Atheists......why is the human brain so complex?

[leroy]

Atheists......why is the human brain so complex?


there is no doubt that from the point of view of evolution and natural selection it is advantageous to have complex brains, complex brains allow for communication, reliable memories, learning, solve problems, and a variety of stuff that clearly contribute to our survival and reproduction.


however the human brain is unnecessarily too complex, we wonder about the existence of God, our purpose in life, the purpose of the universe etc.....clearly wondering about these stuff is meaningless in terms of survival, we don't need to wonder about these stuff in order to survive, reproduce and pass our genes to the next generation.

besides a brain that wonders about all that deep philosophical stuff is more complex and requires more energy than a brain that doesn't wonder about that stuff,

so why did brains that can wonder about deep philosophical stuff evolved? why not keeping a simpler brain, that consumes less energy that is efficient in communicating, learning, remembering etc. but that simply doesn't wonder about all these philosophical stuff.

 

[Sparhafoc]

Atheists......why is the human brain so complex?

Assertion.

Show that it is 'so complex'.

But go on, I'll accept your unevidenced assertion as a postulate.

Here's why:


If the human brain were so simple that we could understand it, we would be so simple that we couldn't. Emerson M. Pugh, The Biological Origin of Human Values


I know you won't think about it, but hey, it's a very important answer as it bursts the exact same bubbles as the weak anthropic principle. Others will enjoy it.


What the holy tittyfucks has atheism got to do with this?

there is no doubt that from the point of view of evolution and natural selection it is advantageous to have complex brains, complex brains allow for communication, reliable memories, learning, solve problems, and a variety of stuff that clearly contribute to our survival and reproduction.

No doubt?

Then you need to stop pretending you are talking about science. Science is about minimizing uncertainty, not about negating it.

If you don't know that, you need to shut the flaptrap and do more listening. Isn't your brain complex enough for that?

Rather, in the real world, the scientific world where we don't ignore 90% of the data, the well-established component is that a brain is bloody expensive to run, and that it only offers an advantage under specific scenarios.

One such scenario is the complexity of the environment, and the need for the brain to be able to process confusing amounts of visual and other sensory data in order to do things like perambulate.

This is often suggested for primates - needing to navigate around a complex forest and forest floor environment to find their food sources, and those food sources in turn being highly nutritious providing excess calories to use in building bigger brains better at navigating to find those food sources. These positive feedback loops are essentially how a species specializes towards its contemporary environment.

There's also another very important component called Dunbar's Number, which is related to the social brain hypothesis, that we need bigger brains to keep track of more individuals in our social groups. And the size of particular brain structures, particularly the neocortex, tend to be correlated with the preferred group size for that species. An example is often given here about the way humans divide up groups into smaller numbers to influence group cohesion, such as in the military with squads, platoons, companies etc. There are all manner of data on this, and the numbers seem to correlate well.

For me, the answer is never either/or. I think both have a major impact, both in terms of presenting a need (and therefore a selection) for a larger brain, and for fueling that brain allowing it to more efficiently gather fuel, or live in safer groups.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunbar%27s_number

however the human brain is unnecessarily too complex,....

Says?

Says you? That's fucking hilarious.

But anyway - source, please.

I think you are talking out of your rectum again. I declare the human brain is just as complex as it needs to be, not a jot more, not a jot less. There, your imagined problem has now disappeared.

Unless, of course, you want to ground your witterings in reality? No? I imagine not, or what you share will be 3 words you cherrypicked out of an article saying the exact opposite to you.

we wonder about the existence of God, our purpose in life, the purpose of the universe etc.....clearly wondering about these stuff is meaningless in terms of survival, we don't need to wonder about these stuff in order to survive, reproduce and pass our genes to the next generation.

So is wondering whether to write bullshit on the internet, therefore God? :lol:

No, you don't understand how the brain works. Thinking about A is not more expensive than thinking about B. Want to contest that? Show your source. As the human brain is operating all day long, regardless of what you're thinking about, it still maintain a cost.

Of course, there are scenarios which do produce more brain activity, but these tend to involve anatomical parts of the opposite (or same) sex, thrills and fears produced by hormonal responses, stress, and various other stimuli response, but then these all provide a reason why the brain needs to be as complex as it is - to have the capacity to do these when necessary.

Incidentally, 'we' don't wonder about the existence of God anymore than 'we' wonder about the existence of gnomes living under toadstools at the bottom of our gardens.

As for 'meaningless in terms of survival' - you don't get what you're talking about, quelle fucking surprise. The brain, for all animals that possess one, is vital for survival as you can tell by cutting it out and watching what happens.

