You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: The Ancient Zodiac, and Prehistoric Understanding of Precession
if their brain sizes were relevant to intelligence
This is always ridiculous for me by looking at the world and understanding the intelligence of insects, let alone birds that is displayed which demolishes any and all notions of such correlation between size and intelligence and I'm reminded of what someone said about the brain being merely a receiver, not a producer of intelligence.
It is not widely known, but new research has recently revealed that primates, which we are, are unique among vertebrates in how brain size affects intelligence. In most vertebrates, large bodied creatures have large brains with large neurons. Whales have huge neurons.
In primates, neurons are constricted in size, and large primate brains have more neurons than small primate brains. It is quite fascinating to research recent genetic changes that have occurred in H. sapiens since our most recent common ancestors with other primates, and other human species, like Neanderthals.
Intelligence, consciousness, and brains remain very poorly understood, despite that we have learned incredible amounts recently. However, it is clear that in primates the more of a gene called DUF1220 a species has, the more intelligent it seems to be. H. sapiens has a lot more DUF1220 than Gorillas, for example. Why this is so, what DUF1220 does differently in primates, and much else, remains utterly unknown.
I am presently of the understanding that a population of humans with larger brains are a smarter population of humans. Research may show this is not true, and it's not clear because that research remains to be done.
Thanks!
This is still predicated on the theory that neurons function as 'switches'/ transistors, so that their density is correlated to intelligence, even though that posits nature to be working with the equivalent of 1970's technology at best, all the while it's all predicated on the emergence theory, yet if consciousness is non local as has been demonstrated it makes no sense to look at the brain as the source of either consciousness or intelligence.
While the various theories you discuss may or may not be correct, the more neurons a species generally possesses, the more intelligent it seems to be.
Folks make claims of all sorts of things, such as that consciousness is nonlocal. I note my experience of my consciousness is highly local, and I am not convinced of it's nonlocality. As you correctly note however, there is a great deal we do not know about brains, intelligence, and consciousness.
You might even be right that the three are not related. I am not convinced, and you may not be aware of voluminous information indicating they are intimately linked, or may discount it for reasons known only to you. There are certainly other factors, such as gut biomes, that contribute to intelligence, but it's unreasonable to dismiss neurology as a potential source of understanding intelligence and consciousness better, IMHO.
Go ahead and investigate instead of dismissing it or incorrectly assuming that consciousness is local.
This caveat does not divorce consciousness from our brains, but indicates that our consciousness is not like a barnacle is to a rock and permanently affixed to our brains. Given that caveat my experience of my consciousness being local would not be illusory or false, but perhaps not the sole possibility of experience I might be able to have regarding my locality. Please note that I did not state I knew my consciousness is local, but said:
Which is not assuming anything at all.
I do not dismiss or arrogantly assume to the best of my abilities, anything. I do my very best to understand my experiences and consider them rationally. I did not dismiss your comment, but noted I found my experience relevant to the matter, and my experience was strongly supportive of locality.
Should I have more varied experiences, I am confident I will be able to realize any variance in locality that results. While I have had some relatively mystifying experiences, I remain confident that I do not have the ability to properly and reasonably determine the nature of consciousness definitively. On that I have clarity. I do have to assume that my experience of locality, as well as the general sense of others that their persons are localized in their bodies, is indicative of consciousness generally being localized, and much neurological research into folks that have had injuries to their brains reveals that such injuries changed the nature of their consciousness, which strongly indicates that brains have a significant role in consciousness.
None of that denies that consciousness may at times challenge my understanding of what locality means, or the very underlying nature of reality. If our existence is some kind of simulation, as some physicists claim to have proved mathematically, then exactly what does locality even mean? I dunno.
If you definitively grasp such reality, please let me know.
Thanks!
The caveat says that consciousness as an emergent property of the brain is false since for consciousness to be localized in the brain it cannot exist outside or other than in it.
Why not? The proposition is simple: the brain generated consciousness so consciousness is located in the brain. If that is false then obviously the experience you have is illusionary, either way, consciousness is generated and therefore dependant on the brain or is not, there's no in between.
It doesn't matter, you can assume because of your experience, as you can assume based on what you think you know, you might call it experience or knowledge, it's based in assumption because the outlines that exists aren't investigated or tested thoroughly.
What you want to know is what experiences I've had that demonstrated such non-locality but what if my sharing my personal experiences will only serve to undermine your own experiences regarding consciousness and it's qualities? To waver on the side of caution, what is your experience of the moon? Is it any more or less personal than your experience of "your brain"?
[citation needed] IOW, I don't agree with that assumption. There are various possibilities between the barnacle consciousness that is permanently affixed to the brain, and consciousness that can just flit about as it pleases. Claiming that the experiences reported by some folks is definitive proof of the latter state is not superable IMHO. That simply ignores that locality seems to be the common experience of conscious folks - not just me.
It also ignores that brain injuries alter consciousness. If I accept on face value the reports of folks claiming out of body experiences, which I would be gullible and foolish to do, of anyone claiming anything, that does not mean brains have naught to do with consciousness, just that brains may not be to consciousness like rocks are to barnacles.
As I pointed out above, that statement simply ignores that many other possibilities exist, and we just don't know enough about these matters to make such sweeping statements with confidence. At least, I don't.
I disagree. My experience is all I have. I don't experience what you do. I experience, and that is the basis for understanding I have, and that's all I have. I experience reading your comments. That is all I know about them. I don't know how you smell, what you ate, or innumerable other things you personally have experienced and therefore base your understanding on. Science is the process of disproving things that other folks can experience for themselves, and thus enable a shared understanding of a common truth.
The locality of our experience is a fundamental and necessary aspect of knowing facts.
No. What I said involved more than just reporting your experiences should you have out of body experiences. As I have stated, I cannot experience what you do. You cannot experience what I do. My telling you what I have experienced in this discussion has not convinced you I know definitively what consciousness is. In fact, you have argued that my experiences simply spawn insuperable assumptions.
Definitive understanding implies that your understanding of your experiences is able to be demonstrated to me so that I can understand the underlying reality you state is behind them. That is a far higher bar than just telling stories about your dreams. It involves reproducible experiments that I can do myself that prove to me your interpretation is factually correct.
If your experiences contradict my own, then one of us at least does not well understand what is really going on, and likely both of us. Because, it is not possible that our experiences contradict each the other, but that our intepretations and understanding of our experiences do. That's a matter of understanding and comprehension, not raw perception and experience.
There's a difference, and it's what matters.