Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Science Forum

Science Forum

  1. 08 Nov '17 02:58 / 1 edit
    Is the human brain too complicated to have evolved by chance?

    Could it be that the human brain houses the mechanisms required to exploit science and technology and inevitably lead to it's own formation?

    If so, does that then make the human brain a 4 dimensional construct?
  2. 08 Nov '17 07:33 / 7 edits
    Originally posted by @christopher-albon
    Is the human brain too complicated to have evolved by chance?
    Nothing is "too complicated" to have evolved because there is no definable upper limit to the 'complexity' of something evolving.
    No matter how complex something is that evolved, there is no barrier or natural law that prevents same additional complexity to then evolve on top of that.
    So the answer is no, the human brain isn't too complicated to have evolved.

    Not sure if you mean something odd by "evolved by chance" because, note, natural selection isn't totally random but is mostly predictable.

    I have no idea what "brain a 4 dimensional construct" means.
  3. 08 Nov '17 08:52 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by @humy
    Nothing is "too complicated" to have evolved because there is no definable upper limit to the 'complexity' of something evolving.
    No matter how complex something is that evolved, there is no barrier or natural law that prevents same additional complexity to then evolve on top of that.
    So the answer is no, the human brain isn't too complicated to have evolved ...[text shortened]... andom but is mostly predictable.

    I have no idea what "brain a 4 dimensional construct" means.
    Well now, that's an interesting take on Darwinism.

    I would totally agree that Darwinism goes far beyond the perceived notion of survival of the fittest and into Art, symmetry and beauty (look at the bird kingdom. Human reproductive organs, not so much).

    However, to suggest that the selection method itself may be subject to a greater, more defining force is something I wouldn't group in with Darwinism.

    Are you suggesting that ALL forces, both natural and SUPERnatural can be including in the evolution of a species. Or (as with most things scientific) supernatural forces cease being supernatural once their function is understood?
  4. 08 Nov '17 09:15 / 10 edits
    Originally posted by @christopher-albon
    Well now, that's an interesting take on Darwinism.

    I would totally agree that Darwinism goes far beyond the perceived notion of survival of the fittest and into Art, symmetry and beauty (look at the bird kingdom. Human reproductive organs, not so much).

    However, to suggest that the selection method itself may be subject to a greater, more de ...[text shortened]... ings scientific) supernatural forces cease being supernatural once their function is understood?
    I would totally agree that Darwinism goes far beyond the perceived notion of survival of the fittest

    Darwinism isn't about "the survival of the fittest" (a commonly propagated myth) and never was else peacock feathers etc wouldn't ever have evolved.
    However, to suggest that the selection method itself may be subject to a greater, more defining force is something I wouldn't group in with Darwinism.

    Don't understand; what "greater, more defining force" are you referring to here?
    Are you suggesting that ALL forces, both natural and SUPERnatural can be including in the evolution of a species.

    regardless of its validity or exact meaning, that clearly wasn't what I was saying/implying. Don't know where you got that from.
    Until if or when I ever see evidence of a supernatural thing, I don't think it probable that there exists a supernatural anything (because Occam's razor applies). The least assumptive explanation that fits perfectly with the evidence is always the most probable although that never completely rules out less likely explanations.
  5. 08 Nov '17 14:04 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by @humy
    Don't understand; what "greater, more defining force" are you referring to here?

    The force above all forces. Probability.

    Until if or when I ever see evidence of a supernatural thing, I don't think it probable that there exists a supernatural anything (because Occam's razor applies).

    So what, for you, would constitute a supernatural force? Would the experiment have to be repeatable. Would that be the defining factor?

    It seems to me that science by way of explaining and predicting natural marvels has somehow lessened them. What is it about us as humans that requires us to marvel about something but then drop it when the mechanism is eluded to like some guy in a movie that got maimed and we don't wanna watch him anymore. Do you think it's programming? It looks like programming to me.

    edit. Maybe the converse programming is true for religious people who are happy to marvel at something without considering a mechanism.
  6. 08 Nov '17 15:41 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by @christopher-albon
    Originally posted by @humy
    Don't understand; what "greater, more defining force" are you referring to here?

