One for the Creationists

[Devils Advocaat]

is the human brain the most complex thing known to exist?

[wiki trix]

On Oct 27, 10:11�pm, Devils Advocaat <mankygo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> is the human brain the most complex thing known to exist?

What does complex mean? By my definition, the brain is not random
enough or large enough for that title. A gas giant like Jupiter would
be much more complex, and the universe is the most complex thing known
to exist. The earth's climate is more complex. Earth's ecosystem would
also be more complex, at least by my definition. I think that someone
once told me that whale brains are larger and more complex than ours,
but I do not know much about that.

[Devils Advocaat]

Good points.

However, I asked my question for one simple reason.

Creationists make the claim upon which my question is based.

So I want to know if they can defend their claim.

[Glenn]

"Devils Advocaat" <manky...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:2c5ae4a7-dc72-445d...@l19g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...

Can you defend the claim that it isn't?
Could you refute a claim that it is?

Many have made this claim, you can't pin this on creationists, even though some
may make it. It isn't "their" claim.

And complexity is a loaded word, perhaps even a subjective term to an argument
of what is "most" complex. For starters though, there is structural and
functional complexity. I fail to see any good points in Trix's comments.

[Ron O]

On Oct 28, 12:11 am, Devils Advocaat <mankygo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> is the human brain the most complex thing known to exist?

I don't know about that. The Universe seems to be pretty darn
complex, unless it doesn't really exist.

Ron Okimoto

[Glenn]

"Ron O" <roki...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:b15cf272-4286-4249...@l12g2000vby.googlegroups.com...

Is it conscious of its existence? Can it make a pickle an liver sandwich on rye?

[Devils Advocaat]

How do I know you exist? :P

[Devils Advocaat]

On Oct 28, 12:02�pm, "Glenn" <glennshel...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> "Ron O" <rokim...@cox.net> wrote in message

>
> news:b15cf272-4286-4249...@l12g2000vby.googlegroups.com...> On Oct 28, 12:11 am, Devils Advocaat <mankygo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > is the human brain the most complex thing known to exist?
>
> > I don't know about that. �The Universe seems to be pretty darn
> > complex, unless it doesn't really exist.
>
> Is it conscious of its existence?

I think.

I think I am.

Therefore I am.

I think

> Can it make a pickle an liver sandwich on rye?

Or can it be extrapolated from a small piece of fairy cake?

[Ron O]

On Oct 28, 6:02 am, "Glenn" <glennshel...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> "Ron O" <rokim...@cox.net> wrote in message

Since a pickle and liver sandwitch on rye has been produced, the
universe can obviously do that, unless you want to claim that such a
sandwitch never existed. The universe is a very complex thing. Since
you are part of the universe it is conscious of its existence unless
you claim that you are not conscious.

Ron Okimoto

[Devils Advocaat]

On Oct 28, 11:40�am, "Glenn" <glennshel...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> "Devils Advocaat" <mankygo...@gmail.com> wrote in message

>
> news:2c5ae4a7-dc72-445d...@l19g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Oct 28, 9:36 am, wiki trix <wikit...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Oct 27, 10:11 pm, Devils Advocaat <mankygo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > is the human brain the most complex thing known to exist?
>
> > > What does complex mean? By my definition, the brain is not random
> > > enough or large enough for that title. A gas giant like Jupiter would
> > > be much more complex, and the universe is the most complex thing known
> > > to exist. The earth's climate is more complex. Earth's ecosystem would
> > > also be more complex, at least by my definition. I think that someone
> > > once told me that whale brains are larger and more complex than ours,
> > > but I do not know much about that.
>
> > Good points.
>
> > However, I asked my question for one simple reason.
>
> > Creationists make the claim upon which my question is based.
>
> > So I want to know if they can defend their claim.
>
> Can you defend the claim that it isn't?
> Could you refute a claim that it is?

It would be foolish arrogance to presume that the human brain is the
most complex thing in existence, at least in my opinion, after all we
don't know everything about everything yet, do we?

>
> Many have made this claim, you can't pin this on creationists, even though some
> may make it. It isn't "their" claim.

Many Creationists do make this claim, I was just wondering if they
have any valid arguments to back it up with.

>
> And complexity is a loaded word, perhaps even a subjective term to an argument
> of what is "most" complex. For starters though, there is structural and
> functional complexity.

This is the very problem with arguments about complexity, especially
when posed by Creationists, because they always tend to use words in
their daily context rather than their scientific ones.

> I fail to see any good points in Trix's comments.

His/her comments show that most people don't agree on a single
definition of the word "complex".

[Frank J]

(Sorry, Ron, I can't resist)

Who else would use rube, perp, bait-and-switch and scam in the same
sentence?

Oh wait, I think I did too once. Never mind. :-)

[Jerry Freedman]

On Oct 28, 1:11 am, Devils Advocaat <mankygo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> is the human brain the most complex thing known to exist?

How do you measure complexity. To compare don't you need a metric?

[Devils Advocaat]

On Oct 28, 3:22 pm, Jerry Freedman <jerry.freedman...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> On Oct 28, 1:11 am, Devils Advocaat <mankygo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > is the human brain the most complex thing known to exist?
>
> How do you measure complexity. To compare don't you need a metric?

This claim about the human brain being the most complex thing known to
exist has been used by Creationists (among others), that is why I am
asking them to confirm it as being so, after all the people who make
such claims are the ones who should be defending it.

[wiki trix]

On Oct 28, 4:02 am, "Glenn" <glennshel...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> "Ron O" <rokim...@cox.net> wrote in message

Is it conscious of its existence? That is hard to answer...How would
you define "conscious of its existence"? How would you detect that?

Can it make a pickle and liver sandwich on rye? That is easy to
answer... The observed answer is yes. Duh.

Is a pickle and liver sandwich on rye conscious of its existence? Are
you?

