was his girlfriend story) - that He gave Himself fully to God and that the church itself is a sort of bride to him.  sounds crazy - but we are headed for a wedding.  and it's not going to be one where impurity is allowed.  that scares Christians too, because it's very easy to assimilate the culture around you and just be like everyone else.  but, we're told to be different.  this is as difficult of knowledge as calculus imo because you have to evaluate yourself every day according to a standard that seems impossible.  but, it's not.  otherwise, we wouldn't have an example (saints, and Christ).  even paul, who killed Christians before conversion, was converted and changed from going one direction to another.

the reason many are so angry is that they understand a deeper level, too, and what is at stake.  their way of life.  it's going out the door soon.  enjoy it while it lasts.  it may be a fleeting memory.  but, i'm definately not God - so i won't be making any pronouncements.  hope i'm not left out either.  now is the time to get to know God - so i hope that as many as possible will before the door is shut.  when it's shut - we know from the parable of the ten virgins and the scripture which says 'it will be like the days of noah.'  the door was shut and then after that no hope of survival.  our survival depends on God.

prometheus, if spirit that is invisible has no influence - why are we so much smarter than the animals?  why are we told to 'rule' over them in the bible, and in actuality that's what has happpened.  we have subdued them to us and not the other way around.  the other way would prove darwin correct - because there is no 'spirit' that is any better in man - according to his theory.

[cziffra]

every time I read a post of yours I feel this sadness at the pit of my stomach that someone can be so blinded.  It truly disgusts me.

[pianistimo]

you haven't said what you believe is truth.  probably what you've been taught in school since primary grades through college.  this is why so many are not Christian.  God isn't taught so people are basically oblivious of Him.

[cziffra]

I don't have the ignorance to claim what I "know" is truth.  However, I can say tha3t I will actually look for the truth instead of having  lie shoved down my throat from birth.

[pianistimo]

shoved doesn't work.  people have to come to their own understanding of God.  no one can make anyone else believe.  there has been a great falling away from the Church in almost every denomination.  i don't go ont he forum and say - you people should join x church.  or, shove it down anyone's throat.  you have to experience God like your first kiss.  it is sweet and you keep going back for more because it is the right 'partner' and the right feeling.  the other way (from my perspective) offers no moral compass or guidance - along with the knowledge.

[I Love Xenakis]

Anyway...until I actually read an intelligent argument by a naturalist, I will remain forever and always a devout Christian.  Note that I do not believe in some hokus pokus version of this religion involving old men with beards or literal interpretation of myths.

How bout you read some of the tens of thousands of books written by people with multiple PhD's and the sort that are surely MUCH more intelligent than anything you could ever hope to say?  Because you don't want to hear a strong argument for it.  Or because you're too lazy to actually do any research.  Or both.

[JCarey]

Pianistimo:

I think it would do wonders for your argument if you weren't so afraid of your Shift key.

[westley]

it is really depressing to see that evolution has not withered out buffoons like you shitheads yet.

Cziffra, further consideration and understanding of darwinism leads to the realization, that in fact, evolution *created* religion.  Why? We can guess but we don't know.  Since religion is still going strong we can only conclude that it increases fitness. Very interesting.

[cziffra]

Cziffra, further consideration and understanding of darwinism leads to the realization, that in fact, evolution *created* religion.  Why? We can guess but we don't know.  Since religion is still going strong we can only conclude that it either increases fitness or has no effect.  Very interesting.

Darwinism doesn't take into account humans desire to rule and be ruled.

