By what measure of complexity, and what definition of “object”?
Arguably the totality of all lifeforms on earth, which are all physically connected to each other by their common genealogical graph (and by Earth as their environment), is more complex, because it contains all the brains.
Comparing a brain to anything which encompasses a brain, is tautological. In debate ("arguably", as you say), this is the equivalent of "infinity plus 1", which is a fallacy. So obviously the GP could not have been referencing anything which contains a brain as an "object".
A larger composite (which contains a brain) can not qualify by the very nature of the proposition put forth. At least in adult debate (where "infinity plus 1" is seen as fallacious). Larger composites that do not contain a brain are fine by me, though I'm not the person you originally responded to.
The wheel does not need to contain the ball bearing in order to still be a circle, or even a wheel. It just can't be a functional part of a wheel-axle system without it.
Just as one can abstract out the brain from the body and talk about the complexity of the body (less the brain). Such a comparison is fine by me.
But society and the terrestrial ecosystem don't exist without functioning brains in them. And a genealogical relationship doesn't exist at all as a physical object, just as a conceptualized object (such as a graph). And conceptualized objects, such as graphs, typically aren't that complex (though can probably get there if someone dedicates the computational resources to do so).
The totality of all life on earth need not contain the human brain to be a complex object. So I still don't see the difference here.
>But society and the terrestrial ecosystem don't exist without functioning brains in them.
1) Original reply didn't say anything about society, only life an it's physical interactions.
2) Sure it does. Plenty of life forms without brains exist, and their sum is more complex than the human brain. The human brain itself is a composite of brainless life.
>And a genealogical relationship doesn't exist at all as a physical object, just as a conceptualized object (such as a graph). And conceptualized objects, such as graphs, typically aren't that complex (though can probably get there if someone dedicates the computational resources to do so).
That isn't because of what conceptual objects are, it's because of how they are used. The purpose of most conceptual objects is simplification. One can produce arbitrarily complex conceptual objects, we just don't normally because... why?
We can even throw out all of these semantics if you want and go with a much narrower version of the original statement: "The brain is the most complex physical system", and even that isn't necessarily true. The bacterial ecosystems that compose the digestive system have more interacting cells, with less defined interactions, than the brain. Maybe you meant "most complex computational system"? That's potentially true, depending on your definition of complexity.
FYI: I am not the OP who originally said that the "human brain is the most complex object in the known universe".
I'm not interested in discussing complexity, just the foundations of productive (and polite!) discussion and debate. So we'll go our separate ways here. I would probably agree with you with respect to the brain not being the most complex physical system.
If we take the argument from first principles I'm not so sure it leads to your destination. Are atoms more or less complex than the things they comprise? And is that complexity not encapsulated by the emergent system that forms from that atomic substrate?
I'm frustrated that people are talking to me as if I want to discuss the complexity of things, when I thought I made it quite clear in multiple comments in this thread that that is not what I'm talking about at all.
When you are arguing, or even discussing, with someone it's an asshole behavior to tell them "what you are discussing has no foundation, or is irrelevant to me, so I'm going to discuss this other thing instead." Maybe just politely opt out of the argument at all with an "I disagree".
This is the point I've been making. An asshole, or at least childish, way of arguing is to respond to someone who said "this thing is most complex", with "well I disagree, because two of this thing is more complex than just one of that thing". It's like a kid saying "infinity plus one" to one-up the other kid.
One can have a philosophical conversation of the salience of various perspectives without telling the other person "your perspective is unimportant compared to mine, because it doesn't meet my personal threshold of salience". Yes, no duh, people do not find the same perspectives salient. If you're talking about policy, then salience can be ranked, if you're talking about personal opinion, then salience can't be ranked.
You have this kind of philosophical discussion, politely, by acknowledging the other person's point and indicating that you want to talk about something adjacent. Not by telling the other person they're overlooking your point (and in the very act of saying that demonstrating that you are overlooking their point.
You literally said that "the brain is the most complex object in the known universe", which is an incorrect statement. If you didn't wanna discuss complexity, maybe you should've phrased things in a way that doesn't discuss complexity, but rather actually says what you want to say. The brain is obviously not the most complex thing in the universe, and I can't even imagine why the hell would you think it is.
But nah, it's much easier to insult people for not understanding you, rather than try and make your point clear.
What us more complex? A cpu or a cpu inside a box? Adding a less complex object layer on top of an already complex object technically increases it's complexity. However, it is a silly argument to make.
A smartphone is more complex than a screw because it contains screws. This is a fine comparison to make because it is the one you, the stater, stated.
If you instead stated that a screw is the most complex tool humans make, then anyone who said "two screws! (in a smartphone)" as a counterpoint is not debating in good faith.
Gonna have to agree that at the very least, the immune system is way up there! After reading Philipp Dettmer's book "Immune" (recommended), I couldn't help but think, "Wow, the API and protocols that this thing has..."
This - the immune system is fiercely complex, and as I understand it there's reason to believe we don't yet know all the types of cell that are in it. I could be wrong about that - I'm not an immunologist - but seem to recall reading such in the last few years.
> The research group behind the current study previously showed11 that NHEJ <non-homologous end-joining, an error-prone mechanism of double-strand DNA break (DSB) repair> is essential for NSPC <neural stem/progenitor cells> differentiation, which implies a role for NHEJ-mediated DSB repair during normal brain development. It is possible that subpopulations of cells in the brain display the same types of rearrangements, and that some are positively selected. Similar studies in vivo and in other tissues are needed to test this hypothesis.
> We show that genome-wide maps of endogenous DSBs are highly correlated between experimental replicates up to 10 kilobases (kb) resolution, and that DSBs are non-uniformly distributed along the genome, in all three cell differentiation stages analyzed.
...
> Our datasets and analytical tools represent a valuable resource for exploring genome fragility during human neurogenesis and investigating how this might contribute to the pathogenesis of NDDs. <neurodevelopmental disorders>
If the rules that govern intelligence are simple (and intuition tells me they are), then the immune system is certainly a complicated and prickly beast.
immune system cells actually share a lot of the same receptor systems as neurons do, and these systems end up influencing each other to significant degree, both ways.
Counterpoint to what assumption? To the idea that the brain is complex? Or was it a cryptic way to imply that there might be other sentience with more-advanced “brains”?
I was pointing out the potential limitations or challenges inherent in using one's own cognitive abilities to understand and evaluate the world, including the brain's ability to comprehend itself. But i loved how this open up a discussion