[jillery]

On Fri, 28 Oct 2011 03:40:21 -0700, "Glenn"
<glenns...@invalid.invalid> wrote:

>
>"Devils Advocaat" <manky...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>news:2c5ae4a7-dc72-445d...@l19g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
>> On Oct 28, 9:36 am, wiki trix <wikit...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > On Oct 27, 10:11 pm, Devils Advocaat <mankygo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> > > is the human brain the most complex thing known to exist?
>> >
>> > What does complex mean? By my definition, the brain is not random
>> > enough or large enough for that title. A gas giant like Jupiter would
>> > be much more complex, and the universe is the most complex thing known
>> > to exist. The earth's climate is more complex. Earth's ecosystem would
>> > also be more complex, at least by my definition. I think that someone
>> > once told me that whale brains are larger and more complex than ours,
>> > but I do not know much about that.
>>
>> Good points.
>>
>> However, I asked my question for one simple reason.
>>
>> Creationists make the claim upon which my question is based.
>>
>> So I want to know if they can defend their claim.
>>
>Can you defend the claim that it isn't?
>Could you refute a claim that it is?

Can you eat a pickle while whistling "Dixie"?

[Glenn]

"wiki trix" <wiki...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:4514ba64-47dc-480e...@d37g2000prg.googlegroups.com...

Yes, but I'm wondering about you. First of all, the question concerns what is
known to exist, and the universe is not known to have a consciouness. Second,
although I'm not surprised, is your extraordinary claim that the universe can
make a sandwich. You couldn't when you were a baby, so what did the universe do
that caused you to become more complex in terms of the ability to make a
sandwich? Oh, sets and all, by virtue of a definition of universe, you say?
Well, if the universe can make a sandwich, it surely is conscious of its
existence, right? The universe is human!

[Glenn]

"jillery" <69jp...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:gtula7pqg33roq9e3...@4ax.com...

> On Fri, 28 Oct 2011 03:40:21 -0700, "Glenn"
> <glenns...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Devils Advocaat" <manky...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> >news:2c5ae4a7-dc72-445d...@l19g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
> >> On Oct 28, 9:36 am, wiki trix <wikit...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> > On Oct 27, 10:11 pm, Devils Advocaat <mankygo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >
> >> > > is the human brain the most complex thing known to exist?
> >> >
> >> > What does complex mean? By my definition, the brain is not random
> >> > enough or large enough for that title. A gas giant like Jupiter would
> >> > be much more complex, and the universe is the most complex thing known
> >> > to exist. The earth's climate is more complex. Earth's ecosystem would
> >> > also be more complex, at least by my definition. I think that someone
> >> > once told me that whale brains are larger and more complex than ours,
> >> > but I do not know much about that.
> >>
> >> Good points.
> >>
> >> However, I asked my question for one simple reason.
> >>
> >> Creationists make the claim upon which my question is based.
> >>
> >> So I want to know if they can defend their claim.
> >>
> >Can you defend the claim that it isn't?
> >Could you refute a claim that it is?
>
>
> Can you eat a pickle while whistling "Dixie"?
>

I don't talk or whistle while I am eating. Why do you ask?

[J. J. Lodder]

Devils Advocaat <manky...@gmail.com> wrote:

> is the human brain the most complex thing known to exist?

Of course not.
The human genome is of order one gigabyte,
so at best 100 MB for the brain.

There are plenty of things
that require more info to describe,

Jan

[wiki trix]

On Oct 28, 12:01�pm, "Glenn" <glennshel...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> "wiki trix" <wikit...@gmail.com> wrote in message

>
> news:4514ba64-47dc-480e...@d37g2000prg.googlegroups.com...> On Oct 28, 4:02 am, "Glenn" <glennshel...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> > > "Ron O" <rokim...@cox.net> wrote in message
>
> > >news:b15cf272-4286-4249...@l12g2000vby.googlegroups.com...>
>
> On Oct 28, 12:11 am, Devils Advocaat <mankygo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > > > > is the human brain the most complex thing known to exist?
>
> > > > I don't know about that. The Universe seems to be pretty darn
> > > > complex, unless it doesn't really exist.
>
> > > Is it conscious of its existence? Can it make a pickle an liver sandwich on
> rye?
>
> > Is it conscious of its existence? That is hard to answer...How would
> > you define "conscious of its existence"? How would you detect that?
>
> > Can it make a pickle and liver sandwich on rye? That is easy to
> > answer... The observed answer is yes. Duh.
>
> > Is a pickle and liver sandwich on rye conscious of its existence? Are
> > you?
>
> Yes, but I'm wondering about you. First of all, the question concerns what is
> known to exist, and the universe is not known to have a consciouness.

You went off the track there. The point is that the universe is known
to exist. Your question was "Is the human brain the most complex thing
known to exist?", and my counterexample was that the universe is a
more complex thing that is known to exist. Further, there is no way
that I am aware of to determine whether the universe also has a
consciousness. You never defined consciousness, and you need to
specify a way to detect it.

> Second,
> although I'm not surprised, is your extraordinary claim that the universe can
> make a sandwich. You couldn't when you were a baby, so what did the universe do
> that caused you to become more complex in terms of the ability to make a
> sandwich?

Why does an acquired ability to make a sandwich imply an increase in
complexity? In neural network theory, learning is often viewed as an
elimination process in state space, where capabilities emerge as a
result of falling into a statespace local minimum. That is usually
viewed as a reduction in complexity. Note that information and
complexity are often totally counter-intuitive... something that
laymen almost always screw up on.

Also, if a universe creates a person and the raw materials for
constructing a sandwich, then of course, indirectly, the universe
created the sandwich. By analogy, if you construct the robot that
constructs an automobile, then you get credit for the original
creativity. Just look at it as a powerful tool.

> Oh, sets and all, by virtue of a definition of universe, you say?
> Well, if the universe can make a sandwich, it surely is conscious of its
> existence, right? The universe is human

You still have not provided the definitions needed here. But however
you do that, I see no reason that the universe can make a sandwich
without being conscious. An unconscious human can indeed create
excrement. So conscienceless is not a prerequisite for creativity.