[pianistimo]

then i'd be shifty.  ahahahah

ok.  many people on this forum are way smarter than me or Derek or whoever is wanting to get to the bottom of things and just sees what is visible so far.  as i see it, Derek is experiencing the wonders of God.  he created things wonderfully.  what can you say to disprove it? the order, the processes (as we read in magazines, journals, articles, books).  i might not read on a phd level - but that's not what Christianity is about.  it's about everyone and not excluding anyone on race, biases, iq whatever.  knowledge often does.

i am more careful how i read - because there are biases to many science magazines that combine truth with error.  you would have to go (as many say - they need to with the bible) to the locations and prove that what they uncovered or the experiments they did were truthfully explained.  even the national geographic had some retractions of darwinism.  they are certainly not a christian publication always - and tend to lean toward the visible elements - and yet, even with the visible - they sometimes fudge and just make up things.  so, as i see it - whether you are a Christian or not - you should be seeking the truth because it should lead to the same place.

[cziffra]

then i'd be shifty.  ahahahah

ok.  many people on this forum are way smarter than me or Derek or whoever is wanting to get to the bottom of things and just sees what is visible so far.  as i see it, Derek is experiencing the wonders of God.  he created things wonderfully.  what can you say to disprove it.  the order, the processes (as we read in magazines, journals, articles, books).  i might not read on a phd level - but that's not what Christianity is about.  it's about everyone and not excluding anyone on race, biases, iq whatever.  knowledge often does.

But you better not be a guy and take it up the butt. 

[thalbergmad]

you haven't said what you believe is truth.  probably what you've been taught in school since primary grades through college.  this is why so many are not Christian.  God isn't taught so people are basically oblivious of Him.

I think he is still doing primary grades.

[westley]

Yes, it does.

Darwinism has come a long way since Darwin.  The book "Darwin's Dangerous Idea" by daniel Dennett will help you understand how Darwins ideas affect not only our understanding of biology but also of psychology as well.

I would add that one need only compare your behavior with pianistimos, Cziffra, to undertand how a a "user illusion" like religion can increase fitness!

[cziffra]

I think he is still doing primary grades.

No, sophmore in college, whenever I decide to go back.  I'm 2 years ahead of my peers.

[cziffra]

I would add that one need only compare your behavior with pianistimos, Cziffra, to undertand how a a "user illusion" like religion can increase fitness!

what do you mean

[thalbergmad]

No, sophmore in college, whenever I decide to go back.  I'm 2 years ahead of my peers.

Who are your peers, The Olsen twins?

[cziffra]

Who are your peers, The Olsen twins?

17 year olds, poppycock

[pianistimo]

dear cziffra,  i think you are quite intelligent as are most posters (when they are serious) - but in terms of bias and religion - i think you're wrong.  i think what is natural is the opposite of what we're supposed to be doing.  so, in effect, Christians fight their own nature.  that's why the natural man is different than the spiritual.   if we just do what is easy for us - we haven't learned to control or rule ourselves - which is harder than ruling over the creation.  we may like to rule and be ruled - but we don't like rules.  it's crazy - and applies to everyone no matter the sin.  since i'm not God, i can't say which sins i like and can fudge on - but forgiveness is granted to everyone if they are sincere. 

[maul]

We did evolve. Everything in this universe evolves. All you have to do is take a look around. It's blatantly obvious. Evolution and creation co-exist perfectly. Christians, quit thinking of God in human terms. God is something a mere human can never fully understand. God isn't some cookie cutter figure. "He" is infinite... everything. Far beyond your understanding. Evolutionists, quit thinking blindly about there being no intelligent force in the universe. Quit thinking only about the human made Christian god. This is the same universe that allows you to exist. A seemingly unintelligent chunk of matter was able to conjour up intelligence and complexity that even our own "sophisticated" human minds can't understand. It created the human mind. Randomly? I don't think so. Think about it.

[pianistimo]

yet what we can't see is exactly what we can't explain.  he breathed into us HIs own breath.  the breath of life.  SCIENCE CAN't DO THAT.

[prometheus]

prometheus, if spirit that is invisible has no influence - why are we so much smarter than the animals?  why are we told to 'rule' over them in the bible, and in actuality that's what has happpened.  we have subdued them to us and not the other way around.  the other way would prove darwin correct - because there is no 'spirit' that is any better in man - according to his theory.

