What would cause a brain to grow?

[Mercutio]

Some folks deem consciousness to be physical.

Which folks? Physical in what sense? Can you cite even one peer-reviewed paper that claims consciousness exists as an independent, perceivable energy source to be received? Even one, Iacchus?

Do you deem energy to be physical? What about the light that strikes our eyes? Is that physical?

Yes. It also has no bearing whatsoever on your claims of a transmitted consciousness. It serves only as a great contrast to your idea, in that light can be measured independently of eyes. Light, as an entity, exists and can be received. Consciousness? I await your peer-reviewed source.

It makes perfect sense to suggest that there were a set of instructions prior to the development of anything.

No, it doesn't. Not at all.

Now, just because I may not be able to furnish this set of intructions, does not mean they don't/didn't exist.

You are correct. It only means, since neither you nor anyone else can furnish this set of instructions, that the burden of proof remains, and there is no reason to give your silly notion a moment's thought.

It only stands to reason that things -- especially a whole Universe -- should not come about on the fly.

Your ignorance of cosmology does not equate with "reason".

It doesn't explain in the least, the nature of order nor, how it got here.

Please explain how your evidenceless and illogical ravings explain the least fraction of it.

 

[Skeptical Greg]

.... Are you telling us that cause-and-effect only applies to certain things?

Make that ' actual ' things, and yes, I would say that would seem to be the case...

 

[Iacchus]

Make that ' actual ' things, and yes, I would say that would seem to be the case...

And, do you realize that by positing "no cause," you are leaving it entirely up to one's imagination? Hey, at least I have my "imaginary friend." But then again if, as you say, certain things can be without cause, it would only make sense that it apply to that which is the cause of everything else. This is the only way it could possibly make sense, that is, if you wish to establish a sense of order to the Universe.

 

[Piscivore]

Of course, an interesting phenomenon is under way, though it may be hundreds of years before it expresses itself. Intelligence has grown so much that it has taken on the ability to care for other, less intelligent people. Now given genetics is constantly re-rolling the dice on everyone every generation, some people are a little smarter, others a little dumber. The evolutionary pressure on dumbness that was so useful to hew away an intelligent human over the eons now no longer functions -- dumb people aren't starving to death. Hence, while the average intelligence may not change much, smarter and dumber people will continue to evolve, with the dumber not being culled because of the existence of the smarter people. Throw into the mix the knowledge that the more earning power people have, the fewer children they have, and the "dumbo bulb" of people may grow even larger, skewing average intelligence.

The world needs the wisdom of CM Kornbluth, now more than ever?

 

[Mercutio]

And, do you realize that by positing "no cause," you are leaving it entirely up to one's imagination? Hey, at least I have my "imaginary friend." But then again if, as you say, certain things can be without cause, it would only make sense that it apply to that which is the cause of everything else. This is the only way it could possibly make sense, that is, if you wish to establish a sense of order to the Universe.

Do you understand the difference between "positing 'no cause'" and not positing a cause? The difference is crucial, and yes, it applies to your imaginary friend. There is nothing wrong with "I don't know" if it is the honest truth of the matter. There is a great deal wrong with "I don't know, therefore god did it."

 

[Iacchus]

There is a great deal wrong with "I don't know, therefore god did it."

Sure there is. But I'm only positing that which makes the most sense, and then filling in the blanks. There's nothing that suggests you have to accept it, but still, you can't deny its logic.

 

[Mercutio]

Sure there is. But I'm only positing that which makes the most sense, and then filling in the blanks.

Why do you think this makes the most sense? Why not any of a hundred other fictional scenarios?

I am happy to see that you finally admit that you are starting from your conclusion and then looking for evidence that supports it, rather than the right way around.

There's nothing that suggests you have to accept it, but still, you can't deny its logic.

I cannot deny that its logic is circular, you are correct. And you are also correct in that there is nothing at all that suggests that anyone should accept it.

 

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

And what makes you so objective? Are you telling us that cause-and-effect only applies to certain things?

Since you appear to not have looked into my suggested reference before retorting I'll provide the information for you:

* Weak anthropic principle (WAP): "The observed values of all physical and cosmological quantities are not equally probable but they take on values restricted by the requirement that there exist sites where carbon-based life can evolve and by the requirements that the Universe be old enough for it to have already done so."
* Strong anthropic principle (SAP): "The Universe must have those properties which allow life to develop within it at some stage in its history."
* Final anthropic principle (FAP): "Intelligent information-processing must come into existence in the Universe, and, once it comes into existence, it will never die out."

from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropic_principle

A laymen's translation (as I recall it from A Brief History of Time) is that, since we (intelligent beings) have come into existence under the current conditions of the universe, we view those conditions as being necessary for intelligent beings to exist, and are not able to recoginze/interact/etc with intelligent beings that have come into existence under different conditions.