Also, even if the universe was "conscious of its existence", that does
not imply that it is human. That is just flat out stupid.

[Kermit]

On Oct 28, 12:01 pm, "Glenn" <glennshel...@invalid.invalid> wrote:

> "wiki trix" <wikit...@gmail.com> wrote in message

Obviously, some of the universe is human. Most of it
is not. The question was about complexity. If you think
that consciousness is a sign of complexity, note that
the universe contains nearly seven billion human brains
(plus all the other known brains).

It may turn out that the human brain is the most complex
subset of the universe, for its mass. I'm not sure that it is,
however.

Kermit

[Glenn]

"J. J. Lodder" <nos...@de-ster.demon.nl> wrote in message
news:1k9vb3m.128...@de-ster.xs4all.nl...

What difference is there between this claim and the other?

Anyway, you might like to reconsider your other claims,

"It has been estimated that the brain of a three-year-old child has about 1015
synapses (1 quadrillion)."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuron

"a synapse is a structure that permits a neuron to pass an electrical or
chemical signal to another cell (neural or otherwise)."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synapse

[wiki trix]

On Oct 28, 3:30�pm, "Glenn" <glennshel...@invalid.invalid> wrote:

> "J. J. Lodder" <nos...@de-ster.demon.nl> wrote in messagenews:1k9vb3m.128...@de-ster.xs4all.nl...> Devils Advocaat <mankygo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > is the human brain the most complex thing known to exist?
>
> > Of course not.
> > The human genome is of order one gigabyte,
> > so at best 100 MB for the brain.
>
> > There are plenty of things
> > that require more info to describe,
>
> What difference is there between this claim and the other?
>
> Anyway, you might like to reconsider your other claims,
>
> "It has been estimated that the brain of a three-year-old child has about 1015
> synapses (1 quadrillion)."http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuron
>
> "a synapse is a structure that permits a neuron to pass an electrical or
> chemical signal to another cell (neural or otherwise)."http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synapse

In some processes, complexity can grow... Consider Chaotic systems.

[Glenn]

"wiki trix" <wiki...@gmail.com> wrote in message

news:969a5347-3bf6-4782...@d37g2000prg.googlegroups.com...

A certain complexity.

[Glenn]

"Jerry Freedman" <jerry.fr...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:35ebab10-72ca-4e3a...@m19g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...

> On Oct 28, 1:11 am, Devils Advocaat <mankygo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > is the human brain the most complex thing known to exist?
>
> How do you measure complexity. To compare don't you need a metric?
>

Two human brains? Size? The prevailing argument seems to be that the universe
must be the most complex "thing", since everything is contained within. Perhaps
the question should be refined to include "within the universe". Problems of
measurement would still apply, as would the question of what constitues a
"thing". And above all this is the difficulty in defining complexity.
Perhaps "the Earth" and all its life and what is produced by that life holds
more information that what is claimed of the universe (excluding the Earth).

[Glenn]

"Kermit" <unrestra...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:54d51be3-64bb-4c1d...@h5g2000vbf.googlegroups.com...

Taking a cue from JJ, the human brain has the potential to describe the
universe. Although we aren't there yet, what obstacles are there to that feat.
Is not that potential, and what has already been described, a complex attribute
in itself, combined with the information that has been described, which is
information itself?
In other words, the human brain may have the potential to produce as much or
more than is contained within the entire universe. I can certainly *imagine*
that. Would that not also be part of a complexity metric?

[Caranx latus]

It does? To what level of description? Fairly trivial, I expect.

> Although we aren't there yet, what obstacles are there to that feat.
> Is not that potential, and what has already been described, a complex attribute
> in itself, combined with the information that has been described, which is
> information itself?

Would you rewrite this so that I can make sense of it?

> In other words, the human brain may have the potential to produce as much or
> more than is contained within the entire universe. I can certainly *imagine*
> that.

Good for you, but I can pretty well guarantee that one human brain is
far too limited for that.

[J. J. Lodder]

If you insist on being silly:
the digits of pi contain infinitely more information.

Or do they?

Jan

[Ernest Major]

In message
<6c9a116b-7276-4db4...@a17g2000yqj.googlegroups.com>,
Devils Advocaat <manky...@gmail.com> writes

Obviously the human body is more complex than the human brain, as the
human brain is part of the human body. (And obviously the most complex
thing that we know of is the universe.)

[If one could define an objective measure of complexity, then presumably
one could ask questions about "complexity density".]
--
alias Ernest Major

[Devils Advocaat]

On Oct 29, 12:58�pm, Ernest Major <{$t...@meden.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> In message
> <6c9a116b-7276-4db4-b50d-2ad110eea...@a17g2000yqj.googlegroups.com>,
> Devils Advocaat <mankygo...@gmail.com> writes>On Oct 28, 3:22�pm, Jerry Freedman <jerry.freedman...@gmail.com>

> >wrote:
> >> On Oct 28, 1:11�am, Devils Advocaat <mankygo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> > is the human brain the most complex thing known to exist?
>
> >> How do you measure complexity. To compare don't you need a metric?
>
> >This claim about the human brain being the most complex thing known to
> >exist has been used by Creationists (among others), that is why I am
> >asking them to confirm it as being so, after all the people who make
> >such claims are the ones who should be defending it.
>
> Obviously the human body is more complex than the human brain, as the
> human brain is part of the human body. (And obviously the most complex
> thing that we know of is the universe.)
>
> [If one could define an objective measure of complexity, then presumably
> one could ask questions about "complexity density".]

