PNAS special issue on evolution and the brain

Biblical creationism(yec) would undercut the whole idea of the brain being the place of human intelligence.
However common to think so and however common to presume the brain machine and its size is relative to human status as the most intelligent being it still is all based on little actual evidence.

We would see that being made in the image of god our thinking/soul is in fact spiritual and not a part of nature.
the brain is simply a middle man from our true thinking being to our body.
while our soul thinking is not affected by nature only details are affected.
So memory is number one and other things can confuse our thinking but only because of a biological interference.
its not our actual thinking that ever fails us because its not of nature and so can be broken.

Therefore creationism should predict that creatures have as great a memory as human beings.
No prejudice about memory being related to intelligence.
i have read about apes with great memory for numbers and many creatures with big 'brains" (rather memory s probably) like marine mammals or elephants are known for great memory results.
in fact most creatures have excellent memory and this is rather behind much of their survival as opposed to thinking.

Memory should be a part of nature and so this is why it breaks down.
I also have concluded memory is the origin for retardation, autism spectrum, and old age problems with cognizance.

creationism should predict results due to the segregation of thinking and the machine of our brain.
brain size is unrelated to intelligence and another reason evolution pressing brain size in human evolution or animals is a dead end.

Robert Byers said: Biblical creationism(yec) would undercut the whole idea of the brain being the place of human intelligence. However common to think so and however common to presume the brain machine and its size is relative to human status as the most intelligent being it still is all based on little actual evidence.

Robert Byers said: Memory should be a part of nature and so this is why it breaks down. I also have concluded memory is the origin for retardation, autism spectrum, and old age problems with cognizance.

Robert Byers said: its not our actual thinking that ever fails us because its not of nature and so can be broken.

Biblical creationism(yec) would undercut the whole idea of the brain being the place of human intelligence

Robert Byers said: Biblical creationism(yec) would undercut the whole idea of the brain being the place of human intelligence.

I have to agree with Todd Wood that as interesting as the whole thing looks, the evolution of voltage gated sodium channels jumps out as particularly interesting.

We have a brain because we have behavior. We have behavior because we are motile. Many of the most modern, largest, most complex, and most ingeniously adapted organisms lack those traits - because they're plants. Plants do respond to the environment and move of course - but overall, on a slower time scale or in a less overall coordinated way.

The basis of biological motion is usually contractility of one sort or another. Contractility is nearly always linked to the fact that cells have a voltage gradient, and gradients of concentration of various ions, relative to the extracellular environment, and ability to transiently change that through selective use of ion channels. This is among the "beyond self-replicating nucleotides" deep questions about early life, along with origin of membranes, and origin of photosynthesis.

One of the papers is a nice review of evo devo in arthropod development, with emphasis on neural development. It has a lot of nice pictures showing expression patterns for hox genes and variations in gene expression in various arthropod groups. It seems that we are beginning to unravel the role of these developmental pathways and the mechanisms by which they change, thus helping to produce the diversity of arthropod body plans that have arisen through ransom mutation and natural selection. It's a wonderful time to be an evolutionary biologist.

Robert Byers somewhat unwittingly makes an interesting point about brain evolution.

He is actually somewhat unique in his style of creationism, and that could reflect some issues, but overall, he shows the strong human tendency to fully attend to the most concrete aspects of reality, while allowing emotional biases or ingrained heuristics to create denial of even a fairly low level of abstraction.

That is basically the way the human brain evolved. We have the ability to be much more abstract, time-aware, and compliant with formal logic than other species seem to be, yet it is not our usual tendency to make use of these abilities. We typically rely on heuristics and emotional perceptions.

Robert Byers said: Biblical creationism(yec) would undercut the whole idea of the brain being the place of human intelligence.

Learning is a highly important part of mentation that even mice achieve--and Byers does not.

Glen Davidson

https://me.yahoo.com/a/JxVN0eQFqtmgoY7wC1cZM44ET_iAanxHQmLgYgX_Zhn8#57cad said: Learning is a highly important part of mentation that even mice achieve--and Byers does not. Glen Davidson

So, did Robert Byers tell us exactly which passage in the Bible the Bible says Neurobiology is a bunch of nonsense? Or, is he too cowardly/stupid to say, and is hoping that we're all mentally deficient enough to swallow his Bible-bullshit without question or justification?

"I also have concluded memory is the origin for retardation, autism spectrum, and old age problems with cognizance."

Mr Byers, I conclude you know absolutely zilch about kognitive abilities, retardation or autism.

Niltava said:

I also have concluded memory is the origin for retardation, autism spectrum, and old age problems with cognizance.

Mr Byers, I conclude you know absolutely zilch about kognitive abilities, retardation or autism.

Byers apparently feigns language problems; or maybe he is showing signs of being off his meds. Or perhaps he is playing the cripple game in an attempt to get some sympathy.

He has a contribution over on Revolution Against Evolution “explaining” post-Flood marsupial migration.

It appears slightly more “articulate” even though his thought processes are just as stupid as we are seeing here.