One of the joys of being an earthworm, an octopus or any other creature with a distributed brain is that it's near impossible to lobotomize one. On an octopus, you'd have to cut it all up, tentacles and all.

besides a brain that wonders about all that deep philosophical stuff is more complex and requires more energy than a brain that doesn't wonder about that stuff,

Which it doesn't....

so why did brains that can wonder about deep philosophical stuff evolved? why not keeping a simpler brain, that consumes less energy that is efficient in communicating, learning, remembering etc. but that simply doesn't wonder about all these philosophical stuff.

Because one that is efficient for communicating, learning, remembering etc is one already complex enough to do what you call 'deep philosophical stuff'.

There's no actual topic here to address, just misunderstanding.

 

[leroy]

[
Because one that is efficient for communicating, learning, remembering etc is one already complex enough to do what you call 'deep philosophical stuff'.

.

well then prove it,

 

[Sparhafoc]

PROVE IT

Cue the 99,000 previous posts I've made explaining to LEROY that his usage of the word 'proof' is indicative of the level of comprehension he brings to the Phlosophical court.

Evidence, of course, would be another kettle of fish altogether.

But yeah, I'll perform tricks on command right after you gobble on my cock, LEROY.

 

[Sparhafoc]

LEROY: assertion, assertion, assertion
Me: cite your sources, please
LEROY IGNORE EVERYTHING AND DEMAND 'proof'.

If anyone was still under the illusion that you are not a garden troll, thanks for making it clear to them.

 

[Sparhafoc]

why is the human brain so complex?

Unsubstantiated assertion:

Source?

there is no doubt that from the point of view of evolution and natural selection it is advantageous to have complex brains,

Unsubstantiated assertion:

Source?

however the human brain is unnecessarily too complex,

Unsubstantiated assertion:

Source?

clearly wondering about these stuff is meaningless in terms of survival, we don't need to wonder about these stuff in order to survive, reproduce and pass our genes to the next generation.

Unsubstantiated assertion:

Source?

besides a brain that wonders about all that deep philosophical stuff is more complex and requires more energy than a brain that doesn't wonder about that stuff,

Unsubstantiated assertion:

Source?

why not keeping a simpler brain, that consumes less energy that is efficient in communicating, learning, remembering etc. but that simply doesn't wonder about all these philosophical stuff.

Unsubstantiated assertion:

Source?

 

[Dragan Glas]

Greetings,

Nothing to do with design, leroy.

What 'Thrones' fans already know: Ravens can see ahead

Kindest regards,

James

 

[leroy]

PROVE IT

Cue the 99,000 previous posts I've made explaining to LEROY that his usage of the word 'proof' is indicative of the level of comprehension he brings to the Phlosophical court.

Evidence, of course, would be another kettle of fish altogether.

But yeah, I'll perform tricks on command right after you gobble on my cock, LEROY.

did I used the term proof?


ok so please provide evidence for your assertion

 

[leroy]

Greetings,

Nothing to do with design, leroy.

What 'Thrones' fans already know: Ravens can see ahead

Kindest regards,

James

the article was very interesting, but irrelevant.


the question is why do we have the ability to wonder about philosophical stuff?

 

[Dragan Glas]

Greetings,

Greetings,

Nothing to do with design, leroy.

What 'Thrones' fans already know: Ravens can see ahead

Kindest regards,

James

the article was very interesting, but irrelevant.


the question is why do we have the ability to wonder about philosophical stuff?

The same reason that other apes and corvids think about the future.

Kindest regards,

James

 

[leroy]

The same reason that other apes and corvids think about the future.

Kindest regards,

James

thinking about the future has clear selective advantages that would be selected by natural selection, clearly an ape that is worried about his future is more likely to survive and reproduce than an ape that doesn't care about his future.


but this is not analogous to the philosophical stuff that I am talking about, wondering about the existence of God, our place in the universe, the meaning of life etc. has no clear selective advantage.

 

[Dragan Glas]

Greetings,

The same reason that other apes and corvids think about the future.

Kindest regards,

James

thinking about the future has clear selective advantages that would be selected by natural selection, clearly an ape that is worried his future is more likely to survive and reproduce than an ape that doesn't care about his future.

but this is not analogous to the philosophical stuff that I am talking about, wondering about the existence of God, our place in the universe, the meaning of life etc. has no clear selective advantage.

Yes, it is.

The same capabilities that allow us to ask "what if?" questions, and consider possible scenarios, also enable us to ask similar questions about our future - life after death, our place in the universe, if we have any purpose, etc.

Kindest regards,

James

 

[Gnug215]

Leroy, do you know of the concept and phenomenon "emergent properties"?