Or even how some people can be so dense and complex at the same
time? :P
> --
> alias Ernest Major

[Ernest Major]

In message <1k9vb3m.128...@de-ster.xs4all.nl>, J. J. Lodder
<nos...@de-ster.demon.nl> writes

The position that a genome describes a phenotype is disputable; the
genome is not a blueprint. For a non-biological example Knuth's
terdragon is simply specified (it is the figure which is the union of
the disjoint projections of itself under three affine transformation),
but (its boundary) is infinitely complex.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dragon_curve#Terdragon
>
>Jan
>

--
alias Ernest Major

[Devils Advocaat]

On Oct 29, 11:26�am, nos...@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) wrote:

> Glenn <glennshel...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> > "J. J. Lodder" <nos...@de-ster.demon.nl> wrote in message
> >news:1k9vb3m.128...@de-ster.xs4all.nl...

> > > Devils Advocaat <mankygo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > is the human brain the most complex thing known to exist?
>
> > > Of course not.
> > > The human genome is of order one gigabyte,
> > > so at best 100 MB for the brain.
>
> > > There are plenty of things
> > > that require more info to describe,
>
> > What difference is there between this claim and the other?
>
> > Anyway, you might like to reconsider your other claims,
>
> > "It has been estimated that the brain of a three-year-old child has about 1015
> > synapses (1 quadrillion)."
> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuron
>
> > "a synapse is a structure that permits a neuron to pass an electrical or
> > chemical signal to another cell (neural or otherwise)."
> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synapse
>
> If you insist on being silly:
> the digits of pi contain infinitely more information.
>
> Or do they?

Surely that depends on whose digits are in what pie :P
>
> Jan

[Steven L.]

"Glenn" <glenns...@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
news:glennsheldon-j8e2a4$92i$1...@dont-email.me:

> "Ron O" <roki...@cox.net> wrote in message
> news:b15cf272-4286-4249...@l12g2000vby.googlegroups.com...

> > On Oct 28, 12:11 am, Devils Advocaat <mankygo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > is the human brain the most complex thing known to exist?
> >

> > I don't know about that. The Universe seems to be pretty darn
> > complex, unless it doesn't really exist.
> >
> Is it conscious of its existence? Can it make a pickle an liver sandwich on rye?

Elephants are conscious of their existence, as studies have shown.

And their brains are convoluted like ours but larger than ours--they
weigh some 10 pounds each.

So if any brain is the most highly complex on earth, it's the elephant
brain.

Creationists keep assuming that human beings are the crown of creation
in every way. Referring to the human eye, they will ask "What use is
half an eye?"--even though there are animals with greater visual acuity
and animals who can see wavelengths of light we cannot see. To those
animals, humans are the ones with half an eye.



-- Steven L.

[J. J. Lodder]

You can't get your digits in the pi in the sky,

Jan

[J. J. Lodder]

Ernest Major <{$to$}@meden.demon.co.uk> wrote:

> In message <1k9vb3m.128...@de-ster.xs4all.nl>, J. J. Lodder
> <nos...@de-ster.demon.nl> writes
> >Devils Advocaat <manky...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> is the human brain the most complex thing known to exist?
> >
> >Of course not.
> >The human genome is of order one gigabyte,
> >so at best 100 MB for the brain.
> >
> >There are plenty of things
> >that require more info to describe,
>
> The position that a genome describes a phenotype is disputable; the
> genome is not a blueprint.

Sure, tiger's stripes and all that.
Phenotype is genotype plus noise.
That doen't generate more complexity though.

> For a non-biological example Knuth's
> terdragon is simply specified (it is the figure which is the union of
> the disjoint projections of itself under three affine transformation),
> but (its boundary) is infinitely complex.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dragon_curve#Terdragon

Also generated by a very simple algorithm,

Jan

[Richard Harter]

On Sat, 29 Oct 2011 17:11:21 +0200, nos...@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J.
Lodder) wrote:

>Ernest Major <{$to$}@meden.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> In message <1k9vb3m.128...@de-ster.xs4all.nl>, J. J. Lodder
>> <nos...@de-ster.demon.nl> writes
>> >Devils Advocaat <manky...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >> is the human brain the most complex thing known to exist?
>> >
>> >Of course not.
>> >The human genome is of order one gigabyte,
>> >so at best 100 MB for the brain.
>> >
>> >There are plenty of things
>> >that require more info to describe,
>>
>> The position that a genome describes a phenotype is disputable; the
>> genome is not a blueprint.
>
>Sure, tiger's stripes and all that.
>Phenotype is genotype plus noise.
>That doen't generate more complexity though.

No, phenotype is genotype + environment.

[Glenn]

"J. J. Lodder" <nos...@de-ster.demon.nl> wrote in message

news:1k9wfja.16v...@de-ster.xs4all.nl...

Like Arnie said, talk to the brain.

[Glenn]

"Ernest Major" <{$to$}@meden.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:ycKThJCI...@meden.invalid...

> In message
> <6c9a116b-7276-4db4...@a17g2000yqj.googlegroups.com>,
> Devils Advocaat <manky...@gmail.com> writes
> >On Oct 28, 3:22 pm, Jerry Freedman <jerry.freedman...@gmail.com>
> >wrote:
> >> On Oct 28, 1:11 am, Devils Advocaat <mankygo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> > is the human brain the most complex thing known to exist?
> >>
> >> How do you measure complexity. To compare don't you need a metric?
> >
> >This claim about the human brain being the most complex thing known to
> >exist has been used by Creationists (among others), that is why I am
> >asking them to confirm it as being so, after all the people who make
> >such claims are the ones who should be defending it.
> >
> Obviously the human body is more complex than the human brain, as the
> human brain is part of the human body. (And obviously the most complex
> thing that we know of is the universe.)
>

Dawkins began the Watchmaker with "We animals are the most complicated things in
the known universe."
At least he exluded the universe, unlike those alleged silly creationists. I
wonder what he thinks the most complex thing is among us animals. What do you
think is the most complex thing of the human body? And why can the brain not be
more complex than the body, excluding the brain? Without the brain there would
be no body.

