Animal minds Information Intelligent Design Mind Neuroscience

At Mind Matters News: Researchers: Humans process information differently from monkeys

Spread the love

In a paper at Nature Neuroscience, researchers reported on human vs. macaque brains on input/output systems and synergy between regions:

Our brain regions for sensory and motor functions use a simple input/output system with high reliability due to high redundancy (repetition). Our eyes duplicate most of each other’s information but that helps ensure that our view of the scene is correct. However, there is a very different way of processing information — synergistic processing — which integrates signals from across a variety of brain networks. This approach is better adapted, the researchers say, to “attention, learning, working memory, social and numerical cognition.” Unlike the visual system, it is not hardwired. It adapts readily to changing circumstances, connecting different networks in different ways at different times.

News, “Researchers: Humans process information differently from monkeys” at Mind Matters News (June 2, 2022)

Takehome: The researchers found that, from an information theory perspective, human brains engage in less redundant and more synergistic processing than macaques. So information theory supports human exceptionalism where Darwinism doesn’t?

You may also wish to read: Information theory: Evolution as the transfer of information. Information follows different rules from matter and energy, which might change the way we see evolution. A pair of researchers have introduced an Information Continuum Model of Evolution (ICM) which takes into account that information is immaterial. The paper is open access.

29 Replies to “At Mind Matters News: Researchers: Humans process information differently from monkeys

  1. 1
    Seversky says:

    Why this need for exceptionalism?

    Wasn’t it their belief in their exceptionalism that led the European colonial powers to mistreat (to put it mildly) the indigenous peoples of the Americas, Africa and Australasia?

    Wasn’t it the belief in their exceptionalism – their “manifest destiny” – that underlay the appalling treatment by white Americans of black and native American peoples?

    Wasn’t it the Nazi belief in “Aryan” exceptionalism that led to the Holocaust?

    That we are different in many ways from other animals on this planet is not in doubt but “different” does not necessarily mean the same as “exceptional” in the sense of “better” in any meaningful way.

  2. 2
    BobRyan says:

    Why the need to attack the evidence? Exceptionalism proves humans are unique, which is what all the evidence points to.

  3. 3
    asauber says:

    Doesn’t the fact that Seversky decries exceptionalism at UD an indication that he feels superior in some way?

    Andrew

  4. 4
    ET says:

    There isn’t any need, seversky. It’s just obvious that humans are exceptional relative to all other organisms.

  5. 5
    chuckdarwin says:

    We are certainly exceptional in one respect—our arrogance…..

  6. 6
    asauber says:

    “We are certainly exceptional in one respect—our arrogance…..”

    CD,

    You are shining proof of that. 😉

    Andrew

  7. 7
    bornagain77 says:

    Seversky: “Wasn’t it the Nazi belief in “Aryan” exceptionalism that led to the Holocaust?”

    I wonder where the Nazis got that idea?

    “Although best known for On the Origin of Species, Darwin does not address human evolution and race until his 1871 book, The Descent of Man, in which Darwin applies his theories of natural selection to humans and introduces the idea of sexual selection. Here his white supremacism is revealed. Over the course of the book, Darwin describes Australians, Mongolians, Africans, Indians, South Americans, Polynesians, and even Eskimos as “savages:” It becomes clear that he considers every population that is not white and European to be savage.”,,,
    “Not only does Darwin believe in white supremacy, he offers a biological explanation for it, namely that white people are further evolved. He writes that the “western nations of Europe … now so immeasurably surpass their former savage progenitors and stand at the summit of civilization” (178). Darwin imagines that Europeans are more advanced versions of the rest of the world. As previously mentioned, this purported superiority justified to Darwin the domination of inferior races by Europeans. As white Europeans “exterminate and replace” the world’s “savage races,” and as great apes go extinct, Darwin says that the gap between civilized man and his closest evolutionary ancestor will widen. The gap will eventually be between civilized man “and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as at present between the negro or Australian and the gorilla” (201). Read that last line again if you missed it: Darwin’s theory claims that Africans and Australians are more closely related to apes than Europeans are. The spectrum of organisms is a hierarchy here, with white Europeans at the top and apes at the bottom. In Darwin’s theory, colored people fall somewhere in between. Modern human is essentially restricted only to white Europeans, with all other races viewed as somehow sub-human…”
    … “Now I understand why I’ve never been asked in a biology class to read the original text of Darwin’s theories: Our contemporary reverence for Darwin’s gentlemanliness and the pure scientific brilliance of his theories is an overly optimistic illusion that shatters upon a closer look at his publications.”
    Austin Anderson, “The Dark Side of Darwinism”
    https://sites.williams.edu/engl-209-fall16/uncategorized/the-dark-side-of-darwinism/