 

[Sparhafoc]

did I used the term proof?


ok so please provide evidence for your assertion

And here we have LEROY's modus operandi in full force.

Assertion, assertion, assertion....

But when someone writes something he doesn't want to believe, it's all about PROOF (Yes, you tool, you used that word and people can still see it and you even quoted it duuuh)

I hereby publicly swear that I will provide all sources and citations for anything on anyone's request.

Except LEROY - first, he will cite his sources for all the wild and delusional assertions made in the original post to show that he's not a vapid little troll with a cuntish streak a mile wide.

 

[Sparhafoc]

Can't provide any sources for your claims, LEROY?

Then why do you expect people to accept them as postulates?

Either you need to provide an argument as to why we should simply let all the bullshit below float, or you need to provide sources showing that you can offer more than the fluff from your navel.

why is the human brain so complex?

Unsubstantiated assertion:

Source?

there is no doubt that from the point of view of evolution and natural selection it is advantageous to have complex brains,

Unsubstantiated assertion:

Source?

however the human brain is unnecessarily too complex,

Unsubstantiated assertion:

Source?

clearly wondering about these stuff is meaningless in terms of survival, we don't need to wonder about these stuff in order to survive, reproduce and pass our genes to the next generation.

Unsubstantiated assertion:

Source?

besides a brain that wonders about all that deep philosophical stuff is more complex and requires more energy than a brain that doesn't wonder about that stuff,

Unsubstantiated assertion:

Source?

why not keeping a simpler brain, that consumes less energy that is efficient in communicating, learning, remembering etc. but that simply doesn't wonder about all these philosophical stuff.

Unsubstantiated assertion:

Source?

 

[Sparhafoc]

Yes, it is.

The same capabilities that allow us to ask "what if?" questions, and consider possible scenarios, also enable us to ask similar questions about our future - life after death, our place in the universe, if we have any purpose, etc.

There is indeed a whole realm of interesting components to this discussion, but I am not prepared to have it follow all of LEROY's other posting habits where he gets to draw up bullshit paradigms and then refuse to acknowledge that others won't simply accept the Gospel according to LEROY, the lying cunt.

But yeah, symbolism, modeling futures, predicting outcomes, theory of mind.... thousands of studies, dozens of books, a huge pool of data to draw from, but LEROY's just plain ignorant so he manufactures straws out of ass-gravy to grasp at.

In 3 weeks time, I have a unit on the evolution of early human symbolism and symbolic behavior looking at the archaeological evidence and what it could mean for early human cognition.

So once LEROY's stewed in his own juices, I might just drop all the class material here!

 

[Visaki]

I'm still puzzled why he want's atheists to answer this question. Or is it just one of those pathetic "gotcha" baits that theist God-of-the-gappers love so much?

 

[leroy]

The same capabilities that allow us to ask "what if?" questions, and consider possible scenarios, also enable us to ask similar questions about our future - life after death, our place in the universe, if we have any purpose, etc.

Kindest regards,

James

that would be a good answer, can you prove it?

 

[leroy]

I'm still puzzled why he want's atheists to answer this question. Or is it just one of those pathetic "gotcha" baits that theist God-of-the-gappers love so much?

An intelligent designer would, or at least could have, created a brain capable of asking philosophical questions, God wouldn't care if this brain is more complex and consumes more energy than a brain without this ability is he finds this brain apt for whatever purposes he might have.


But evolution is more likely to create a simple brain than a complex brain (a complex brain would require more random mutations) and natural selection is more likely to select a brain that consumes less energy rather than a brain that consumes more energy, in the absence of God there is no obvious reason as for why complex philosophical evolved.


evolution is not likely to create unnecessary complexity, if a complex brain capable of asking philosophical questions has no selective benefit, why would it evolve?

 

[Dragan Glas]

Greetings,

Your later reply claiming that evolution is unlikely to create a unnecessarily complex brain - this is not the case.

Firstly, social animals require more complex brains to infer intent in others - this also means they tend to infer intent where none exists, ergo belief in spirits, and gods: which has already been pointed out. The brain uses up a sizable portion of the energy of the body. If one can "predict the future", one has a better chance at survival - "prevention is better than cure", as the saying goes.

Secondly, one has only to look at "unnecessarily complex" adaptations - the peacock's tail, the stag's antlers, etc - to realize that evolution results in such, even though they carry a cost in terms of survival.

Is this "proof"? I'd suggest that this is strong evidence of an evolutionary explanation rather than a supernatural one - particularly as you have to "prove" the existence of any supernatural entity - as I've already explained in the other thread.

Kindest regards,

James