[J. J. Lodder]

Always a good idea, if there is one,

Jan

[J. J. Lodder]

Not what we were talking about.

We have
genome + noise -> brain at birth
brain at birth + noise in + growth -> adult brain

The second step can't be seen as the cause
of the inherently complicated structure
of the human brain.

Whatever is inherent, as opposed to coincidental,
must be coded for in the genome,

Jan

[Richard Harter]

On Sat, 29 Oct 2011 23:19:36 +0200, nos...@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J.

You miscomprehend, mon ami. To begin with the immediate environment
for the genome is the cell within which it is embedded. This is true
whether we are talking about prokaryotes or eukaryotes. More than
that there is the immediate chemical environment around the cell. So
we always have

d(cell_contents(t))/dt =
F(cell_contents(t),cell_environment(t),genome)

When we consider multi-cellular organisms such as mammals things get
much more complicated. The organism is a complicated environment for
the gametes so they are not in fact all the same. Then we have the
course of development of the fertilized egg which is not simply the
unfolding of a predefined program embedded in the genome; rather it is
aided and partially directed by the mother's physiology as the fetus
develops.

In short, the organism sans genome has information about the
phenotype, information acquired during the course of living.

To cavelierly dismiss the environment as noise as dreadfully
superficial.

[VoiceOfReason]

On Oct 28, 7:02 am, "Glenn" <glennshel...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> "Ron O" <rokim...@cox.net> wrote in message

>
> news:b15cf272-4286-4249...@l12g2000vby.googlegroups.com...> On Oct 28, 12:11 am, Devils Advocaat <mankygo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > is the human brain the most complex thing known to exist?
>

> > I don't know about that.  The Universe seems to be pretty darn
> > complex, unless it doesn't really exist.
>
> Is it conscious of its existence?

At least part of it is.

> Can it make a pickle an liver sandwich on rye?

Ditto.

[Glenn]

"VoiceOfReason" <papa...@cybertown.com> wrote in message
news:c727541d-c681-4617...@x20g2000vbl.googlegroups.com...

We are not the Universe, and the Universe is not us. That we are part of the
Universe does not give the Universe the ability to make a pickle and liver
sandwich on rye, or to be conscious (at least that is not known).

Here's Isaac Asimov in 1970 (assumedly not a creationist):

"as far as we know, the most complex and orderly arrangement of matter in the
universe."

http://www.math.utep.edu/Faculty/sewell/AML_3497.pdf_EEQHyLwUGc6&sig=AHIEtbRl_ddRD7rvtaaIN0c6PUALahmIrg

[Garamond Lethe]

On Sat, 29 Oct 2011 19:00:41 -0700, Glenn wrote:

> "VoiceOfReason" <papa...@cybertown.com> wrote in message

> news:c727541d-c681-4617-
a8ca-636...@x20g2000vbl.googlegroups.com...

>> On Oct 28, 7:02 am, "Glenn" <glennshel...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>> > "Ron O" <rokim...@cox.net> wrote in message
>> >

>> > news:b15cf272-4286-4249-
b6dc-5ba...@l12g2000vby.googlegroups.com...>

> On Oct 28, 12:11 am, Devils Advocaat <mankygo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > > > is the human brain the most complex thing known to exist?
>> >
>> > > I don't know about that. The Universe seems to be pretty darn
>> > > complex, unless it doesn't really exist.
>> >
>> > Is it conscious of its existence?
>>
>> At least part of it is.
>>
>> > Can it make a pickle an liver sandwich on rye?
>>
>> Ditto.
>>
> We are not the Universe, and the Universe is not us. That we are part of
> the Universe does not give the Universe the ability to make a pickle and
> liver sandwich on rye, or to be conscious (at least that is not known).
>
> Here's Isaac Asimov in 1970 (assumedly not a creationist):
>
> "as far as we know, the most complex and orderly arrangement of matter
> in the universe."
>
> http://www.math.utep.edu/Faculty/sewell/
AML_3497.pdf_EEQHyLwUGc6&sig=AHIEtbRl_ddRD7rvtaaIN0c6PUALahmIrg

Well, the URL doesn't work and a bit of context would be helpful.

"Anyone who has made such an argument is familiar with the standard
reply: the Earth is an open system, it receives energy from the sun, and
entropy can decrease in an open system, as long as it is ‘‘compensated’’
somehow by a comparable or greater increase outside the system. For
example, Isaac Asimov, in the Smithsonian journal [3], recognizes the
apparent problem:

<blockquote>
You can argue, of course, that the phenomenon of life may be an exception
[to the second law]. Life on earth has steadily grown more complex, more
versatile, more elaborate, more orderly, over the billions of years of
the planet’s existence. From no life at all, living molecules were
developed, then living cells, then living conglomerates of cells, worms,
vertebrates, mammals, finally Man. And in Man is a three-pound brain
which, as far as we know, is the most complex and orderly arrangement of
matter in the universe. How could the human brain develop out of the
primeval slime? How could that vast increase in order (and therefore that
vast decrease in entropy) have taken place?
<blockquote>

But Asimov concludes that the second law is not really violated, because

<blockquote>
Remove the sun, and the human brain would not have developed . . . . And
in the billions of years that it took for the human brain to develop, the
increase in entropy that took place in the sun was far greater; far, far
greater than the decrease that is represented by the evolution required
to develop the human brain."
</blockquote>

Granville Sewell, "A second look at the second law", Applied Mathematical
Letters, In Press.

http://www.math.utep.edu/Faculty/sewell/AML_3497.pdf


The passage Sewell highlights is also quoted by Henry Morris (ICR 2001),
Mark Looy (ICR 1990), and Snelling keeps it in his collection of quote
mines.

[Glenn]

"Garamond Lethe" <cartogr...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:nfednXZlFsX...@giganews.com...

And how was it helpful to you?