Mike Elzinga said: Byers apparently feigns language problems; or maybe he is showing signs of being off his meds. Or perhaps he is playing the cripple game in an attempt to get some sympathy. He has a contribution over on Revolution Against Evolution “explaining” post-Flood marsupial migration. It appears slightly more “articulate” even though his thought processes are just as stupid as we are seeing here.

harold said:

Mike Elzinga said: Byers apparently feigns language problems; or maybe he is showing signs of being off his meds. Or perhaps he is playing the cripple game in an attempt to get some sympathy. He has a contribution over on Revolution Against Evolution “explaining” post-Flood marsupial migration. It appears slightly more “articulate” even though his thought processes are just as stupid as we are seeing here.

There are other possible explanations. I wish him good health, including a recovery from his obsession with science denial.

harold said:

Mike Elzinga said: Byers apparently feigns language problems; or maybe he is showing signs of being off his meds. Or perhaps he is playing the cripple game in an attempt to get some sympathy. He has a contribution over on Revolution Against Evolution “explaining” post-Flood marsupial migration. It appears slightly more “articulate” even though his thought processes are just as stupid as we are seeing here.

There are other possible explanations. I wish him good health, including a recovery from his obsession with science denial.

harold said: There are other possible explanations. I wish him good health, including a recovery from his obsession with science denial.

Mike Elzinga said: And Dembski often strikes me as a rather tortured, self-pitying individual; as do many of the others at the DI, AiG, and the ICR.

Mike Elzinga said:

harold said: There are other possible explanations. I wish him good health, including a recovery from his obsession with science denial.

Yeah; I have suspected some sort of health problem. I wonder if he knows. The obsession with science denial certainly isn’t helping him. On the other hand, upon meeting several ID/creationists face-to-face, I have sensed that there are some issues with them as well. It makes me wonder if obsessive science denial is a symptom of deeper issues than simply a “different” world view. And Dembski often strikes me as a rather tortured, self-pitying individual; as do many of the others at the DI, AiG, and the ICR.

In response, let me just say: (1) The public interest law firm that represented the Dover School Board and that had hired me, namely, the Thomas More Law Center, never received or accepted a withdrawal for the case from me. The simple fact is that they fired me

Mike Elzinga said: And Dembski often strikes me as a rather tortured, self-pitying individual; as do many of the others at the DI, AiG, and the ICR.

Tenncrain said: It was known that his days at Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary in Ft Worth were numbered due to his old-earth/local flood views rubbing his YEC bosses wrong.

harold said: Dembski's father, according to Wikipedia, held a DSc from a German University and was (or is) some kind of biology lecturer. He was presumably also a religious Catholic, as that is how Dembski was raised.

Paul Burnett said: "In my own case, I was raised in a home where my father had a D.Sc. in biology (from the University of Erlangen in Germany), taught evolutionary biology at the college level, and never questioned Darwinian orthodoxy during my years growing up." - W.A. Dembski, "Intelligent Design Coming Clean"

terenzioiltroll said:

Robert Byers said: Biblical creationism(yec) would undercut the whole idea of the brain being the place of human intelligence. However common to think so and however common to presume the brain machine and its size is relative to human status as the most intelligent being it still is all based on little actual evidence.

Given that the size-intelligence correlation is sooo 19th century, the rest of the post still makes little sense. We might as well say something on the lines of: "The hart is simply a middle man from our true pumping being to our body. While our soul pumpiness is not affected by nature, only details are affected etc. etc." Why nobody ever called for the need of an abstract idea of an hydraulic pump for the hart to work, yet an ethereal biological computer is required for a brain to work (but only for a human brain, mind you: not a dolphin brain or an elephant brain)? If souls exist and our conscience will perdure after death, as I sincerely hope, is a matter that has nothing at all to do with the inner workings of a brain.

harold said: Robert Byers somewhat unwittingly makes an interesting point about brain evolution. He is actually somewhat unique in his style of creationism, and that could reflect some issues, but overall, he shows the strong human tendency to fully attend to the most concrete aspects of reality, while allowing emotional biases or ingrained heuristics to create denial of even a fairly low level of abstraction. That is basically the way the human brain evolved. We have the ability to be much more abstract, time-aware, and compliant with formal logic than other species seem to be, yet it is not our usual tendency to make use of these abilities. We typically rely on heuristics and emotional perceptions.

Robert Byers said: always brain size in hominids is factor one in defining how smart they were

Its just a presumption that the brain is the source of our thinking.

they are not smarter creatures but simply have better memory's.

Trying to turn them into thinking people is in vain no matter how much they can remember.

harold said: Dembski's father, according to Wikipedia, held a DSc from a German University and was (or is) some kind of biology lecturer. He was presumably also a religious Catholic, as that is how Dembski was raised. I have not been able to find any internet mention of the senior Professor Dembski; of course, if he retired before the nineties and was not widely published, that's not surprising. I don't even know whether Dembski's father was an immigrant or a US citizen who studied in Germany, whether Dembski speaks German, etc. Not that shocking; you wouldn't find anything on my mother on the internet unless I, or some other younger relative, put it there.