We may not know how our brain works. But we do know the principle that lies at its basis. Our brain is a neural net. Neural nets work. We stole the idea of the neural net and have applied it with succes in computers.
So our brain is primilary a neural network of unimaginable complexity. If there is something as a soul it must interact with this neural network. Otherwise nothing happens. If there is this interaction then this is measurable. The brain works through electric signals and neurotransmitters. So the soul must either exersize electromagnetical force on the brain or release neurotransmitter chemicals 'out of nothing'. Both of these things are measureable. So if the soul exists you can measure it and proof it.

You can also talk about the soul metaphysically. The soul then is the sum of all these neurons. In past decades people have wondered where in our brain 'we' actually resided in. In a sense, where is our consciousness. But this is a stupid question. Every neuron helps creating our consciousness. We are in every neuron.

Why are we smarter than animals? Well, first off let me say that our intelligence may appear amazing, it is, but it is also still very limited. A calculator which has much much less 'calculation power' than our brain simply outcalculates us. Our memory isn't very good either. But the answer is very simple. Our brain is much larger than that of animals.   The more neurons a neural network has the better it works. Also, the parts of the brain responsible for what we call intelligence is highly developed in our species.

Let's turn it the other way. If not our brain is responsible for our intelligence, but our soul, then why don't we have animal brains? Why, do people that have things like Altsheimer, Parkinson, Korsakov, damaged brains and not damaged souls? Drinking alcohol damages the soul?

Why do we rule over animals? Two reasons. Because we could and because we wanted. If we would be limbless we would still have the same 'spirit' we have now. But would we enslave animals? We wouldn't.

But I don't get your point. You call the enslaving of animals, the worst thing since the holocaust, a sign of our divinity. If we cared for animals instead of enslaving them like soulless beasts like we do now I would agree with you. But we don't We don't show any divine compassion in the way we treat animals. And you claim this is proof that Darwin is wrong? You expect evolution to create saints and god to create beasts? I don't get it, at all.

[barescrotum]

The human brain didn't evolve in a smooth continuous natural procress, it's the product of an infinite series of weird mutations that leap forward periodically whenever the gods are in a capricious mood.  Besides isn't learning the piano just a method of conscious brain evolution.  You can;t get better by exercising your fingers, only by learning more and making your brain bigger.  Maybe the brain is just an instrument of evolution, that since the inception of man kind we've constantly been on a quest for increase our knowledge and capacity to store it, leading eventually to developing systems of language to communicate knowlege to others to help the species grow, and ultimately to developing systems of making knowlege permanent with written glyphs to communicate to future generations of humans.  Especially writings have had a huge impact as they've created a bigger and bigger foundation of knowledge for future learners to start with, meaning that they can spend more time looking to the future rather than being stuck reinventing the wheel.  Since the creation of recorded knowledge our human consciousness has progressed exponentially compared to our beginings as a species.  Technology is doubling at faster rates, human limits are constantly being expanding in the realms of academic knowledge, athletic competition, piano technique.  Soon we're going to break though these barriers and become something not human anymore, just as we broke through a certain barrier in becoming human.  Just see how the humans of today are not the same as the humans of last century, last millenium, certainly not the last 50,000 years.

[Derek]

If any of these things were truly obvious one way or the other, say as obvious as "killing people is wrong," which the vast majority of the world's people agree on, we would all subscribe to that particular obvious thing. So unless you have the arrogance to write off an entire group of people as idiots, one cannot say that one's own way of seeing the world is obvious.

I just personally find the idea of a godless, naturalist, haphazard universe to be empty, cold, and alone. I get such an intense and overwhelming sense of..well..oneness? with the universe when I reflect on the idea of God and really try to reach out to him, that I just can't imagine seeing the world any other way.

In order for something temporal to exist, there must be something infinite surrounding it, right? And what is an infinitude? It must contain all possible attributes, including all sets of attributes which would constitute any imaginable kind of intelligence. Therefore I find it reasonable to characterize the undeniable infinitude behind the existence of the universe as a thinking being, and talk to it and refer to it as God in the christian theological sense. That I've chosen christianity may purely be due to the way I was raised, but what is truly important is that this thinking creates an overwhelmingly positive, self-compounding effect on how I live my life.