[Garamond Lethe]

It showed that Asimov was using brain complexity as a simple, vivid
example to make another point entirely. It also showed that the two
creationist citations were using the quote in a similar manner:
complexity in general is the issue, not whether the brain is at the top
of any particular complexity list.

<snip>

[Glenn]

"Garamond Lethe" <cartogr...@gmail.com> wrote in message

news:nfednXBlFsU...@giganews.com...

Are you implying that old Isaac was, well, stretching the truth so to speak? I
think your guile is showing.

[VoiceOfReason]

Glenn wrote:
> "VoiceOfReason" <papa...@cybertown.com> wrote in message
> news:c727541d-c681-4617...@x20g2000vbl.googlegroups.com...
> > On Oct 28, 7:02 am, "Glenn" <glennshel...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> > > "Ron O" <rokim...@cox.net> wrote in message
> > >
> > > news:b15cf272-4286-4249...@l12g2000vby.googlegroups.com...>
> On Oct 28, 12:11 am, Devils Advocaat <mankygo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > is the human brain the most complex thing known to exist?
> > >
> > > > I don't know about that. The Universe seems to be pretty darn
> > > > complex, unless it doesn't really exist.
> > >
> > > Is it conscious of its existence?
> >
> > At least part of it is.
> >
> > > Can it make a pickle an liver sandwich on rye?
> >
> > Ditto.
> >
> We are not the Universe, and the Universe is not us. That we are part of the
> Universe does not give the Universe the ability to make a pickle and liver
> sandwich on rye, or to be conscious (at least that is not known).

We are part of the universe, so yes, at least part of it is
conscious. There may be other species out there somewhere who are
also conscious, and are far more intelligent than we are. We could
very well be the dim bulbs of the universe.

For that matter, demonstrate that gorillas, dolphins and whales are
not conscious. For all we know, humpback whales might be the best
poets in the universe -- we're just too primitive to understand them.

>
> Here's Isaac Asimov in 1970 (assumedly not a creationist):
>
> "as far as we know, the most complex and orderly arrangement of matter in the
> universe."
>
> http://www.math.utep.edu/Faculty/sewell/AML_3497.pdf_EEQHyLwUGc6&sig=AHIEtbRl_ddRD7rvtaaIN0c6PUALahmIrg

404 error

[wiki trix]

On Oct 29, 11:21 am, "Glenn" <glennshel...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> "Ernest Major" <{$t...@meden.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
>
> news:ycKThJCI...@meden.invalid...
>
>
>
> > In message
> > <6c9a116b-7276-4db4-b50d-2ad110eea...@a17g2000yqj.googlegroups.com>,
> > Devils Advocaat <mankygo...@gmail.com> writes

> > >On Oct 28, 3:22 pm, Jerry Freedman <jerry.freedman...@gmail.com>
> > >wrote:
> > >> On Oct 28, 1:11 am, Devils Advocaat <mankygo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > >> > is the human brain the most complex thing known to exist?
>
> > >> How do you measure complexity. To compare don't you need a metric?
>
> > >This claim about the human brain being the most complex thing known to
> > >exist has been used by Creationists (among others), that is why I am
> > >asking them to confirm it as being so, after all the people who make
> > >such claims are the ones who should be defending it.
>
> > Obviously the human body is more complex than the human brain, as the
> > human brain is part of the human body. (And obviously the most complex
> > thing that we know of is the universe.)
>
> Dawkins began the Watchmaker with "We animals are the most complicated things in
> the known universe."
> At least he exluded the universe, unlike those alleged silly creationists. I
> wonder what he thinks the most complex thing is among us animals. What do you
> think is the most complex thing of the human body? And why can the brain not be
> more complex than the body, excluding the brain? Without the brain there would
> be no body

Dawkins is not correct 100% of the time. What is your point?

[wiki trix]

On Oct 29, 7:00 pm, "Glenn" <glennshel...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> "VoiceOfReason" <papa_...@cybertown.com> wrote in message

>
> news:c727541d-c681-4617...@x20g2000vbl.googlegroups.com...> On Oct 28, 7:02 am, "Glenn" <glennshel...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> > > "Ron O" <rokim...@cox.net> wrote in message
>
> > >news:b15cf272-4286-4249...@l12g2000vby.googlegroups.com...>
>
> On Oct 28, 12:11 am, Devils Advocaat <mankygo...@gmail.com> wrote:> > > > is the human brain the most complex thing known to exist?
>
> > > > I don't know about that. The Universe seems to be pretty darn
> > > > complex, unless it doesn't really exist.
>
> > > Is it conscious of its existence?
>
> > At least part of it is.
>
> > > Can it make a pickle an liver sandwich on rye?
>
> > Ditto.
>
> We are not the Universe, and the Universe is not us.

Certain mushrooms indicate otherwise.

> Here's Isaac Asimov in 1970 (assumedly not a creationist):
> "as far as we know, the most complex and orderly arrangement of matter in the
> universe."

Isaac Asimov is not the source of all truth.

[Loirbaj]

Voice of John Baker aka Virgil Mulletstein said,

For all we know, humpback whales might
be the best poets in the universe

BroilJAB said,
For all we know, Evolutionism may be taught as
science on the dark side of the moon. LOL

[Loirbaj]

Richard Dawkins has crossed
the divide and is seeking a rapprochement
with the cadre of hard scientists who now
openly acknowledge His Design,


It's highly plausible that in the universe there
are God-like creatures. - Richard Dawkins

[Wombat]

Damn good science fiction author, though.

Wombat

[Glenn]

"VoiceOfReason" <papa...@cybertown.com> wrote in message

news:404c66eb-3a41-442c...@p16g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...