So, Robert Byers, do you have any evidence or any Bible verses that justify your latest claims that "big brains mean nothing"? Or, should we assume that you're just Bullshitting for Jesus, again, and that you want us to swallow your bullshit right here on the spot, 'cause it's the nice thing to do?

terenzioiltroll said:

Its just a presumption that the brain is the source of our thinking.

"It is just a presumption that the hart is the source of our pumping."

RM said:

harold said: Dembski's father, according to Wikipedia, held a DSc from a German University and was (or is) some kind of biology lecturer. He was presumably also a religious Catholic, as that is how Dembski was raised. I have not been able to find any internet mention of the senior Professor Dembski; of course, if he retired before the nineties and was not widely published, that's not surprising. I don't even know whether Dembski's father was an immigrant or a US citizen who studied in Germany, whether Dembski speaks German, etc. Not that shocking; you wouldn't find anything on my mother on the internet unless I, or some other younger relative, put it there.

Science Citation Index has one paper by William Joseph Dembski from the Zoology Department of the University of Erlangen-Nürnberg. It is published in Zeitschrift für Zellforschung 89 (1968) 151-179 and is about the sperm of a freshwater snail. From the first name I find it probable that the author was an American. There are no other scientific publications by him that I can see. With Google I find that William J. Dembski worked as an instructor at the biology department of the University of Illinois in the 50's and early 60's. He was on leave without pay in 1957-58, and he taught at the Chicago undergraduate division of UI in the summer of 1962. At the end of the 1968 paper the author's mailing address is given as Biology Department, Chicago City College, Wilson Campus. The name of Dembski's mother, Ursula Dembski, may be of German origin.

apokryltaros said: So, Robert Byers, do you have any evidence or any Bible verses that justify your latest claims that "big brains mean nothing"? Or, should we assume that you're just Bullshitting for Jesus, again, and that you want us to swallow your bullshit right here on the spot, 'cause it's the nice thing to do?

Robert Byers said: ...the brain is not relevant to human intelligence.

In an interview with "The Best Schools", Dembski reveals a lot about his early years, the UI turning around and giving his father's job off to s young Harvard PhD, being harshly mistreated in a secular school system, etc.

"With my dad teaching for the City Colleges of Chicago, I saw first-hand the dark side of academic politics, the self-servingness of teacher unions, and the decay of learning standards. I also saw my dad’s love for teaching and research die. It gave me a bad taste for aspects of the academy and probably more than anything contributed to my unwillingness to sacrifice intellectual work to academic fashion (for which I’ve paid a cost)."

http://www.thebestschools.org/blog/2012/01/14/william-dembski-interview/

Turns out his father was also a WWII vet.

Robert Byers said: There is no evidence for this but a simple hunch.

Harold drew: ...the obvious conclusions from the effects of brain damage:

Dave Lovell said:

Harold drew: ...the obvious conclusions from the effects of brain damage:

Cue Robert claiming the Brain is just the conduit for a Soul into this material world. He will claim it is no more unreasonable for a Soul to have its capabilities temporarily constrained by a damaged brain than it is for a "Top Gun" to be grounded by a damaged plane or a racing driver to come last because of a faulty car. He will just make something up that is not even wrong.

I would like to inquire as to how the ‘intelligent soul’ operates its human machine.

Well, if emotions are just "thoughts", then dolphins, dogs and rats are "thinking" creatures. Because they clearly have emotions. I don't know why I bother, but still: Byers, buy yourself a good textbook, like Neurosciene: Exploring the brain. Not too advance really, but then you might get some basic understanding of what emotion, thinking, memory, speech, spatial ability, thought process etc actually is.

Also. Do update yourself on, for exampe, autism. Frontal lobe damage, schizophrenia, and SSRI are also interesting, as they can dramatically change the way people THINK and, in the case of at least the two first ones mentioned, their personalities. I do wonder how this fits into Byers fantasy world....

Father's words, my studies, and my prayers convinced me that I should devote my life to destroying Darwinism, just as many of my fellow Unificationists had already devoted their lives to destroying Marxism. When Father chose me (along with about a dozen other seminary graduates) to enter a Ph.D. program in 1978, I welcomed the opportunity to prepare myself for battle.

Sinjari said:

Paul Burnett said: "In my own case, I was raised in a home where my father had a D.Sc. in biology (from the University of Erlangen in Germany), taught evolutionary biology at the college level, and never questioned Darwinian orthodoxy during my years growing up." - W.A. Dembski, "Intelligent Design Coming Clean"

I began reading "Coming Clean" just slightly before reading that quote "Biologists Michael Behe, Jonathan Wells, and Dean Kenyon all started out adhering to Darwinism and felt no religious pull to renounce it. In Behe's case, as a Roman Catholic, there was simply no religious reason to question Darwin. In so many of our cases, what led us out of Darwinism was its inadequacies as a scientific theory as well as the prospect of making design scientifically tractable." - W. A. Dembski

How much energy is required to impart information? We have sensors that can detect quantum events and amplify them to the macroscopic level. What’s more, the energy in quantum events is proportional to frequency or inversely proportional to wavelength. And since there is no upper limit to the wavelength of, for instance, electromagnetic radiation, there is no lower limit to the energy required to impart information. In the limit, a designer could therefore impart information into the universe without inputting any energy at all.