As a post-script, I did find it amusing how many people used the word "just" and "only" in describing our brains and other topics after my mentioning reductionism. Well maybe you people are a mere set of electrical signals coursing through your brain, but I....I have a soul.   

[pianolearner]

if spirit that is invisible has no influence - why are we so much smarter than the animals?  why are we told to 'rule' over them in the bible, and in actuality that's what has happpened.  we have subdued them to us and not the other way around.  the other way would prove darwin correct - because there is no 'spirit' that is any better in man - according to his theory.

The reason is that we have more cells.

All cells - whether animal, plant or bacteria - contain carbon because they all contain proteins, fats and carbohydrates. Plant cell walls for example are made of cellulose, a carbohydrate.
Living organisms need carbon in order to:
 Make food. Green plants get their carbon from the carbon dioxide in the air, which enters the leaves and is used for photosynthesis. A product of photosynthesis is glucose - another carbon-based compound.

 Make energy. In respiration glucose reacts with oxygen to produce energy (with carbon dioxide as a by-product).

 Make new cells for growth and repair. Carbon compounds are essential cellular building-blocks.



Our brain cells are not bigger or smarter than less intelligent animals, we just have more of them. Scientists have developed a system known as the brain index which is a measure of an animals overall brain capacity compared to what it needs to maintain basic life functions.

An animal with a brain index of 1 has the minimum required to maintain involuntary activities such as heartbeat, respiration, digestion, and basic systems that alert the nervous system to stimuli, sense events in the environment and reproduction.

An animal with a brain index of 2 has twice what it needs, so there is extra capacity for cognitive functions such as thought and reasoning. Humans have a brain index of 7 which means we have an enormous amount of spare capacity to devote to perception, interpretation and imagination. This allowed us to invent tools that give us a huge advantage over any other organism on the planet.

If we had much larger eyes and 6 legs our brain index would be reduced, even if the number of cells remained the same because we would need to divert some of this capacity to processing visual information and controlling extra limbs. This, scientists think, explains why blind people have acute hearing:

https://www.nature.com/news/2004/040712/pf/040712-9_pf.html

“The discovery reveals a lot about the brain's capacity to reorganize itself early in life, says study leader Pascal Belin of the University of Montreal. He suspects that the visual cortex, the part of the brain that usually deals with vision, can be used to process other sensory information if given the chance.

At birth, the brain's centres for vision, hearing and other senses are all connected, Belin says. "In normal brains these connections are gradually eliminated. But in the early blind they might be preserved and used."

That would allow regions such as the visual cortex to help with the job of processing sounds. But, as the new research shows, there comes a point after which is too late for the brain to adapt.

When all the senses are intact, the brain does not need lots of connections between sensory centres; the amount of information buzzing around would be too confusing, says Zatorre. "It's like pruning a tree, you only keep the branches that get more light," he says. But when your world is shrouded in darkness, a little extra brain power can be a big help.”

Just for the record:

I was brought up Catholic but lost my faith over time because religion could not provide adequate answers to my questions. The very basic one being “Who made God”?. “Nobody, He always existed” I was told and had to accept. “You must have faith”. But, a being that has always existed and was not created was responsible for creating everything else; those things couldn’t have always existed in the same way. Sorry, it doesn’t make sense. I found that science could answer most questions I asked (including ones I didn’t ask) and back them up with experiment and observation. Something religion cannot do. However, there are many things that will forever remain philosophical arguments regardless of whether your faith is religion or science, such as what happened before the big bang and what happens after we die. I suppose I wanted the choice of what I believe rather than having it forced upon me.