    “A stronger race will oust that which has grown weak; for the vital urge, in its ultimate form, will burst asunder all the absurd chains of this so-called humane consideration for the individual and will replace it with the humanity of Nature, which wipes out what is weak in order to give place to the strong.”
    – Adolf Hitler – Mein Kampf – Chapter 4 – page 248

    “One general law, leading to the advancement of all organic beings, namely, multiply, vary, let the strongest live and the weakest die.”
    – Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species

    Human equality simply cannot be based within Darwinian ideology but must be based on the Judeo-Christian idea that we are all created equal

    Words & Dirt – Quotes 10-21-2015 – by Miles Raymer
    Excerpt: Let us try to translate the most famous line of the American Declaration of Independence into biological terms:
    We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
    According to the science of biology, people were not ‘created’. They have evolved. And they certainly did not evolve to be ‘equal’. The idea of equality is inextricably intertwined with the idea of creation. The Americans got the idea of equality from Christianity, which argues that every person has a divinely created soul, and that all souls are equal before God. However, if we do not believe in the Christian myths about God, creation and souls, what does it mean that all people are ‘equal’? Evolution is based on difference, not on equality. Every person carries a somewhat different genetic code, and is exposed from birth to different environmental influences. This leads to the development of different qualities that carry with them different chances of survival. ‘Created equal’ should therefore be translated into ‘evolved differently’.,,,
    So here is that line from the American Declaration of Independence translated into biological terms:
    We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men evolved differently, that they are born with certain mutable characteristics, and that among these are life and the pursuit of pleasure.
    http://www.words-and-dirt.com/.....0-21-2015/

  8. 8
    chuckdarwin says:

    Asauber/6

    I’m sure I have some vanities, but then I’m not the one running around claiming to be an example of imago dei……

  9. 9
    relatd says:

    Bornagain77 at 7,

    This reveals the need to combine scientific knowledge with Divine revelation. If a person, anyone, thinks they are just ‘another animal’ then they are more inclined to behave badly. I saw this posted on another forum:

    “I never want to feel guilty or ashamed or sinful again.” All of us are responsible for treating ourselves and others well.

  10. 10
    asauber says:

    “I’m not the one running around claiming to be an example of imago dei……”

    CD,

    See, you are misrepresenting. Everyone is made in the image of God. Some people are just to arrogant to accept it.

    Andrew

  11. 11
    jerry says:

    We are certainly exceptional in one respect

    This concept is what disproves natural Evolution.

    Understanding this is way pass ChuckDarwin’s pay grade though.

  12. 12
    chuckdarwin says:

    Asauber/10

    Unmitigated nonsense…

  13. 13
    asauber says:

    “Understanding this is way pass ChuckDarwin’s pay grade though.”

    He doesn’t want to understand it. He hates it.

    Andrew

  14. 14
    jerry says:

    He doesn’t want to understand it

    No, nobody could be that consistently wrong on everything.

    Best example is name he chose, someone who got nothing right

  15. 15
    Seversky says:

    Relatd/9

    This reveals the need to combine scientific knowledge with Divine revelation.

    How would that work exactly? Divine revelation points to a universe created a few thousand years ago while science finds evidence indicating the Universe is around 13.8 billion years old. I’d say trying to reconcile those is going to be a bit tricky.

    If a person, anyone, thinks they are just ‘another animal’ then they are more inclined to behave badly.