Henry J said:

I would like to inquire as to how the ‘intelligent soul’ operates its human machine.

My guess on their "answer" would be either quantum uncertainty or virtual particles. Or something like that. (That is of course if they can get to a source that provides that terminology.)

Richard B. Hoppe said: In Wells' case, of course, Dembski is peddling pure horse shit. Wells wrote

Father's words, my studies, and my prayers convinced me that I should devote my life to destroying Darwinism, just as many of my fellow Unificationists had already devoted their lives to destroying Marxism. When Father chose me (along with about a dozen other seminary graduates) to enter a Ph.D. program in 1978, I welcomed the opportunity to prepare myself for battle.

Sinjari said:

Paul Burnett said: "In my own case, I was raised in a home where my father had a D.Sc. in biology (from the University of Erlangen in Germany), taught evolutionary biology at the college level, and never questioned Darwinian orthodoxy during my years growing up." - W.A. Dembski, "Intelligent Design Coming Clean"

I began reading "Coming Clean" just slightly before reading that quote "Biologists Michael Behe, Jonathan Wells, and Dean Kenyon all started out adhering to Darwinism and felt no religious pull to renounce it. In Behe's case, as a Roman Catholic, there was simply no religious reason to question Darwin. In so many of our cases, what led us out of Darwinism was its inadequacies as a scientific theory as well as the prospect of making design scientifically tractable." - W. A. Dembski

In the limit, a designer could therefore impart information into the universe without inputting any energy at all.

According to Dembski information can be transmitted via a zero-energy, infinite wavelength, zero-bandwidth channel... "since there is no upper limit to the wavelength of, for instance, electromagnetic radiation, there is no lower limit to the energy required to impart information.

I don’t agree there is any such thing as emotions. There is just thoughts in human beings. emotions are just thoughts even if more quick and unreflective. Our brain didn;t evolve and again our brain is unrelated to our thinking.

stevaroni said:

According to Dembski information can be transmitted via a zero-energy, infinite wavelength, zero-bandwidth channel... "since there is no upper limit to the wavelength of, for instance, electromagnetic radiation, there is no lower limit to the energy required to impart information.

True. Then again, any mathematician should realize that as the wavelength of a carrier increases, the bandwidth of the information you can impose on it decreases accordingly. So yes, you can use zero energy to transmit information. One bit of it. And it will take forever. Literally. The information capacity of a carrier operating at such low energies to be undetectable is tiny. Kind of less throughput than I expect might be needed by a soul needing to puppeteer a body.

harold said: But if the designer were transmitting information to the universe, that would mean something. That would be roughly the equivalent of what SETI looks for. What ID/creationism claims over and over again is that if something contains information, or some type of information, then it can't have occurred naturally and must have been created by a miracle. And that's a nonsensical claim, because essentially anything can contain information if there is an observer. Even the most random "white noise" we can imagine contains the information that there is no other signal.

https://me.yahoo.com/a/JxVN0eQFqtmgoY7wC1cZM44ET_iAanxHQmLgYgX_Zhn8#57cad said: Learning is a highly important part of mentation that even mice achieve--and Byers does not.

Robert Byers said: It seems to me brain size rules in how intelligent beings are.

W. H. Heydt said:

Robert Byers said: It seems to me brain size rules in how intelligent beings are.

There are some interesting ramifications to that claim... If (from some of the historical data presented in S. J. Gould's _The Mismeasure of Man_), that is true, then the most intelligent people on Earth are the aboriginal natives of Greenland. It would also follow that, by and large, men are more intelligent than women. For two sterling examples of that fallacy, I present to you Rear Admiral Grace Hopper, and the illustrious scientist Marie Curie. --W. H. Heydt Old Used Programmer

TomS said:

W. H. Heydt said:

Robert Byers said: It seems to me brain size rules in how intelligent beings are.

There are some interesting ramifications to that claim... If (from some of the historical data presented in S. J. Gould's _The Mismeasure of Man_), that is true, then the most intelligent people on Earth are the aboriginal natives of Greenland. It would also follow that, by and large, men are more intelligent than women. For two sterling examples of that fallacy, I present to you Rear Admiral Grace Hopper, and the illustrious scientist Marie Curie. --W. H. Heydt Old Used Programmer

Aren't Neanderthal brains larger than ours?

4) I’m a huge S. J. Gould fan, but he did let his biases impact on one thing he wrote about. Racist nineteenth century anthropologists didn’t measure skull volume as incorrectly has he claimed. There is no known serious association between gross skull volume and any defined aspect of “intelligence” to date, but within the rather narrow confines of normal adult human skull size, there is a lot of variation.