I agree with Richard Dawkins:

"Science does not produce evidence against God. Science and religion ask different questions" – Richard Dawkins

[timothy42b]

All I'm encouraging anyone to do is to not take these questions for granted. I don't think I made any particularly deep observations, here. I am sometimes just dumbfounded by the arrogance some people have in just assuming naturalism really has any answers. Without thinking about it--just ASSUMING. It makes me so mad.

You shouldn't take anything for granted.

Before you dismiss the entire world of science as nonsense, you should take at least one course.  You are making authoritative pronouncements about subjects you have zero knowledge of. 

That is unbelievably arrogant. 

If you studied a bit first, you might still have the same opinion, but you would have some facts to back it up.  Unlikely, but possible.   Give it a try, what could it hurt?  <grin>

[westley]

I just personally find the idea of a godless, naturalist, haphazard universe to be empty, cold, and alone. I get such an intense and overwhelming sense of..well..oneness? with the universe when I reflect on the idea of God and really try to reach out to him, that I just can't imagine seeing the world any other way.

This is what I was alluding to earlier.  It seems to me that your objection to naturalism is based less on feelings that it is objectively untrue than it is on the idea that it *ought* not to be true because the results are psychologically unpleasant to you.

 
That I've chosen christianity may purely be due to the way I was raised, but what is truly important is that this thinking creates an overwhelmingly positive, self-compounding effect on how I live my life.

Again, the suggestion that the result of a worldview on the way you life your life is more important than the objective truth of that theory.

As a post-script, I did find it amusing how many people used the word "just" and "only" in describing our brains and other topics after my mentioning reductionism. Well maybe you people are a mere set of electrical signals coursing through your brain, but I....I have a soul.   

I find it interesting that you use the word "mere" to describe the physical processes of the brain.  Personally I find these physical processes quite amazing.  The fact that something that could be mistaken for a "soul" has arisen out of these is to me all the more "miraculous" for the fact that it requires (for me) no suspension of reason to see how it could occur. 

One interesting note:  Although I think that the processes of our brains can be explained in completely physical terms, I cannot help but act as if I myself as well as all those around me had souls . . . because this probably is truly the most useful way to think for everyday living.  It is a strange seeimg-contradiction though.

[prometheus]

If any of these things were truly obvious ...

They aren't. Smart people had to work hard and build on knowledge gathered by people before them to get all this knowledge.

I just personally find the idea of a godless, naturalist, haphazard universe to be empty, cold, and alone.

This is irrelevant when you ask the question of how we came into being.

In order for something temporal to exist, there must be something infinite surrounding it, right?

What? Why? How? Who said this? Temporal and infinite. Those are two rare words that are totally meaningless without context.

And what is an infinitude? It must contain all possible attributes, including all sets of attributes which would constitute any imaginable kind of intelligence. Therefore I find it reasonable to characterize the undeniable infinitude behind the existence of the universe as a thinking being, and talk to it and refer to it as God in the christian theological sense.

I do not understand anything of this.

That I've chosen christianity may purely be due to the way I was raised, but what is truly important is that this thinking creates an overwhelmingly positive, self-compounding effect on how I live my life.

Maybe so. Research has told us that it is very hard for a human that was learned to believe in god as a child to abandon this idea as an adult.

Let me say this. Science does not give one a spiritual way of life. One does need a spiritual way of life. I am not talking about a religious one per se. There are many ways to live spiritual without believing anything, without aborting logic. The problem is when people have to sacrifice truth to maintain their spiritual illusion they depend on, like the way you describe. This reminds me of the Daila Lama who recommend the religion of your community over buddhism because it will be easier.

But when people start to hack away at the truth then I oppose. I cannot do anything else because religion can be cruel. Look at history. Truth may make your life less comfortable and easy; it is more redeeming than religion. When religion succeeds in making people reject truth then society becomes more cruel. You see it in history, but also in the world today. Many cruel customs can only exist based on religious dogma's which are maintained by ignorance.

As a post-script, I did find it amusing how many people used the word "just" and "only" in describing our brains and other topics after my mentioning reductionism. Well maybe you people are a mere set of electrical signals coursing through your brain, but I....I have a soul.