    The force above all forces. Probability.

    [quote]Until if or when I ever see evidence of a supernatural thing, I don't think it probable that there exists a supernatural anything (because Occam's razor applies). ...[text shortened]... true for religious people who are happy to marvel at something without considering a mechanism.
    The force above all forces. Probability.

    Natural selection obviously isn't completely random (if that is what you imply? Still not sure what you mean ) since some attributes are much more likely to be selected over others.
    Evolution is NOT about pure probability as in an effect of pure randomness (if that is what you imply? )
    So what, for you, would constitute a supernatural force? Would the experiment have to be repeatable

    If you are asking for what would be evidence for something supernatural; it would have to be of something observable by people not on crack or drunk and which apparently cannot be adequately explained by natural law. This might not necessarily involve a repeatable experiment but a repeatable experiment would help make it much stronger as evidence.

    I don't understand you talk of "programming" -don't know what you mean.
  7. 08 Nov '17 15:53 / 3 edits
    I'm suggesting that natural selection is actually driven by the act of creation. That probability as a mechanism will tend towards the path of least resistance. In this case, the human brain.

    If this is the case. That there is an unpredictable force acting to drive evolution towards mechanisms more likely to be able to harness technology as to create universes. Would you consider this a supernatural force?

    edit. Programming as in social programming. Case in point an old age couple were asked what the secret of their long relationship was. They replied that in their day if something was broke, they fixed it.

    Another edit. I've recently watched an advert for a smart TV. I think it was LG. Where the parents are explaining to their kids that they're going to have an old-fashioned Christmas with chatting and singing around the fire. They then break into a grin and say JK, it's a big ****ing TV. Now I assume the Independent Advertising Agency went mad and got shot in the face long ago (after putting condom adverts in rape scenes and such) but one cannot help but see a clear pattern of social programming towards new and exciting (undamaged) goods over the act of art and hard work.
  8. 08 Nov '17 17:32 / 3 edits
    Originally posted by @christopher-albon
    I'm suggesting that natural selection is actually driven by the act of creation. That probability as a mechanism will tend towards the path of least resistance. In this case, the human brain.

    If this is the case. That there is an unpredictable force acting to drive evolution towards mechanisms more likely to be able to harness technology as to ...[text shortened]... social programming towards new and exciting (undamaged) goods over the act of art and hard work.
    That probability as a mechanism will tend towards the path of least resistance. In this case, the human brain.

    Are you saying that it was probable that the human brain would evolve? If so, this is clearly false and there is no evidence of this.
    That there is an unpredictable force acting to drive evolution towards mechanisms more likely to be able to harness technology

    There is no evidence of some mysterious force acting on evolution to make it more likely to evolve something specifically to harness technology.
    as to create universes

    what?
    Would you consider this a supernatural force?

    You have yet to explain a reason for thinking this said 'force' might exist
  9. 08 Nov '17 17:54 / 1 edit
    Are you saying that it was probable that the human brain would evolve? If so, this is clearly false and there is no evidence of this.

    I'm saying that it was inevitable that the 'machinery' necessary to construct the universe, would materialise and that all less probable universes would fall away.

    If we are living in such a universe, it might appear that the outwardly random confluence of events actually tends towards a constructive order. That being the provision of the tools and knowledge for existence to construct itself. This 'direction' of probability could be considered as a force albeit one where the experiments are not repeatable.
  10. 08 Nov '17 18:04 / 6 edits
    Originally posted by @christopher-albon
    Are you saying that it was probable that the human brain would evolve? If so, this is clearly false and there is no evidence of this.

    I'm saying that it was inevitable that the 'machinery' necessary to construct the universe, would materialise and that all less probable universes would fall away.

    If we are living in such a univ ...[text shortened]... probability could be considered as a force albeit one where the experiments are not repeatable.
    I'm saying that it was inevitable that the 'machinery' necessary to construct the universe, would materialise

    what 'machinery' are your referring to? Can you give a specific example of this 'machinery' ? Or some part of it?
    and that all less probable universes would fall away.