Flint said:

4) I’m a huge S. J. Gould fan, but he did let his biases impact on one thing he wrote about. Racist nineteenth century anthropologists didn’t measure skull volume as incorrectly has he claimed. There is no known serious association between gross skull volume and any defined aspect of “intelligence” to date, but within the rather narrow confines of normal adult human skull size, there is a lot of variation.

Of course, Gould wasn't saying anything about intelligence related to skull size. Gould was saying that at the time such a correlation was assumed, that the initial measurement methods allowed for considerable confirnation bias, and that sure enough, there was a lot of confirmation bias in their measurements. The researchers "knew" bigger brains were smarter, they "knew" blacks were dumber, so it was obvious that blacks must have smaller brains. Which is exactly what they found. Gould showed that with improved methodology (more reliable processes combined with double blind application), the confirmation bias went away. When they didn't know which skulls were black, they couldn't "discover" that, as expected, they were smaller. Gould's underlying point, that confirmation bias is insidious, ubiquitous, difficult to eliminate and easy to institutionalize, remains as cogent today as ever. His illustrations show that such bias is unconscious, and likely to creep into even the most meticulous researcher's efforts when an opening exists.

TomS said:

W. H. Heydt said:

Robert Byers said: It seems to me brain size rules in how intelligent beings are.

There are some interesting ramifications to that claim... If (from some of the historical data presented in S. J. Gould's _The Mismeasure of Man_), that is true, then the most intelligent people on Earth are the aboriginal natives of Greenland. It would also follow that, by and large, men are more intelligent than women. For two sterling examples of that fallacy, I present to you Rear Admiral Grace Hopper, and the illustrious scientist Marie Curie. --W. H. Heydt Old Used Programmer

Aren't Neanderthal brains larger than ours?

Robert Byers said: [emphasis added] It seems to me brain size rules in how intelligent beings are. ... If we have a soul, and its what goes to the afterlife thinking all the way, then the brain is not relevant to human intelligence. ... A creationist model must conclude this. Its just a presumption that the brain is the source of our thinking. I say its not and so brain size is irrelevant relative to intelligence.

My two cents on relationship between brain size and intelligence:

Size is one factor, but then efficiency of the interconnections is also a factor. Also the effectiveness of the particular pattern of connections is a third factor. Bird brains presumably have a much different pattern than that in mammal brains (consider parrots, for example). Mollusk brains would be yet another pattern (octopi have been known to analyze problems, e.g., getting a jar open).

Plus the minor (or major?) detail that individuals can be more intelligent than average in some subjects (or applications), and less so in others, so overall intelligence is not a linear quantity.

Henry

Henry J said: My two cents on relationship between brain size and intelligence: Size is one factor, but then efficiency of the interconnections is also a factor. Also the effectiveness of the particular pattern of connections is a third factor. Bird brains presumably have a much different pattern than that in mammal brains (consider parrots, for example). Mollusk brains would be yet another pattern (octopi have been known to analyze problems, e.g., getting a jar open). Plus the minor (or major?) detail that individuals can be more intelligent than average in some subjects (or applications), and less so in others, so overall intelligence is not a linear quantity. Henry

Henry J said: My two cents on relationship between brain size and intelligence: Size is one factor, but then efficiency of the interconnections is also a factor. Also the effectiveness of the particular pattern of connections is a third factor. Bird brains presumably have a much different pattern than that in mammal brains (consider parrots, for example). Mollusk brains would be yet another pattern (octopi have been known to analyze problems, e.g., getting a jar open). Plus the minor (or major?) detail that individuals can be more intelligent than average in some subjects (or applications), and less so in others, so overall intelligence is not a linear quantity. Henry

While not an expert on the subject I have read quite a bit about cephalopod intelligence and behavior and a fact we have to take into acount and it also deals with bias a little is this: the octopus nervous system has large ganglia on the tentacles that act as subprocessors to allow the main brain to control input to areas that need greater attention without totally shutting off or over riding the other inputs. We do the same thing with a central processing unit. So when you talk about octopus brain size are you including the subprocessors as part ot the total unit or are you falling prey to the central processor bias? Food for thought (especially when you eat octopus).

harold said:

Henry J said: My two cents on relationship between brain size and intelligence: Size is one factor, but then efficiency of the interconnections is also a factor. Also the effectiveness of the particular pattern of connections is a third factor. Bird brains presumably have a much different pattern than that in mammal brains (consider parrots, for example). Mollusk brains would be yet another pattern (octopi have been known to analyze problems, e.g., getting a jar open). Plus the minor (or major?) detail that individuals can be more intelligent than average in some subjects (or applications), and less so in others, so overall intelligence is not a linear quantity. Henry

I should have mentioned the apparent parallel evolution of features of what we call intelligence in cephalopods. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cephalopod#Nervous_system_and_behaviour Of particular interest, invertebrates don't have extensive myelination; which all vertebrates do. Axons and dendrites can reasonably be modeled as wires conducting current for some types of analysis. Myelin is an extremely efficient insulator. It allows axons with small diameter to have high conduction velocity. Although some invertebrates do have some limited myelin like features, one "parallel evolutionary strategy" that compensates for lack of insulation is just to have key axons with very wide diameters. And this was incredibly important for human understanding of basic neurobiology, because we could stick electrodes directly into very large axons. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Squid_giant_axon

