joseph1013:
WAS THE HUMAN BRAIN GOD-DESIGNED?

Primates have large brains. Lemurs, baboons, orangutans, chimpanzees, humans and a handful of other species, are primates and their average brain size is double that of other mammals (as a ratio of body-size). The human brain is three times the average size of mammal brains.

The first signs of an enlarging brain were seen in a distant ancestor, Orrorin tugenensis, some 6 million years ago. Orrorin tugenensis was also the first known hominid to develop the skeletal markers for upright walking (changes affecting the head, spine, pelvis, femur, knees, and feet).

A remarkable growth in brain size occurred during the lifetime of Homo erectus, from 1.8 million to 700,000 years ago. During a period of just over a million years, brain size doubled to around 1,000 cubic centimeters. Many scientists regard erectus as the grandfather of our species.

Brain size reached approximately 1,200-1,300 cubic centimeters with the first anatomically modern humans some 230,000 years ago. Since then there have been only very small changes in brain size--both decreases and increases at different times.

But here is the strange thing. Early human brains evolved for communication, social interaction, planning, and problem-solving in a primitive environment in which tools were made of flakes of stone, weapons were sharpened sticks, and in which legs were the only means of transportation. Yet, today, those same brains (or very nearly the same) are used for complex mathematics, to invent machines that can fly to the sun, to pilot machines faster than the speed of sound, to pick apart the atoms our universe is made of, and much more.

How could a brain that evolved to hunt mammoths and fend off attacks from wild animals and neighbouring tribes solve immensely complex problems in Lagrangian mechanics? Does this suggest the human brain did not evolve but was designed and the designer was smart enough to know the kind of world we would have to cope with in a few hundred thousand years?

No, I think there is a much simpler explanation for this. I suggest there are two reasons our mental capabilities have developed hugely whilst our brains are largely unchanged.

The first reason relates to the nature of logic. In it's most basic form, logic is defined by three laws. They are the law of identity, the law of the excluded middle, and the law of non-contradiction. Many people can intuit these laws without learning them formally. Modern formal logic is much more complex with many conventions, symbols, and axioms but you can get a very long way with the three basic laws.

We can liken this to computer design. Ultimately, computers are a huge collection of very simple logic circuits called "gates". These gates are known as the AND gate, the OR gate and the exclusive-OR gate. Each of these gates has just two inputs and one output--very simple but put enough of them together in the right way and you can build a super-computer.

Using the simple laws of logic, you can solve problems, optimise solutions and plan the future. These laws work for finding ways to safely trap a mammoth, and for determining the fundamental structure of matter.

The second reason is our ability to learn and to pass learning to others. If you took the three logic gates and tried to assemble a few million of them to form a super-computer, it would take billions of years. But if someone had already shown you how to use them to add two numbers together, you may be able to work out how to make them multiply two numbers. Building on the successes of others is MUCH easier than starting from scratch. In a few generations, you may have computers that can play games. Before too long you would have your super-computer.

It is the accumulation of learning across generations that accelerates our capabilities. That started by word-of-mouth. The advent of writing dramatically increased our ability to accumulate learning--we no longer had to rely on people to understand and remember all previous knowledge--writing allowed us to store knowledge outside of the human brain.

The introduction of computers gave us all the advantages of writing but made the capture and retrieval of knowledge much faster and computers could be used to increase the speed of calculations dramatically. The Internet has given us another huge boost, especially with its unparalleled ability to distribute knowledge around the world in seconds.

Starting from simple logic, accumulating knowledge across generations and using that knowledge to build increasingly powerful tools to augment the human brain has enabled us to transcend our simple origins.

We have the same brain but we have found better ways to use it.

gensteejay:

Intelligent piece.

As regards your question at the beginning of this post, I feel the way atheists regard God is flawed, though in a much lesser degree than religionists.

When one understands that God is existence itself (not an entity in isolation controlling everything and everyone), that It is the all in all, and that religion is purely man-made, then many issues concerning God will bring less arguments.

Was the human brain God-designed? No, it's a tiny part of God, subject to change and evolution, just like everything else in existence is.

gensteejay:

Intelligent piece.

As regards your question at the beginning of this post, I feel the way atheists regard God is flawed, though in a much lesser degree than religionists.

When one understands that God is existence itself (not an entity in isolation controlling everything and everyone), that It is the all in all, and that religion is purely man-made, then many issues concerning God will bring less arguments.

Was the human brain God-designed? No, it's a tiny part of God, subject to change and evolution, just like everything else in existence is.

LordReed2nd:


What would be the point of acknowledging the entire existence as God?

gensteejay:

Your question seems to border on nihilism. Why would one deny the entire existence simply because the term, God, has been abused and bastardized by religions?

It's more reasonable and logical to acknowledge Infinite Intelligence or Universal Consciousness than to deny it.

There comes a time in one's life when logic will not be enough to handle some life's issues.

There's more to life than meets the eye, and life is far more mysterious and deeper than religion or atheism paints it.

The current scientific understanding of a number of key things is low.

Science has still not been to explain the following in detail:
What's the fate of humanity as a race: What is our origin and what is our ultimate destination?
What's consciousness?
Where do dead people go?
What's origin and evolution of the universe?
How do thoughts form in the human brain?

These are big questions, and I feel answering them will dramatically change how we see life and God (existence/first cause).

joseph1013:


How do you know the bolded?

I could say the human brain is not designed by God but it's a large part of God subject to evolution.

Evidence is always the trump card. Where's yours?

LordReed2nd:


It is not nihilistic to ask what is the point of something.

Also you have not answered the question.

gensteejay:

I won't be able to offer you the kind of answer (or evidence) you seek.

It's like you asking me to show you subatomic particles exist by looking at them.

That's not possible, and the fact that we can't see these extremely tiny particles does not mean they don't exist.

In the same vein, the fact that the human brain cannot grasp all that's in existence (to be a single Universal Consciousness or God) doesn't mean the idea is bogus.

LordReed2nd:


Why should I care about something that can not be articulated into something intelligible? You say I should acknowledge all of existence as god but can't give a reason why?

gensteejay:

I think you're getting me wrong. I'm not asking you to acknowledge anything. I merely stated my opinion on a post made by the OP.

I don't do preaching, and it's none of my business if an adult chooses to be a nihilist or an atheist.

When an issue is being discussed on a public forum like Nl, I could state my opinion on the subject matter but that doesn't mean I seek to convert any part of the audience to embrace my own beliefs.

My beliefs are personal to me.

LordReed2nd:


Well then, it is not unreasonable to not acknowledge such a god since no reason can be provided for its existence.

gensteejay:

That's OK from your perspective.

People that approach life's issues with an open mind would see enough reasons in the posts I made above.

I don't have the luxury of time for further back-and-forth.