I disagree with you, as I know any number of people who can’t possibly have that many neurons . . . starting with Cheeto man in the white house.
2 Likes
To be fair, the question was
Are you insinuating that Agent Orange actually thinks? 
3 Likes
Of course, the problem at this point is how one defines “thought” in terms of neuronal activity. If “thought” is defined as “response to a stimulus”, then one neuron might be sufficient. I’m minded here to recall the remarks made by PZ Myers when dismissing the scala natura fallacy, which included insights into insect neurodevelopment. Those insights provide a reason why insects can engage in pretty sophisticated behaviours while only possessing a relatively small neuron count.
We operate as we do, because we harness a very large number of near-identical neurons to perform our data processing. Insects, on the other hand, use differentiated and specialised neurons. As an example, I managed to locate the missing image from the PZ Myers article, which illustrates how Drosophila neuroblasts develop (neuroblasts are the progenitor cells from which the final neurons will emerge). Note that they increasingly acquire their own identities in terms of gene expression (colour coded in the image):
Now, at the time the paper in question was published (2006 or thereabouts), the actual function of the neurons arising from each of those neuroblasts had yet to be determined, but, the resulting neurons are specialised for various processing tasks - some for handling visual data from the eyes, some for handling touch sensory data from the limbs and bristles, etc.
A computer analogy would be that humans use millions of identical CPUs wired together in complicated networks, whilst Drosohpila uses a smaller number of different, specialised CPUs. Though the analogy breaks down if on tries to argue that those “CPUs” are “optimised” for the task at hand, as evolution tends to produce reasonable competence rather than an acme of perfection - a detail Darwin was aware of, but creationists aren’t.
So, answering the question of how many neurons are required for a thought, is actually bloody complicated.
Indeed, those papers I presented earlier on fMRI experiments to recover sensory data, demonstrate that I over-simplified the human case in my above remarks, because the visual cortex is arranged in what is termed a retinotopy map, where the spatial position of a neuron in the visual cortex is coupled to the spatial position of visual data.
Sorting this lot out just for the visual cortex will take decades of future research, even given the knowledge we’ve acquired now. But, scientists are progressing on this front. The Drosophila literature is adding its own nuances to the question, as covered above, and so, we may find that there are, once investigated, some gene expression differences across human neurons as well, though not quite as extreme. I’ll hypothesise that neurons in the ventromedial prefrontal cortex will prove especially interesting here.
Needless to say, mythology fanboys peddle empty platitudes on such topics, while being blissfully unaware that any of this data even exists.
4 Likes
Completely fascinating. Much more interesting reading about results of a science investigation, compared to speculation about ‘the soul’ or ‘qualia’.
1 Like
It’s the old problem of a “satisfying lie vs uncomfortable truth”. I can sympathise a little, even post industrialised societies, where the amount of time one can dedicate to very specific fields of study, most people have more pressing concerns. Imagine then the pressures to find quick answers in an epoch of extreme ignorance and superstition.
The problems arise when people want to chain us to the moral worldview of bronze age war like patriarchal societies. Given religions were likely invested to comfort and console, but also control of course, this is actually ironic.
While I have your attention, given research is now suggesting that insects can experience pain (of some sort), and even ptsd, how guilty should I feel for squashing stray arachnids, or flushing them down the drain?
Not knowing that God/Jesus is a made-up fictional character is like not knowing that Mickey Mouse is a made-up fictional character, it is that obvious.
1 Like
Thoughts have been read by putting electrodes on the head and using AI to translate the electrical pattern.
The tomb of Jesus has been dated to 1700 years old, 300 years short. It is a proven fake. Bethlehem and Nazareth did not even exist until hundreds of years after the pretended Jesus is supposed to have existed. The Jesus story is a fake.
1 Like
Whilst I share the sentiment, that is a false equivalence fallacy, it is sufficient that neither of them can be objectively evidenced as real, for me to disbelieve they exist.
Hmm, I am dubious anyone’s thoughts have been “read”.
I am dubious anyone can with any objective certainty, know such a tomb exists. However even if it did, it would not suggest that Jesus was anything, but human.
Well the gospel myths are unevidenced, second hand (at best) hearsay.
3 Likes
There is actually a few ways to understand your statement. There are those that don’t accept that he, Jesus was even a person on earth. So as a historical figure he isn’t real.
Then there are those that accept a historical Jesus, but not necessarily attribute any divinity to him. That is another.
To millions of people its not obvious at all that he is fictional in either sense, and worship him as god.
The comparision to Mickey Mouse is rather misplaced. I don’t know any people that believe Mickey Mouse is an incarnation of god. I don’t know anyone who has memorized ‘texts’ from any comic book related to him. And the comparison can keep going…no creeds around any belief about Mickey Mouse. No signs with Mickey Mouse, that read the end is near. The visual on that could be mickey running away from a cat? Or ‘Mickey died for your sins’ in a mouse trap?
Not really, all claims carry a burden of proof, and the number of people who believe a claim, tells us nothing about the truth or falsity of the claim. The evidence that Jesus existed at all is scant at best, there is no objective evidence he was anything but human, if he did exist.
2 Likes
Strictly speaking these positions are known as “mythicist” and “historicist”.
And you’re right, a historicist doesn’t necessarily think Jesus was divine, because there’s a huge difference between “Jesus was an actual person” and “Jesus was the miracle-working God-man”.
Historicism is necessary, but not sufficient, to believe that Jesus was divine.
2 Likes
Sigh…well, ok If one person believed mickey mouse was an incarnation of god…that person would have the burden of proof…
You couldn’t fill a 3"x5" card, written in crayon by a 6 year old, with information about the “historical Jesus”.
2 Likes
Yes really, the bible Jesus is precisely as fictional as Mickey Mouse, namely 100 percent. It’s just that Mickey is more familarly thought of as fictional, which brings out the fictionality of Jesus.
I have not seen a comic strip depicting m mouse as god, or even a mouse-god.
Indeed they would, the difference is one of subjective perception, nothing more. Unless of course someone can offer any objective evidence that a deity exists or is possible, anymore than a cartoon cat.
NB I do not claim they carry an equal burden of proof of course, as though the claims share at least one similarity, they are not identical claims.
1 Like
I am wary of claiming to believe anything 100%, as this to me simply suggests a closed mind. I don’t know if the Jesus character of the bible existed, as the evidence is scant at best, but it is an objective fact humans can exist, whereas I am not aware of any objective evidence that cartoon characters can exist, so though both claims carry a burden of proof, I am dubious they carry an equal burden of proof.
Parenthetically, the claim Jesus existed is a trivial one, the claim he was a deity made flesh a most extraordinary one. Since we know the former to be possible, and do not know it of the latter.
If one indicates where the claims are similar, this is fine, but to suggest they are the same because they share one similarity, would be a false equivalence fallacy.
1 Like
Covered material pertinent to this some time ago, in this post.
My thing is I have never heard anyone claiming MM is a deity, also never depicted as such.
On a different note, I have never heard anyone claim to believe in Zeus, or Apollo. Those however do have a depictions in myth as being deities. So at some point at least some people have claimed they are deities.