Mary H said: While not an expert on the subject I have read quite a bit about cephalopod intelligence and behavior and a fact we have to take into acount and it also deals with bias a little is this: the octopus nervous system has large ganglia on the tentacles that act as subprocessors to allow the main brain to control input to areas that need greater attention without totally shutting off or over riding the other inputs. We do the same thing with a central processing unit. So when you talk about octopus brain size are you including the subprocessors as part ot the total unit or are you falling prey to the central processor bias? Food for thought (especially when you eat octopus).

DS said:

harold said:

Henry J said: My two cents on relationship between brain size and intelligence: Size is one factor, but then efficiency of the interconnections is also a factor. Also the effectiveness of the particular pattern of connections is a third factor. Bird brains presumably have a much different pattern than that in mammal brains (consider parrots, for example). Mollusk brains would be yet another pattern (octopi have been known to analyze problems, e.g., getting a jar open). Plus the minor (or major?) detail that individuals can be more intelligent than average in some subjects (or applications), and less so in others, so overall intelligence is not a linear quantity. Henry

I should have mentioned the apparent parallel evolution of features of what we call intelligence in cephalopods. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cephalopod#Nervous_system_and_behaviour Of particular interest, invertebrates don't have extensive myelination; which all vertebrates do. Axons and dendrites can reasonably be modeled as wires conducting current for some types of analysis. Myelin is an extremely efficient insulator. It allows axons with small diameter to have high conduction velocity. Although some invertebrates do have some limited myelin like features, one "parallel evolutionary strategy" that compensates for lack of insulation is just to have key axons with very wide diameters. And this was incredibly important for human understanding of basic neurobiology, because we could stick electrodes directly into very large axons. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Squid_giant_axon

Are you saying that invertebrates are unintelligently designed? Imagine that.

harold said:

DS said:

harold said:

Henry J said: My two cents on relationship between brain size and intelligence: Size is one factor, but then efficiency of the interconnections is also a factor. Also the effectiveness of the particular pattern of connections is a third factor. Bird brains presumably have a much different pattern than that in mammal brains (consider parrots, for example). Mollusk brains would be yet another pattern (octopi have been known to analyze problems, e.g., getting a jar open). Plus the minor (or major?) detail that individuals can be more intelligent than average in some subjects (or applications), and less so in others, so overall intelligence is not a linear quantity. Henry

I should have mentioned the apparent parallel evolution of features of what we call intelligence in cephalopods. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cephalopod#Nervous_system_and_behaviour Of particular interest, invertebrates don't have extensive myelination; which all vertebrates do. Axons and dendrites can reasonably be modeled as wires conducting current for some types of analysis. Myelin is an extremely efficient insulator. It allows axons with small diameter to have high conduction velocity. Although some invertebrates do have some limited myelin like features, one "parallel evolutionary strategy" that compensates for lack of insulation is just to have key axons with very wide diameters. And this was incredibly important for human understanding of basic neurobiology, because we could stick electrodes directly into very large axons. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Squid_giant_axon

Are you saying that invertebrates are unintelligently designed? Imagine that.

Weird, isn't it? Sometimes it's "common design", otherwise "parallel design" of analogous functions via quite different mechanisms. I think the evolution of what we routinely refer to as voluntary behavior, especially its apparent parallel evolution in lineages that probably don't have a common ancestor since at best the early Cambrian, has some other, more interesting philosophical implications as well. I couldn't care less whether I have "free will", since I have no choice but to behave as if I do (not a paradox, since I also know that I don't have unlimited free will). However, it is hard to square hard core determinism (popular among some scientists) with the evolution of nervous systems that essentially choose between multiple possible complex, flexible behaviors. Why would such nervous systems have been selected for, if the choices themselves are actually rigidly pre-determined?

Robert Byers said:

terenzioiltroll said:

Robert Byers said: Biblical creationism(yec) would undercut the whole idea of the brain being the place of human intelligence. However common to think so and however common to presume the brain machine and its size is relative to human status as the most intelligent being it still is all based on little actual evidence.

Given that the size-intelligence correlation is sooo 19th century, the rest of the post still makes little sense. We might as well say something on the lines of: "The hart is simply a middle man from our true pumping being to our body. While our soul pumpiness is not affected by nature, only details are affected etc. etc." Why nobody ever called for the need of an abstract idea of an hydraulic pump for the hart to work, yet an ethereal biological computer is required for a brain to work (but only for a human brain, mind you: not a dolphin brain or an elephant brain)? If souls exist and our conscience will perdure after death, as I sincerely hope, is a matter that has nothing at all to do with the inner workings of a brain.

It seems to me brain size rules in how intelligent beings are. Science fiction picks up on this and always brain size in hominids is factor one in defining how smart they were. More then this also.