    On the other hand we have examples of people who have behaved badly and appealed to their religious beliefs as a justification of their actions. The Bible reports a whole lot of blood being spilled in God’s name by his proxies.

    All of us are responsible for treating ourselves and others well.

    I would agree but did you work that out for yourself or did you have to wait for God to tell you that was a good thing?

  16. 16
    bornagain77 says:

    Seversky claims that, “Divine revelation points to a universe created a few thousand years ago while science finds evidence indicating the Universe is around 13.8 billion years old. I’d say trying to reconcile those is going to be a bit tricky.”

    Funny that there are many Christian scholars who strongly disagree with a Young Earth interpretation of the Bible.

    BIBLICAL REASONS TO DOUBT THE CREATION DAYS WERE 24-HOUR PERIODS – January 28, 2015
    Excerpt: it may come as a surprise to some contemporary conservatives that some of the great stalwarts of the faith were not convinced of this (strict 24 hour period) interpretation.
    Augustine, writing in the early fifth century, noted, ”What kind of days these were it is extremely difficult, or perhaps impossible, to determine” (City of God 11.7).
    J. Gresham Machen (1881-1937), author of the 20th century’s best critique of theological liberalism, wrote, “It is certainly not necessary to think that the six days spoken of in that first chapter of the Bible are intended to be six days of twenty four hours each.”
    Old Testament scholar Edward J. Young (1907-1968), an eloquent defender of inerrancy, said that regarding the length of the creation days, “That is a question which is difficult to answer. Indications are not lacking that they may have been longer than the days we now know, but the Scripture itself does not speak as clearly as one might like.”
    Theologian Carl F. H. Henry (1913-2003), one of the most important theologians in the second half of the twentieth century and a defender of Scriptural clarity and authority, argued that “Faith in an inerrant Bible does not rest on the recency or antiquity of the earth. . . . The Bible does not require belief in six literal 24-hour creation days on the basis of Genesis 1-2. . . . it is gratuitous to insist that twenty-four hour days are involved or intended.”
    Old Testament scholar and Hebrew linguist Gleason Archer (1916-2004), a strong advocate for inerrancy, wrote ”On the basis of internal evidence, it is this writer’s conviction that yôm in Genesis could not have been intended by the Hebrew author to mean a literal twenty-four hour day.”
    I want to suggest there are some good, textual reasons—in the creation account itself—for questioning the exegesis that insists on the days as strict 24 hour periods,,,.
    https://blogs.thegospelcoalition.org/justintaylor/2015/01/28/biblical-reasons-to-doubt-the-creation-days-were-24-hour-periods/

    Contrary to what Seversky, (and YECs) try to claim, it simply cannot be claimed that ‘Yom’, (translated as “Day” in English), only represents a 24-hour period.

    Old Earth Creation Science
    Word Study: Yom
    Conclusion
    “With such a wide usage of the word Yom for many different time periods, it cannot be claimed that Yom in the Old Testament only represents a 24-hour period. During the creation account alone, Yom represents four different time periods. Rules of Hebrew, created by young earth Hebrew scholars, are invalid. Because of their biased position, they are trying to prove their own agenda.
    Since humans did not witness creation, our own concept of a 24-hour day does not apply. The only thing that matters is God’s concept of time. Thus, the only evidence we have to accurately assess the age of creation is the creation itself. Since the rocks and stars say we are billions of years old, that must be the truth. This fits perfectly with a literal interpretation of Genesis, and an inerrant Bible, and does not impact any other Biblical doctrines.”
    1 Television Show and Transcript, “Are the Genesis Creation Days 24 Hours or Long Periods of Time,” The John Ankerberg Show, 2005.

