religion and the brain
lesterDELzick at worldnet.att.net
Mon Oct 25 15:43:20 EST 2004
On Mon, 25 Oct 2004 16:23:35 -0300, "Stargazer" <fuckoff at spammers.com>
in comp.ai.philosophy wrote:
>Wolf Kirchmeir wrote:
>> Stargazer wrote:
>> > However, Mr. Kirchmeir's post said that the main functions of dog's
>> > brains and human's brains are "exactly the same", and this sounds
>> > wrong. Dog's (and most other mammals) brains don't have similarly
>> > developed frontal lobes. They also don't have Broca's and Wernicke's
>> > areas so clear-cut. These brains are similar, but on their main
>> > functions not strictly comparable.
>> > *SG*
>> OK, so "exactly" was an exaggeration - but the OP claimed that the
>> basic functions were different, w/ IMO is nonsense. The differences
>> adduced (eg, language) are not "basic functions" -- they arise from
>> differences in relative size and complexity of different parts of the brain in
>> different species. Of course, such differences matter - but they don't
>> change the basic functions of the brain, they build on and elaborate
>> There now, is that clearer?
>Yes, it's clearer now, thank you.
>Too bad it's still wrong.
> Differences between the brains of humans
>and most other mammals are small, indeed, but they are important.
>For instance, there's a bundle of axons (known as arcuate fasciculus)
>connecting Wernicke's area to Broca's area which is essential to
>the development of linguistic competence in humans. No other mammal
>(other than close primates) have such peculiar organization. This,
>of course, not to mention the frontal lobe.
A practical (I hope) question. Are humans the only animals with
bicameral brains or are there others?
Regards - Lester
More information about the Neur-sci