However, it is hard to square hard core determinism (popular among some scientists) with the evolution of nervous systems that essentially choose between multiple possible complex, flexible behaviors. Why would such nervous systems have been selected for, if the choices themselves are actually rigidly pre-determined?

Sinjari said:

Dave Lovell said:

Harold drew: ...the obvious conclusions from the effects of brain damage:

Cue Robert claiming the Brain is just the conduit for a Soul into this material world. He will claim it is no more unreasonable for a Soul to have its capabilities temporarily constrained by a damaged brain than it is for a "Top Gun" to be grounded by a damaged plane or a racing driver to come last because of a faulty car. He will just make something up that is not even wrong.

A race car driver operates his/her machine by grasping the wheel with his hands and applying pressure to the pedals with his feet. I would like to inquire as to how the 'intelligent soul' operates its human machine. Is contact made between the soul and the brain? If so, where, and how? Can it be measured? And because everyone has different mental capacities, does that mean some souls are 'dumber' than others? Byers?

Niltava said: Well, if emotions are just "thoughts", then dolphins, dogs and rats are "thinking" creatures. Because they clearly have emotions. I don't know why I bother, but still: Byers, buy yourself a good textbook, like Neurosciene: Exploring the brain. Not too advance really, but then you might get some basic understanding of what emotion, thinking, memory, speech, spatial ability, thought process etc actually is. Also. Do update yourself on, for exampe, autism. Frontal lobe damage, schizophrenia, and SSRI are also interesting, as they can dramatically change the way people THINK and, in the case of at least the two first ones mentioned, their personalities. I do wonder how this fits into Byers fantasy world....

Rolf said:

I don’t agree there is any such thing as emotions. There is just thoughts in human beings. emotions are just thoughts even if more quick and unreflective. Our brain didn;t evolve and again our brain is unrelated to our thinking.

Good grief. Emotions are quick and non-reflective. Tell that to a mother at the funeral of her children.

Scott F said:

Robert Byers said: [emphasis added] It seems to me brain size rules in how intelligent beings are. ... If we have a soul, and its what goes to the afterlife thinking all the way, then the brain is not relevant to human intelligence. ... A creationist model must conclude this. Its just a presumption that the brain is the source of our thinking. I say its not and so brain size is irrelevant relative to intelligence.

Dear Robert. You have managed to contradict yourself in the same post. So, which is it? Does "brain size rule[] in how intelligent beings are."? Or, is "brain size ... irrelevant relative to intelligence"? You seem to hold totally opposite opinions on the subject at the same time, yet your head hasn't exploded. More importantly, why should we believe one unsupported vague statement from you over another unsupported vague statement from you?

Robert Byers said:

Sinjari said:

Dave Lovell said:

Harold drew: ...the obvious conclusions from the effects of brain damage:

Cue Robert claiming the Brain is just the conduit for a Soul into this material world. He will claim it is no more unreasonable for a Soul to have its capabilities temporarily constrained by a damaged brain than it is for a "Top Gun" to be grounded by a damaged plane or a racing driver to come last because of a faulty car. He will just make something up that is not even wrong.

A race car driver operates his/her machine by grasping the wheel with his hands and applying pressure to the pedals with his feet. I would like to inquire as to how the 'intelligent soul' operates its human machine. Is contact made between the soul and the brain? If so, where, and how? Can it be measured? And because everyone has different mental capacities, does that mean some souls are 'dumber' than others? Byers?

The soul is meshed to our physical body so profoundly that indeed the body, the brain, affects and is affected by the thoughts of our soul. I recently saw Spider man three. In it there is a meshing of some being to spiderman. this affecting his thoughts. In like image there is no reason to see the brain as anything other then a complex middleman. Very tight but still segregated. so we can have breakdown of the physical part of the body/brain but no breakdown of the soul/thinking being we are. Medical problems or alcohol can only block flow of thought but not affect it at its origins. our thinking, like God, is always perfect and unlike animals.

and said: Our intelligence is from being made in the image of god. We think like him

More mindless blubbering by the king of late night drive by. If you can't ban him, ignore him. He is worthless. Perhaps if he had actually read the articles someone might be interested in his opinions. At least he demonstrates that his thesis - the brain has nothing to do with intelligence - is true in his case. people don't form a spiritual one.

Robert Byers said: I recently saw Spider man three. In it there is a meshing of some being to spiderman. this affecting his thoughts.

Robert Byers said: We think like God and not like dumb animals. Animals only think from a natural impulse. people from a spiritual one.

Dave Lovell said: So if a brain injury turns a previously loving and caring man seemingly destined for canonisation into a sadistic sociopath who makes a point of breaking every commandment before breakfast, is his innocent soul saved? If so, it seems blaming the inadequacies of the brain one is saddled with is a universal cop out for any level of sinning.

Robert Byers said: I recently saw Spider man three...[snip]

bbennett1968 said:

Robert Byers said: I recently saw Spider man three...[snip]

I'll give $50,000 to anyone who can come up with a thought more inane than this. I'm only making the bet because everyone [except Robert Byers] can see that the challenge is impossible.