    Why I Reject A Young Earth View: A Biblical Defense of an Old Earth – Jonathan M. – 2011
    Excerpt: If, therefore, it may be considered legitimate to take the seventh day as representative of a much longer period of time, then whence the mandate for supposing a commitment to interpreting the other six days as representative of 24-hour periods?
    Fourth, there is the multiple-usage of the word “day” in Genesis 1. Let’s take a look at the manner in which the word “day” is used in the Genesis 1 (up to 2:4) narrative alone:
    1. Genesis 1:5a: “God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night.” Here, “day” is contrasted with “night”: Thus, a 24-hour day is not in view, but rather “day” in the sense of “daytime” (i.e. 12 hours).
    2. Genesis 1:5b: “And there was evening and there was morning — the first day.” Here, the word does indeed mean a 24-hour day.
    3. Genesis 2:3: “By the seventh day God had finished the work he had been doing; so on the seventh day he rested from all his work. 3 Then God blessed the seventh day and made it holy, because on it he rested from all the work of creating that he had done.” To this, I have already alluded — the key point here is the absence of “evening” and “morning”, which denotes all of the previous six days.
    4. The correct rendering of the Hebrew with respect to Genesis 2:4 is “This is the account of the heavens and the earth in the day they were created, when the LORD God made the earth and the heavens.”
    http://crossexamined.org/why-i.....old-earth/

    In fact, Young Earth Creationism (YEC) is certainly not now, nor has it historically been, the ‘official’ position of the church, but YEC is a recent 20th century movement within certain protestant circles of Christianity.

    History of Creationism – March 23, 2013 – The Creationists – By Ray Lakeman
    Excerpt: Creation Science (YEC) is a new movement of the twentieth century. It arose as a movement composed of trained scientists and lay Christian supporters from a wide range of Christian churches, and it has grown despite almost universal opposition from both mainstream scientists and the mainstream leaders in churches.
    In the early years of the twentieth century the self-described geologist George McCready Price stood virtually alone in insisting on the recent appearance of life and on a global flood catastrophe that massively rearranged the earth’s crust. Price was well-received by creationists, but made few converts beyond his Seventh Day Adventist Church.
    In 1932 the Evolution Protest Movement was formed in London, and is now called the Creation Science Movement, the oldest creationist society on Earth.,,,
    https://reasonablefaithadelaide.org.au/history-of-creationism/

    Thus it is simply disingenuous for Seversky to, (repeatedly), claim that the Bible is irreconcilably in conflict with belief in a 13.8 billion year old universe.

    Moreover, Seversky is, (once again), purposely forgetting that the Bible uniquely predicted the creation of the universe and that it is his own worldview of Atheistic Materialism that is now in severe conflict with the now scientifically established fact that the universe had a definite beginning 13.8 billion years ago.

    “among all the ‘holy’ books, of all the major religions in the world, only the Holy Bible was correct in its claim for a transcendent origin of the universe. Some later ‘holy’ books, such as the Mormon text “Pearl of Great Price” and the Qur’an, copy the concept of a transcendent origin from the Bible but also include teachings that are inconsistent with that now established fact.”
    (Hugh Ross; Why The Universe Is The Way It Is; Pg. 228; Chpt.9; note 5)

    The Uniqueness Of The Bible Among ‘holy books’ and Evidence of God in Creation (Hugh Ross) – video
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WjYSz1OYG8Y

    The Most Important Verse in the Bible – Prager University – video
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9BqWdu1BnBQ

    The Uniqueness of Genesis 1:1 – William Lane Craig – video
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tBXdQCkISo0

    “Certainly there was something that set it all off,,, I can’t think of a better theory of the origin of the universe to match Genesis”
    – Robert Wilson – Nobel laureate – co-discoverer Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation
    – Fred Heeren, Show Me God (Wheeling, Ill.: Daystar, 2000),

    “My argument,” Dr. Penzias concluded, “is that the best data we have are exactly what I would have predicted, had I had nothing to go on but the five books of Moses, the Psalms, the Bible as a whole.”
    – Dr. Arno Penzias, Nobel Laureate in Physics – co-discoverer Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation – as stated to the New York Times on March 12, 1978

    Seversky then goes on to say that “we have examples of people who have behaved badly and appealed to their religious beliefs as a justification of their actions.”

    And again Seversky is purposely forgetting the exponentially worse horror that has been conducted in the ‘name of atheism’, i.e. in the name of his religion.