Your post implied irreducible complexity. Which, imho, is claptrap.

 

[Beerina]

And what makes you so objective? Are you telling us that cause-and-effect only applies to certain things?

No, but cause-and-effect are the parents of evolution. Their combined power leaves the concept of ID and "pre-existing designs" in the wastebin of Occam's Razor. They are simply not needed, and are a needlessly complex explanation. An explanation that exists merely to maintain the theory that a god exists (and an explanation that not all theologists require, for that matter. Many accept evolution in a "God sparked it all" sort of way.)

 

[Beerina]

The world needs the wisdom of CM Kornbluth, now more than ever?

That sounds like a made-up name. Somehow I suspect treachery, some nasty eugenics reference. Lemme look it up on Wikipedia.


Oh, that's pretty good!

 

[Iacchus]

Why do you think this makes the most sense? Why not any of a hundred other fictional scenarios?

What, that whatever it is that caused the Universe is acausal? How so?

I am happy to see that you finally admit that you are starting from your conclusion and then looking for evidence that supports it, rather than the right way around.

Do you have any alternative proposals, besides the fact that it just happened?

I cannot deny that its logic is circular, you are correct. And you are also correct in that there is nothing at all that suggests that anyone should accept it.

For those who have ears, let them hear.

 

[Iacchus]

No, but cause-and-effect are the parents of evolution.

Yes, and I think it's a mistake to think of evolution in terms of anything but, cause-and-effect. Because on the one hand you acknowledge the laws of physics, yet on the other you're saying it's possible to deviate. In which case I say no. If anything appears to deviate, it's only because some unseen variable (with its own set of laws) has come to the forefront that you weren't aware of before. Meaning, there are plenty of things we still don't know.

Many accept evolution in a "God sparked it all" sort of way.

Yes.

 

[CapelDodger]

Aw c'mon... That means the geeks should have all the hot babes..

Doesn't seem to have worked out that way...

As well as problem-solving intelligence there's also social intelligence, the ability to empathise, charm, manipulate, seduce ... We humans live in very large groups, for primates, and I suspect that's connected to brain-size.

I find the Peacock's Tail hypothesis pretty persuasive.

 

[Silly Green Monkey]

It's not the size of the brain that counts, it's the number and depth of the crinkles!

 

[epepke]

I understand evolution to a degree this isn't an arguement for any kind of creationism or anything like that.

I just wonder is there anything over a period of time injested or exposed to that would alter genes to make a brain grow? Does constant puzzle solving change genetics and allow new generations to have larger brains? I am just curious. Tumors illnesses radiation that altered genes ect?

It's a really good question.

The short answer is that nobody knows.

However, I've read a lot of anthropology, and the best answer seems to be "throwing."

 

[Ceritus]

In our case...bipedalism. Walking and running are much more efficient with a narrower pelvis. Narrow pelvis = smaller birth canal. Big brain = big skull. We already are born prematurely in comparison to other species, arguably as a partial solution to this problem. But there is a natural limiter to our brain size, as any mother can tell you.

So if we could genetically alter or simply operate on every woman who is able to bare a child and widen their pelvis and give them wheels instead of feet we could enlarge the brain a couple thousand generations down the line?

 

[TimmyBerry]

So if we could genetically alter or simply operate on every woman who is able to bare a child and widen their pelvis and give them wheels instead of feet we could enlarge the brain a couple thousand generations down the line?

I do not believe that you are a woman. Am I right?

 

[Ceritus]

Here's one place to start on your specific question.
Or this book, if you are really interested.

I ordered the book, I hope it was worth the $63!

 

[Skeptical Greg]

Since you appear to not have looked into my suggested reference before retorting I'll provide the information for you:

from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropic_principle

A laymen's translation (as I recall it from A Brief History of Time) is that, since we (intelligent beings) have come into existence under the current conditions of the universe, we view those conditions as being necessary for intelligent beings to exist, and are not able to recoginze/interact/etc with intelligent beings that have come into existence under different conditions.
..................

I always liked the simple version..

" If things were different, they'd be different. "

 

[Ceritus]

I do not believe that you are a woman. Am I right?

No, I am not suggesting we do so. But if it was forced and every single female had this operation shouldn't it work?

Adversely, since there is an abundance of medical help for pregnant women in the most advanced countries and if they all countries eventually matched up to this medical abundance couldn't it be possible that all women would be dependant upon this technology in order to give birth without dying over multiple generations?

Could there ever come a time where our species becomes physically dependant on our technology to survive?