Robert Byers said:

Scott F said:

Robert Byers said: [emphasis added] It seems to me brain size rules in how intelligent beings are. ... If we have a soul, and its what goes to the afterlife thinking all the way, then the brain is not relevant to human intelligence. ... A creationist model must conclude this. Its just a presumption that the brain is the source of our thinking. I say its not and so brain size is irrelevant relative to intelligence.

Dear Robert. You have managed to contradict yourself in the same post. So, which is it? Does "brain size rule[] in how intelligent beings are."? Or, is "brain size ... irrelevant relative to intelligence"? You seem to hold totally opposite opinions on the subject at the same time, yet your head hasn't exploded. More importantly, why should we believe one unsupported vague statement from you over another unsupported vague statement from you?

I miswrote. I mean the world out there says intelligence is relative to brain size. I'm saying our brain is unrelated to intelligence. Our intelligence is from being made in the image of god. We think like him . Our brain is just a middleman of our thinking and intimate connection to our bodies. so close it causes problems. In explaining our thinking is always perfect then I explain problems as coming from mechanical breakdown in memory. I think this accounts for most problems.

bbennett1968 said:

Robert Byers said: I recently saw Spider man three...[snip]

I'll give $50,000 to anyone who can come up with a thought more inane than this. I'm only making the bet because everyone [except Robert Byers] can see that the challenge is impossible.

Marilyn said:

bbennett1968 said:

Robert Byers said: I recently saw Spider man three...[snip]

I'll give $50,000 to anyone who can come up with a thought more inane than this. I'm only making the bet because everyone [except Robert Byers] can see that the challenge is impossible.

I have to have a go at this. I've just seen Prometheus and learnt a lot about how species can be related.

Marilyn said:

bbennett1968 said:

Robert Byers said: I recently saw Spider man three...[snip]

I'll give $50,000 to anyone who can come up with a thought more inane than this. I'm only making the bet because everyone [except Robert Byers] can see that the challenge is impossible.

I have to have a go at this. I've just seen Prometheus and learnt a lot about how species can be related.

ksplawn said:

bbennett1968 said:

Robert Byers said: I recently saw Spider man three...[snip]

I'll give $50,000 to anyone who can come up with a thought more inane than this. I'm only making the bet because everyone [except Robert Byers] can see that the challenge is impossible.

According to visionary prophet Ed Wood, reanimation of the body by any agency other than Christ causes the loss of our God-given free will and the urge to murder. Even the "more advanced" secular aliens (with their names taken from pagan gods) are unable to perform a perfect resurrection. This is obviously because the revived bodies are merely operated by the use of inferior computers via the nearly useless brains, instead of being driven by a true soul. What more proof do you need? :)

bbennett1968 said:

Marilyn said:

bbennett1968 said:

Robert Byers said: I recently saw Spider man three...[snip]

I'll give $50,000 to anyone who can come up with a thought more inane than this. I'm only making the bet because everyone [except Robert Byers] can see that the challenge is impossible.

I have to have a go at this. I've just seen Prometheus and learnt a lot about how species can be related.

I watched the trailer; can I be your research assistant? I've also seen Alien at least 15 times if that helps.

DS said:

Marilyn said:

bbennett1968 said:

Robert Byers said: I recently saw Spider man three...[snip]

I'll give $50,000 to anyone who can come up with a thought more inane than this. I'm only making the bet because everyone [except Robert Byers] can see that the challenge is impossible.

I have to have a go at this. I've just seen Prometheus and learnt a lot about how species can be related.

I learnt from Star Trek that a retrovirus reverses the effects of a regular virus.

DS said:

Marilyn said:

bbennett1968 said:

Robert Byers said: I recently saw Spider man three...[snip]

I'll give $50,000 to anyone who can come up with a thought more inane than this. I'm only making the bet because everyone [except Robert Byers] can see that the challenge is impossible.

I have to have a go at this. I've just seen Prometheus and learnt a lot about how species can be related.

I learnt from Star Trek that a retrovirus reverses the effects of a regular virus.

bigdakine said:

DS said:

Marilyn said:

bbennett1968 said:

Robert Byers said: I recently saw Spider man three...[snip]

I'll give $50,000 to anyone who can come up with a thought more inane than this. I'm only making the bet because everyone [except Robert Byers] can see that the challenge is impossible.

I have to have a go at this. I've just seen Prometheus and learnt a lot about how species can be related.

I learnt from Star Trek that a retrovirus reverses the effects of a regular virus.

I thought that was a dude who was a fixture at disco night.

ksplawn said: According to visionary prophet Ed Wood,...

The evolution of human cognition. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B http://rstb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/367/1599.toc

Richard B. Hoppe said:

ksplawn said: According to visionary prophet Ed Wood,...

MAN OLDER THAN COAL!!!eleventyone!!!

Richard B. Hoppe said:

ksplawn said: According to visionary prophet Ed Wood,...

MAN OLDER THAN COAL!!!eleventyone!!!