I understand your hesitation with the brain-as-software analogy—it’s far from a perfect comparison. The human brain is vastly more complex than any software we’ve created. However, the analogy wasn’t meant to diminish that complexity but rather to illustrate how the brain has evolved and adapted over time, similar to how software receives updates.
When I talk about the brain like this, I’m referring to the idea that our thought patterns, instincts, and behaviors have changed over thousands of years as we’ve adapted to new environments and challenges. Just like software, which starts with a basic version and becomes more sophisticated with new features, our brain has evolved from its more primitive "version 1.0" state—focused on survival and tribalism—to something more capable of abstract thought, empathy, and global collaboration.
As for your point about memory, consciousness, and the soul, you're right—these are deeply complex phenomena that science is still working to fully understand. The software analogy doesn’t claim to explain these mysteries; it’s simply a way to discuss how our brain’s programming—the instincts and behaviors we inherit—can be updated through learning, experience, and societal evolution.
So while the brain isn’t literally software, the analogy helps convey how human behavior and thought processes can adapt and improve over time. The real magic of the brain lies in its incredible ability to process, adapt, and evolve—something even the best software can’t fully replicate.
Didn't think you could give me a straight answer, repeating yourself shows an unwillingness to learn.
Search and read up on Orch-OR, the theory of conciousness by Sir Roger Penrose and Prof Stuart Hameroff. This theory has been around for over 20 years and has passed every falsifiabity test that can be put to it
I’m familiar with Orch-OR the theory of consciousness proposed by Sir Roger Penrose and Stuart Hameroff. It’s a fascinating concept that suggests consciousness might be linked to quantum processes within the brain, and it's certainly worth exploring. While it has passed some falsifiability tests, it's still part of an ongoing debate in the scientific community, which speaks to how incredibly complex consciousness is.
That said, my earlier point wasn’t to diminish the depth of human consciousness or oversimplify the brain, but rather to illustrate how the brain, like software, evolves and adapts over time. The human brain has undergone significant changes throughout history, from our primitive survival instincts to our modern capacities for abstract thinking, empathy, and complex social cooperation.
Just as software receives updates to improve and adapt to new challenges, the human brain has also been "updated" through evolution and experience. Over thousands of years, our neurological processes have adapted in response to societal shifts, environmental pressures, and new information. This evolution allows us to grow beyond our initial programming—like tribalism or survival instincts—and develop the capacity for higher-order thinking and collaboration.
In short, the brain is not static. It evolves, both in the long term through natural selection and in the short term through individual learning and experience. The idea that the brain adapts doesn't contradict deeper theories of consciousness, like Orch-OR—it complements them by showing that the brain, while incredibly complex, is still shaped by both biology and environment over time. Thanks again for the recommendation, and I’ll take another look at the Orch-OR theory to deepen my understanding of it.
Do you believe the human brain adapts to new understandings, or do you think it doesn’t change at all? From what you're saying, it sounds like you don’t believe the brain can adapt and evolve over time.
If your perspective were correct, I would likely still be a racial tribalist. But I’m not. My concern isn't about preserving the survival of the Black race or any particular group. What I care about is that people, regardless of their background, follow the principles of the 10 Commandments and the Golden Rule. These values promote mutual respect and ethical living, which allow for individual freedom.
When people are free to pursue what makes them happy within the framework of these universal principles, society as a whole becomes better, and tribalism becomes less relevant.
To repeat my question: How many Black people do you have bonds with? It's important to ask because forming connections outside your immediate group often opens up new perspectives and breaks down old patterns of thinking.
I understand your hesitation with the brain-as-software analogy—it’s far from a perfect comparison. The human brain is vastly more complex than any software we’ve created. However, the analogy wasn’t meant to diminish that complexity but rather to illustrate how the brain has evolved and adapted over time, similar to how software receives updates.
When I talk about the brain like this, I’m referring to the idea that our thought patterns, instincts, and behaviors have changed over thousands of years as we’ve adapted to new environments and challenges. Just like software, which starts with a basic version and becomes more sophisticated with new features, our brain has evolved from its more primitive "version 1.0" state—focused on survival and tribalism—to something more capable of abstract thought, empathy, and global collaboration.
As for your point about memory, consciousness, and the soul, you're right—these are deeply complex phenomena that science is still working to fully understand. The software analogy doesn’t claim to explain these mysteries; it’s simply a way to discuss how our brain’s programming—the instincts and behaviors we inherit—can be updated through learning, experience, and societal evolution.
So while the brain isn’t literally software, the analogy helps convey how human behavior and thought processes can adapt and improve over time. The real magic of the brain lies in its incredible ability to process, adapt, and evolve—something even the best software can’t fully replicate.
Didn't think you could give me a straight answer, repeating yourself shows an unwillingness to learn.
Search and read up on Orch-OR, the theory of conciousness by Sir Roger Penrose and Prof Stuart Hameroff. This theory has been around for over 20 years and has passed every falsifiabity test that can be put to it
Some links:
https://hameroff.arizona.edu/
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33232193/
I’m familiar with Orch-OR the theory of consciousness proposed by Sir Roger Penrose and Stuart Hameroff. It’s a fascinating concept that suggests consciousness might be linked to quantum processes within the brain, and it's certainly worth exploring. While it has passed some falsifiability tests, it's still part of an ongoing debate in the scientific community, which speaks to how incredibly complex consciousness is.
That said, my earlier point wasn’t to diminish the depth of human consciousness or oversimplify the brain, but rather to illustrate how the brain, like software, evolves and adapts over time. The human brain has undergone significant changes throughout history, from our primitive survival instincts to our modern capacities for abstract thinking, empathy, and complex social cooperation.
Just as software receives updates to improve and adapt to new challenges, the human brain has also been "updated" through evolution and experience. Over thousands of years, our neurological processes have adapted in response to societal shifts, environmental pressures, and new information. This evolution allows us to grow beyond our initial programming—like tribalism or survival instincts—and develop the capacity for higher-order thinking and collaboration.
In short, the brain is not static. It evolves, both in the long term through natural selection and in the short term through individual learning and experience. The idea that the brain adapts doesn't contradict deeper theories of consciousness, like Orch-OR—it complements them by showing that the brain, while incredibly complex, is still shaped by both biology and environment over time. Thanks again for the recommendation, and I’ll take another look at the Orch-OR theory to deepen my understanding of it.
Let me clarify my point.
Do you believe the human brain adapts to new understandings, or do you think it doesn’t change at all? From what you're saying, it sounds like you don’t believe the brain can adapt and evolve over time.
If your perspective were correct, I would likely still be a racial tribalist. But I’m not. My concern isn't about preserving the survival of the Black race or any particular group. What I care about is that people, regardless of their background, follow the principles of the 10 Commandments and the Golden Rule. These values promote mutual respect and ethical living, which allow for individual freedom.
When people are free to pursue what makes them happy within the framework of these universal principles, society as a whole becomes better, and tribalism becomes less relevant.
To repeat my question: How many Black people do you have bonds with? It's important to ask because forming connections outside your immediate group often opens up new perspectives and breaks down old patterns of thinking.
You have no idea what my perceptive on anything is at all, come back to me when you have had a look at the links I posted.
Ok let's make this simple.
Do you believe that the human brain evolves as we experience new things?
Yes or No?