>
>
> Glenn wrote:
> > "VoiceOfReason" <papa...@cybertown.com> wrote in message
> > news:c727541d-c681-4617...@x20g2000vbl.googlegroups.com...
> > > On Oct 28, 7:02 am, "Glenn" <glennshel...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> > > > "Ron O" <rokim...@cox.net> wrote in message
> > > >
> > > >
news:b15cf272-4286-4249...@l12g2000vby.googlegroups.com...>
> > On Oct 28, 12:11 am, Devils Advocaat <mankygo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > is the human brain the most complex thing known to exist?
> > > >
> > > > > I don't know about that. The Universe seems to be pretty darn
> > > > > complex, unless it doesn't really exist.
> > > >
> > > > Is it conscious of its existence?
> > >
> > > At least part of it is.
> > >
> > > > Can it make a pickle an liver sandwich on rye?
> > >
> > > Ditto.
> > >
> > We are not the Universe, and the Universe is not us. That we are part of the
> > Universe does not give the Universe the ability to make a pickle and liver
> > sandwich on rye, or to be conscious (at least that is not known).
>
> We are part of the universe, so yes, at least part of it is
> conscious. There may be other species out there somewhere who are
> also conscious, and are far more intelligent than we are. We could
> very well be the dim bulbs of the universe.
>
> For that matter, demonstrate that gorillas, dolphins and whales are
> not conscious. For all we know, humpback whales might be the best
> poets in the universe -- we're just too primitive to understand them.
>

I need not, since the claim is of what is known to exist. The only "part of the
Universe" that is known to be conscious is the human brain, so in that regard it
is the most complex thing in the Universe.

[Devils Advocaat]

On Oct 31, 5:38�am, "Glenn" <glennshel...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> "VoiceOfReason" <papa_...@cybertown.com> wrote in message
>
> news:404c66eb-3a41-442c...@p16g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
>
> > Glenn wrote:
> > > "VoiceOfReason" <papa_...@cybertown.com> wrote in message

Are you suggesting then that animals are not conscious?

[Devils Advocaat]

Tell me something Loirbaj.

Why do you keep claiming that Dawkins has crossed over?

It is evident to all except you that he has not.

So why continue to lie?

[Glenn]

"Devils Advocaat" <manky...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:f8b7216f-6b6f-414c...@o15g2000yqj.googlegroups.com...

Did you have trouble understanding what I just said? The human brain certainly
appears to be more complex in terms of consciousness and cognitive skills than
other animals. It is not known that animals can for example, visualize
themselves looking at themselves looking at themselves looking at themselves, or
that any other animal is conscious on the same level as humans. Key words:
"known to exist" and "most complex". Certainly we do not see a level of
complexity as concerns consciousness in any other animal, even if you think that
whales might be poets. But that was a good one.

[Devils Advocaat]

On Oct 31, 8:22 am, "Glenn" <glennshel...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> "Devils Advocaat" <mankygo...@gmail.com> wrote in message

I have no trouble of that sort, I was merely questioning your position
on consciousness or lack thereof.

> The human brain certainly
> appears to be more complex in terms of consciousness and cognitive skills than
> other animals. It is not known that animals can for example, visualize
> themselves looking at themselves looking at themselves looking at themselves, or
> that any other animal is conscious on the same level as humans. Key words:
> "known to exist" and "most complex".

And what about these words of yours:

"The only "part of the Universe" that is known to be conscious is the
human brain"

Now you seem to be back tracking by suggesting that animals are
conscious, albeit not on the same level as humans.

> Certainly we do not see a level of
> complexity as concerns consciousness in any other animal, even if you think that
> whales might be poets. But that was a good one.

I never said anything about whales being poets.

[Glenn]

"Devils Advocaat" <manky...@gmail.com> wrote in message

news:be9da4f9-ebf4-42a1...@1g2000vbx.googlegroups.com...

> On Oct 31, 8:22 am, "Glenn" <glennshel...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> > "Devils Advocaat" <mankygo...@gmail.com> wrote in message

My position was and is clear, did not and does not imply that animals are not
conscious. That would be the antithesis of my position, that *it is not known*
that other animals are conscious. Not known to be and are not are two ends of a
spectrum that you cannot connect with any amount of rhetoric.

>
> > The human brain certainly
> > appears to be more complex in terms of consciousness and cognitive skills
than
> > other animals. It is not known that animals can for example, visualize
> > themselves looking at themselves looking at themselves looking at
themselves, or
> > that any other animal is conscious on the same level as humans. Key words:
> > "known to exist" and "most complex".
>
> And what about these words of yours:
>
> "The only "part of the Universe" that is known to be conscious is the
> human brain"
>
> Now you seem to be back tracking by suggesting that animals are
> conscious, albeit not on the same level as humans.

You seem to be delusional. I am suggesting nothing of the sort.

>
> > Certainly we do not see a level of
> > complexity as concerns consciousness in any other animal, even if you think
that
> > whales might be poets. But that was a good one.
>
> I never said anything about whales being poets.
>

Are you suggesting that I said you did?

[prawnster]

On Oct 27, 9:11�pm, Devils Advocaat <mankygo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> is the human brain the most complex thing known to exist?

Man's brain is poorly understood, so it gives the appearance of
complexity. Its complexity, in truth, is unknown. But considering
the complex things people have designed, it is probably at least as
complex as that. So, based on all current evidence, I would have to
answer yes to your question.

And considering how predictable atheists are, their brains are
probably not too complex. To make things easier on themselves,
scientists should make an effort to first understand the brains of
atheists, then move on to deists and Christians, gradually and
evolutionarily, one step at a time up the Chain of Being.

[VoiceOfReason]

On Oct 31, 1:38 am, "Glenn" <glennshel...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> "VoiceOfReason" <papa_...@cybertown.com> wrote in message
>
> news:404c66eb-3a41-442c...@p16g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
>
> > Glenn wrote:
> > > "VoiceOfReason" <papa_...@cybertown.com> wrote in message

"... what is known to exist ... known to be conscious ..."

And with that admission of ignorance you proclaim that the human brain
is the most complex thing in the universe? When you have no clue what
comprises the other 99+% of the universe?

Seriously...

