Brain Expansion (Evolution)

by David Turell , Tuesday, May 05, 2020, 19:18 (1449 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: Because it underscores my point that we have a special brain with this remarkable degree of complexification that can cause that much shrinkage, unlike, any previous brain.

dhw: Yes, it is special, and yes it has a remarkable degree of complexification. That does not mean hard thinking causes the brain to shrink, and it does not mean that if hard thinking CAUSES changes to the modern brain, it could not have CAUSED changes to the earlier brain.

This is at a level of anything is possible. Yours is pure invention.

dhw: As bolded above and repeated umpteen times, I have not seized upon tiny enlargements. I have seized upon the known PROCESS whereby hard thinking changes the brain. I see no logical reason why the process should have been the exact opposite in earlier brains. Your constant misrepresentation of what I keep bolding is a sign, I’m afraid, of your “desperation” to ignore the possibility that your God might have organized evolution in a different way from the way you want him to.

I'm not desperate. I see evolution as a production by God. I don't invent the impression everyone has that larger brains/souls produce better artifacts. You idea is a total distortion of what is generally accepted.

DAVID: I view it as a total invention based on our very special advanced brain that is nothing like previous additions. Any way you describe it, I think it is a total pipe dream. I'll stick with God running evolution to the point of this brain appearing.

dhw: And still the only fault you can find with my theory is that it is a different pipe dream from yours.

My faith in God is not a pipe dream

DAVID (under “Dualism”): As for you comment about brain enlargement, my position still is God did it. Your convoluted twist about the archaeological articles dating brain size and artifacts and not really knowing when each aspect occurred is pure sophistry. The assumption in the articles is obvious.

dhw: If my theory is correct, each expansion is preceded by something that requires expansion. If the “something” is an artefact, let’s say the very first spear, then the very first spear will exist when the brain has finished expanding. Is this too convoluted for you? And why do you think the argument is designed to deceive you? As for the articles, they assume nothing. They simply do not deal with the subject. Nobody, including yourself, has yet come up with a generally accepted explanation for the series of expansions.

The articles assume evolution provided the expansion. You convoluted explanation is your imagination at work, with the premise that any proposal is possible. Can you find some one else to convince? It won't be me.