    Err, the was or could have been "less probable universes"? I am strangely unaware of this. How do you know this? Has there been some astonishing astronomical/cosmological discovery/observation you are aware of but not me and which shows there is more than one possible universe and each has a different probability? And what made some "less probable"? And what makes or could have made the "less probable" ones all "fall away" and how "fall away"? "fall away" into a specific physical place or "fall away" by vanishing in a puff of logic, or, what exactly?
  11. 08 Nov '17 18:27
    what 'machinery' are your referring to? Can you give a specific example of this 'machinery' ? Or some part of it?

    Oh sure, the human brain and simulation technology.

    Lots of questions. Less probable universes are universes that require more time and resources to carry out the same job. As more time
    and resources are used, more time and resources are required to manufacture it (probably) so you can see how the matter compounds with time.
    Why do less probable universes 'fall away' mainly because the job of creating the universe has already been achieved.
    I believe the only universes that exist are the ones that create themselves. They (or it) has to balance which means summing to zero that
    way the universe can both exist and not exist simultaneously.
  12. Standard member sonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    09 Nov '17 15:30
    Originally posted by @christopher-albon
    I'm suggesting that natural selection is actually driven by the act of creation. That probability as a mechanism will tend towards the path of least resistance. In this case, the human brain.

    If this is the case. That there is an unpredictable force acting to drive evolution towards mechanisms more likely to be able to harness technology as to ...[text shortened]... social programming towards new and exciting (undamaged) goods over the act of art and hard work.
    The human brain is the result of the evolution of brains going back a hundred million years or more.

    Primate brains are extremely complex also, Dolphin brains have more connections than human brains and are quite a bit larger and heavier. None of that connects with creationism.

    You might reasonably have a belief system that says your god went 'poof' and invented the whole universe 14 billion years ago and there would be no science that could disprove that but to be specific about the brain complexity of an individual species goes a bit too far. Even lizards have complex brains so how far back do you want to go with the complexity issue? Dinosaures had complex brains too, obviously not as complex as a dog but still complex. The brains of Chimps are maybe 1/3 the size and complexity of humans but they can and do independently both use and invent tools so what does that say about creationism? Not much.
  13. 09 Nov '17 15:44 / 4 edits
    Originally posted by @sonhouse
    The human brain is the result of the evolution of brains going back a hundred million years or more.

    Primate brains are extremely complex also, Dolphin brains have more connections than human brains and are quite a bit larger and heavier. None of that connects with creationism.

    You might reasonably have a belief system that says your god went 'poof ...[text shortened]... nd do independently both use and invent tools so what does that say about creationism? Not much.
    Perhaps many people don't realize that, even an ant brain, which typically has 'only' ~250,000 neurons, is so complex and difficult to study that neurologists still have extremely far from complete understanding of how it works.
    It is thought that even an ant brain, purely in terms of coordination and sensory response (but not in terms of speed or memory capacity) , still wildly by far beats any man made computer; -and I say that as an AI expert.
  14. 09 Nov '17 19:25 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by @sonhouse
    The human brain is the result of the evolution of brains going back a hundred million years or more.

    Primate brains are extremely complex also, Dolphin brains have more connections than human brains and are quite a bit larger and heavier. None of that connects with creationism.

    You might reasonably have a belief system that says your god went 'poof ...[text shortened]... nd do independently both use and invent tools so what does that say about creationism? Not much.
    Well, sure you could do it that way but if, at the point of creation, you've already got all the information you need to start it say 10,000 years ago. Why not do that and spoof the other few billion years?

    edit. I don't have A god. I'm a polytheist! FFS.
  15. 09 Nov '17 19:29 / 2 edits
    Originally posted by @humy
    Perhaps many people don't realize that, even an ant brain, which typically has 'only' ~250,000 neurons, is so complex and difficult to study that neurologists still have extremely far from complete understanding of how it works.
    It is thought that even an ant brain, purely in terms of coordination and sensory response (but not in terms of speed or memory capacity) , still wildly by far beats any man made computer; -and I say that as an AI expert.
    Why do we need to know how it works? Surely that it does work is enough?
    The important thing to remember whether studying, replicating or creating such entities
    is to set boundaries to their suffering. You never know, it could be you being studied in
    a bigger machine of your own device eventually.