[Glenn]

"VoiceOfReason" <papa...@cybertown.com> wrote in message

news:d5fa9762-c1df-4bca...@g21g2000yqc.googlegroups.com...

You want to get serious??

[Devils Advocaat]

On Nov 1, 6:36�am, "Glenn" <glennshel...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> "Devils Advocaat" <mankygo...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>

> news:9929887b-c8c6-42a0...@q13g2000vbd.googlegroups.com...> On Nov 1, 6:05 am, "Glenn" <glennshel...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> > > "Devils Advocaat" <mankygo...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>

> > >news:7d6c0a2e-81bf-4a62...@v5g2000vbh.googlegroups.com...
> > > snip
>
> > > > And the claim about the human brain being the most complex thing in
> > > > existence has been taken up by Creationists, even though they didn't
> > > > make the claim in the first place.
>
> > > Now you need to support that anyone has ever made that claim.
>
> > How do you come to that conclusion?
>
> Well, for one your claim changes,

I made no claim, I asked a question.

> for another it is a stretch of the imagination
> to think that anyone, especially creationists would consider or claim the human
> brain to be more complex than anything "in existence",

If you had been following this thread, you would have seen that one of
the issues it has caused to be raised is what is meant by the word
complex in a given situation such as this one.

And I a baffled as to why you are so dismissive of anyone making this
claim about the human brain, especially what you have previously said
about the claim in question.

> and another is that you
> have never supported any version of your claim has been made by anyone, nor
> supported that Creationists have "taken up" any version.

As I have already pointed out, I made no claim, I asked a question.

> But I mispoke, you do
> not need to support anything you say, you can post all the word salad you wish.

You claim I have made a claim, you claim that my claim changes, and
you claim I post word salad.

But to keep you happy I will provide you with a clue that will lead
you to what you seem to want.

A thread in alt.talk.creationism entitled "CREATION MOMENT : THE most
complex structure in the universe".

The poster responsible is a Creationist, and his source is a
Creationist website.

Happy now?

[Malte Runz]

"VoiceOfReason" skrev i meddelelsen
news:404c66eb-3a41-442c...@p16g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...

(snip)

> We are part of the universe, so yes, at least part of it is
> conscious. There may be other species out there somewhere who are

> also conscious, and are far more intelligent than we are. ...

I believe it is highly plausible, and I guess they'd seem god-like to us.

X-post trimmed

(snip)


--
Malte Runz

[Loirbaj]

[VoiceOfReason]

You know a cause it beaten when all they have left is transparent
lies.

[Roger Shrubber]

On Oct 30, 9:01�am, c...@tiac.net (Richard Harter) wrote:
> On Sat, 29 Oct 2011 23:19:36 +0200, nos...@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Lodder) wrote:
> >Richard Harter <c...@tiac.net> wrote:
>
> >> On Sat, 29 Oct 2011 17:11:21 +0200, nos...@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J.
> >> Lodder) wrote:
>
> >> >Ernest Major <{$t...@meden.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
> >> >> In message <1k9vb3m.128aumg1r4qw...@de-ster.xs4all.nl>, J. J. Lodder
> >> >> <nos...@de-ster.demon.nl> writes

> >> >> >Devils Advocaat <mankygo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> >> >> is the human brain the most complex thing known to exist?
>

> >> >> >Of course not.
> >> >> >The human genome is of order one gigabyte,
> >> >> >so at best 100 MB for the brain.
>
> >> >> >There are plenty of things
> >> >> >that require more info to describe,
>
> >> >> The position that a genome describes a phenotype is disputable; the
> >> >> genome is not a blueprint.
>
> >> >Sure, tiger's stripes and all that.
> >> >Phenotype is genotype plus noise.
> >> >That doen't generate more complexity though.
>
> >> No, phenotype is genotype + environment. �
>
> >Not what we were talking about.
>
> >We have
> >genome + noise � � � � � � � � � � � -> brain at birth
> >brain at birth + noise in + growth � -> adult brain
>
> >The second step can't be seen as the cause
> >of the inherently complicated structure
> >of the human brain.
>
> >Whatever is inherent, as opposed to coincidental,
> >must be coded for in the genome,
>
> You miscomprehend, mon ami. �To begin with the immediate environment
> for the genome is the cell within which it is embedded. �This is true
> whether we are talking about prokaryotes or eukaryotes. �More than
> that there is the immediate chemical environment around the cell. �So
> we always have
>
> d(cell_contents(t))/dt =
> F(cell_contents(t),cell_environment(t),genome)
>
> When we consider multi-cellular organisms such as mammals things get
> much more complicated. �The organism is a complicated environment for
> the gametes so they are not in fact all the same. �Then we have the
> course of development of the fertilized egg which is not simply the
> unfolding of a predefined program embedded in the genome; rather it is
> aided and partially directed by the mother's physiology as the fetus
> develops.
>
> In short, the organism sans genome has information about the
> phenotype, information acquired during the course of living.
>
> To cavelierly dismiss the environment as noise as dreadfully
> superficial.

Moreover, the genomic programming for brains specifically senses
and responds to environmental stimulus, and that response includes
active manipulation of the external environment which effects changes
in other cells that in turn effect changes in the environment. All
these
affects are in part programmed, in part chaos, and in part reinforcing
switches to environment.

A brain is much more than the set of instructions for cellular growth,
just as a large real crystal is more complex than a fragment of
that crystal. As a brain has adaptatively evolved, with programming
that favours a certain degree of utilitarian connectivity, it is less
complex (in the Kolmogorov sense) than a similarly sized random
tangle of interconnecting neurons.

It may indeed be interesting to speculate about how specific the
actual structure of a "typical" human brain is, as compared to a
random collection of similar cells with similar numbers and
proportions
of neuronal connections. The numbers involved are very big.

[Glenn]

"Roger Shrubber" <rog.sh...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:69bc43cf-f722-4161...@q39g2000prg.googlegroups.com...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bPmVhyHBRAM