    The fact of the matter is that the blood spilled in the ‘name of atheism’ makes any violence that has illegitimately been done in the name of Christianity look like child’s play.

    Chairman MAO: Genocide Master (Black Book of Communism)
    “…Many scholars and commentators have referenced my total of 174,000,000 for the democide (genocide and mass murder) of the last century. I’m now trying to get word out that I’ve had to make a major revision in my total due to two books. I’m now convinced that Stalin exceeded Hitler in monstrous evil, and Mao beat out Stalin….”
    http://wadias.in/site/arzan/bl.....de-master/

    Hitler, Marx, Lenin, Stalin, Mao – quotes – Foundational Darwinian influence in their political ideologies
    March 2022
    https://uncommondescent.com/philosophy/david-berlinski-the-bad-boy-philosopher-who-doubts-darwinism-is-back/#comment-749756

    Verse:

    John 10:10
    The thief comes only to steal and kill and destroy; I have come that they may have life, and have it to the full.

  17. 17
    chuckdarwin says:

    BA/16

    Funny that there are many Christian scholars who strongly disagree with a Young Earth interpretation of the Bible.

    Nietzsche quipped in BG&E that “it is a curious thing that God learned Greek when he wished to become an author–and that he did not learn it better.” (Epigram 121)

    It’s not “funny” that there are “many Christian scholars” that strongly disagree with a young earth interpretation of the Bible. Rather, it is disturbing that the seminal text of Christianity has to be “interpreted” in the first place. How many Christian translations of the Bible are we up to now? It’s somewhat like the creation of man; you would think that a God worth his salt would get it right the first time….

  18. 18
    jerry says:

    It’s somewhat like the creation of man; you would think that a God worth his salt would get it right the first time

    Maybe He wanted that way?

    Otherwise we would be automatons with out free will. Is the best of all possible world one of perfect imperfects?

  19. 19
    chuckdarwin says:

    Free will is hugely overrated….

  20. 20
    Silver Asiatic says:

    CD

    How many Christian translations of the Bible are we up to now?

    Considering that people from every nation and language group on earth want to read the Holy Bible, then there are a number of translations. Or do you want everyone to read the King James English only?
    More people around the world are interested in the Bible than they are in reading Darwin, Marx, Nietzsche and even Richard Dawkins, believe it or not.

  21. 21
    Fred Hickson says:

    It says at the top of the page:

    Serving The Intelligent Design Community

    …which people tell me is an alternative approach in the biological sciences. Why then the obsession with Christianity?

  22. 22
    Silver Asiatic says:

    FH

    Why then the obsession with Christianity?

    I know. It’s truly weird how anti-IDists bring it up all the time.

  23. 23
    chuckdarwin says:

    SA
    Yeah, it’s really weird. Perhaps if you took a gander at BA77’s post @ 16, the mystery wouldn’t seem so intractable……..

  24. 24
    jerry says:

    Free will is hugely overrated

    As you prove every time you post.

    Why then the obsession with Christianity?

    To give the anti ID people something to say.

    They never contribute anything coherent. Especially about science.

  25. 25
    relatd says:

    FH at 21,

    Obsession with Christianity? What about the obsession with atheism? Richard Dawkins will tell you that life only looks designed, it is not actually designed. And where does he get that idea? Science.

  26. 26
    Silver Asiatic says:

    CD

    Notice comment #1 on this thread.

    “Divine revelation points to a universe created a few thousand years ago …

    You found the topic of interest also.

    So, I think we have a good answer for FH.

  27. 27
    Fred Hickson says:

    What about the obsession with atheism?

    Whose obsession?

    Richard Dawkins will tell you that life only looks designed, it is not actually designed.

    I happen to disagree. Not sure why you think Dawkins personal religious views are relevant to anything, though they seemed very popular in the US as an antidote to the religious extreme right.

    And where does he get that idea? Science.

    Does he? When did he confirm that? Do you have a citation?

  28. 28
    Fred Hickson says:

    So, I think we have a good answer for FH.

    Great! Let’s hear it.

  29. 29

Leave a Reply