Seems you have not truly read or understood my post Like I said before. I know how profound complicated the universe and the biological world is. Pianistimo, for example, only has magic; warm loving comforting but empty magic.

About carbon. Life is based on carbon because only carbon allows macromolecules with acceptable efficiency. It can maintain four covalent bonds because of the number of electrons in it's outer shell, four. If you have read some science fiction you may have read about silicium-based life. Silicium has similar qualities as carbon. But the reactions require more energy because silicium is 'bigger'.

Life uses machines, literally, build on an atomic scale. It is really amazing. And if you look at the different machines; DNA is used to transfer our genetic code. It is a nucleic acid. ATP is also a nucleic acid. They are very similar. But ATP is used to kick-start important reactions that take energy. So these two machines do totally different things while they are quite similar. This is an example of something you see in evolved systems. Instead of designing a new machine for each task, evolution takes something that already exists, changes it in a random way countless times and then natural selection happens. The random mutation that is accidentally helpful is selected out while all others are disgarded.

This is how we observe the universe. It has nothing to do with how we would like the universe to be. Like Feynman said:


    "... there are many reasons why you might not understand [an explanation of a scientific theory] ... Finally, there is this possibility: after I tell you something, you just can't believe it. You can't accept it. You don't like it. A little screen comes down and you don't listen anymore. I'm going to describe to you how Nature is - and if you don't like it, that's going to get in the way of your understanding it. It's a problem that [scientists] have learned to deal with: They've learned to realize that whether they like a theory or they don't like a theory is not the essential question. Rather, it is whether or not the theory gives predictions that agree with experiment. It is not a question of whether a theory is philosophically delightful, or easy to understand, or perfectly reasonable from the point of view of common sense. [A scientific theory] describes Nature as absurd from the point of view of common sense. And it agrees fully with experiment. So I hope you can accept Nature as She is - absurd.

    I'm going to have fun telling you about this absurdity, because I find it delightful. Please don't turn yourself off because you can't believe Nature is so strange. Just hear me all out, and I hope you'll be as delighted as I am when we're through. "

    - Richard P. Feynman (1918-1988),
    from the introductory lecture on quantum mechanics reproduced in QED: The Strange Theory of Light and Matter (Feynman 1985).


I think that things like souls and divine magic take away from nature. They downplay and disregard nature. They take things for granted; God did it, God's magic just works, there is nothing to it. This is totally empty.

[prometheus]

One interesting note:  Although I think that the processes of our brains can be explained in completely physical terms, I cannot help but act as if I myself as well as all those around me had souls . . . because this probably is truly the most useful way to think for everyday living.  It is a strange seeimg-contradiction though.

Look back at my metaphysical soul. It is very reasonable to talk about the product of our all neurons as a soul. Because in a way it just is. It isn't a divine battery God needs to put into us because we wouldn't work otherwise.

Then if we talk about animals, these aren't soulless. They would have lesser souls if they are mammals or birds, for example.

[westley]

Prometheus has it right.  His long post is very good and says somewhat more articulately some of the same things I was trying to say.  I like what he said about the soul as well.

About the absurd in nature:  This reminds me of the notion of the absurd in existentialism which as I understand it (which may possibly be not very well at all) goes something like this:

1) We live in a materialist world.  That is, everything can be explained by natural phenomena.  there is no "magic".  This precludes the idea that out there, somewhere, is a meaning or purpose to our lives.

however,

2) It is natural and necessary for people to search for meaning in their lives.  Nobody can be satisfied without this.

This predicament leads to the awkward and fascinating state of humanity.  Whether this outlook is a cause for joy or despair depends on who you are.  For me it varies. 

[lau]

the human brain like many said, is a channel of networks combined into a small chamber in your head. Every little creature no matter how small has a brain of some type. Even the little bacteria has a brain. What must be comprehended is that every single creature has a neurmatic level of intelligence. Like humans, some creatures are smarter than others, some bacteria are smarter than others. The point that I am trying to arrive at is humans, are very very very much smarter than the rest of the creatures. Why did the intelligence level of apes just jump so high when humans "evolved"? Human Evolution was going at a very slow pace slowly getting more intelligent. Than bam, the human was a million times smarter than the rest. That's a major crack evolution. Don't you find it that it is way way to impossible for life to happen on earth with the evolution theory? What are the odds of having all of the things necessary for life to happen on this planet and not any other discovered? I mean, it is very improbable for one element of life to be on earth, but all of them?? that is like 1 out of infinity. And most of the other planets only have one element of life. I don't think I know what all of the life elements are, but there are quite a few.  I really don't know what I am saying. I was just bored. Do you think it makes sense, because I don' think it does. 

[lau]

here comes piano learner 

[BoliverAllmon]

here's an idea cziffra. put down the crack pipe and chill down. it is one thing to discuss religion and differences of opinion, but you are the one cramming crap down our throats. It is people like you that make such a fuss in schools, govt., and other public places. We as Christians would like to display our faith, but cannot at times because people like you are so afraid of religion and find it so offensive (for no apparent reason) that you whine and complain until you crush any resemblance of a religious faith. Here is something else. Why is it that Christianity is so wrong, but we have to be politically correct to other religions like Islam? Either all religions or no religions. If there was ever a religion that is cramming their beliefs down our throat it is Islam, but we have to just accept it and be nice to them.

boliver

[Mozartian]

Yo Derek,
 
Interesting you brought this up. I was entranced listening to Davidsbundlertanze (like.. 5 times in a row, haha- my name should be Schuzartian ) last night, and randomly though "how can ANYONE believe that this was written by someone descended from an ape." lol. So it's been on my mind this morning. Evolution/Darwinism is a debate I've always been interested in, as biology (particularly genetics) is a favorite field of mine, and I've done a good bit of research on it.

I don't believe in macro evolution. Do you know that according to the scientific system it still hasn't reached the state of "theory", but is still categorized as a hypothesis?

Anyone interested in reading further into evolution and not just blindly accepting whatever the National Geographic channel says can read more on these sites:

https://www.trueorigin.org/
https://www.equip.org/free/DE382.htm

This page is also VERY interesting to read:
https://www.samizdat.qc.ca/cosmos/origines/myth.htm

there is also much, much more information out there- just do a google search.

[pianolearner]

the human brain like many said, is a channel of networks combined into a small chamber in your head. Every little creature no matter how small has a brain of some type. Even the little bacteria has a brain. What must be comprehended is that every single creature has a neurmatic level of intelligence. Like humans, some creatures are smarter than others, some bacteria are smarter than others. The point that I am trying to arrive at is humans, are very very very much smarter than the rest of the creatures. Why did the intelligence level of apes just jump so high when humans "evolved"? Human Evolution was going at a very slow pace slowly getting more intelligent. Than bam, the human was a million times smarter than the rest. That's a major crack evolution. Don't you find it that it is way way to impossible for life to happen on earth with the evolution theory? What are the odds of having all of the things necessary for life to happen on this planet and not any other discovered? I mean, it is very improbable for one element of life to be on earth, but all of them?? that is like 1 out of infinity. And most of the other planets only have one element of life. I don't think I know what all of the life elements are, but there are quite a few.  I really don't know what I am saying. I was just bored. Do you think it makes sense, because I don' think it does. 

Unfortunately I think many people misinterpret evolution. Nature doesn’t have a motive or objective and nature gets it wrong many, many, many times. In fact something like 99.9% of all species that ever existed are extinct. There is also nothing to suggest that intelligence is the pinnacle of evolution. Some scientists even claim that being dumb is better as far as survival of a species is concerned because it eliminates the prospect of self-extinction through weapons of mass destruction. Although a counter argument could be that intelligence gives a species the chance to avoid extinction through medicine or destroying doomsday asteroids or comets.

[pianolearner]

here comes piano learner 

 


I hate being predictable