• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Female vs Male brains and the soul

Beyondo

Active Member
The development of the human brain is a fascinating subject. Studies of child development clearly indicate that many neurological structures have yet to myelinate, form, and/or integrate to cortical structures at birth. Ineffect a mind as a human self doesn't exist at birth. One of the fundamental proceses of developing a self is called imprinting. Much of the imprinting process according to scientists today is from visual cues primarily from the mother, or person acting as mother. This visual cue is said to be keyed by visual codes embedded in the brian. I however believe imprinting to be caused by pheromones which then build the visual coding that associates the reflex facial expressions. This could explain how someone like Helen Keller could still evolve a self though other senses, as in her case by tactal and olfactory senses. In any case the evidence suggests no self exists at birth, so what can be said of a soul? Because remember the soul is judged by god for its actions, so clearly a soul is equivalent to a self or persona.

Further down the development of brain maturation hormones play a role in causing gene expression developments in the infant. These hormones include gonadal steriods that through the environment control gene expression and circuit development. As such because these hormones are gender specific they cause behavioral changes that define a boy or girl. Many scientist claim that these sexual dimorphisms include types of thinking that include anxiety control, logic, language, mathematics, etc to be gender biased. IMHO the only real differences between boys and girls, as far as I have observed, is social behaviorally related. Things like agressiveness, body language, and relationship building and maintence. Good example of body language differences is the way a woman walks and the way a man walks, that pattern is not due to anatomy. But my point here is that gender biased attitudes place a little too much emphasis on abilities that women have proven to be equal to men. But here again there is a delima from the perspective of a soul. Not only is there not a self at birth but there isn't even a gender gap at birth, the defining qualities of male and females, outside the genitalia of course, is developed and irreversible within 18 to 24 months!
 

sandandfoam

Veteran Member
I disagree with the proposition that people are born as a blank slate e.g. Pinker 2002.
Geese imprint - in doing so are they forming a self in your opinion?
 

footprints

Well-Known Member
The development of the human brain is a fascinating subject. Studies of child development clearly indicate that many neurological structures have yet to myelinate, form, and/or integrate to cortical structures at birth. Ineffect a mind as a human self doesn't exist at birth. One of the fundamental proceses of developing a self is called imprinting. Much of the imprinting process according to scientists today is from visual cues primarily from the mother, or person acting as mother. This visual cue is said to be keyed by visual codes embedded in the brian. I however believe imprinting to be caused by pheromones which then build the visual coding that associates the reflex facial expressions. This could explain how someone like Helen Keller could still evolve a self though other senses, as in her case by tactal and olfactory senses. In any case the evidence suggests no self exists at birth, so what can be said of a soul? Because remember the soul is judged by god for its actions, so clearly a soul is equivalent to a self or persona.

Further down the development of brain maturation hormones play a role in causing gene expression developments in the infant. These hormones include gonadal steriods that through the environment control gene expression and circuit development. As such because these hormones are gender specific they cause behavioral changes that define a boy or girl. Many scientist claim that these sexual dimorphisms include types of thinking that include anxiety control, logic, language, mathematics, etc to be gender biased. IMHO the only real differences between boys and girls, as far as I have observed, is social behaviorally related. Things like agressiveness, body language, and relationship building and maintence. Good example of body language differences is the way a woman walks and the way a man walks, that pattern is not due to anatomy. But my point here is that gender biased attitudes place a little too much emphasis on abilities that women have proven to be equal to men. But here again there is a delima from the perspective of a soul. Not only is there not a self at birth but there isn't even a gender gap at birth, the defining qualities of male and females, outside the genitalia of course, is developed and irreversible within 18 to 24 months!

Children are born in a state of brain exuberance, their brain is not fully devoloped, and will not be until the person is in their twenties. All the senses are in place except for the visual cortex, so vision for the first few months is blurry and only in black and white.

Wild Child syndrome clearly indicates that children are born with no knowledge, and that they will relate and associate to anything which is available to them.

Pertaining to the soul at birth. There are many beliefs down this line, but all basically say the same thing, at birth the soul is pure and closest to God like, than at any other time in life.

Down psychological lines, the infant childs brain is also pure. The infant childs brain is the most sane, of any other person on earth.
 

Beyondo

Active Member
The development of the human brain is a fascinating subject. Studies of child development clearly indicate that many neurological structures have yet to myelinate, form, and/or integrate to cortical structures at birth. Ineffect a mind as a human self doesn't exist at birth. One of the fundamental proceses of developing a self is called imprinting. Much of the imprinting process according to scientists today is from visual cues primarily from the mother, or person acting as mother. This visual cue is said to be keyed by visual codes embedded in the brian. I however believe imprinting to be caused by pheromones which then build the visual coding that associates the reflex facial expressions. This could explain how someone like Helen Keller could still evolve a self though other senses, as in her case by tactal and olfactory senses. In any case the evidence suggests no self exists at birth, so what can be said of a soul? Because remember the soul is judged by god for its actions, so clearly a soul is equivalent to a self or persona.

Actually humans have several phases of imprinting of which there are olfactory, tactile, auditory and visual. The olfactory imprinting happens first, then the child forms tactile imprinting. The tactile sense remains the most dominate sense unitl about 10 months. After ten months the visual sense is most dominate.
 

Beyondo

Active Member
Children are born in a state of brain exuberance, their brain is not fully devoloped, and will not be until the person is in their twenties. All the senses are in place except for the visual cortex, so vision for the first few months is blurry and only in black and white.

Wild Child syndrome clearly indicates that children are born with no knowledge, and that they will relate and associate to anything which is available to them.

Pertaining to the soul at birth. There are many beliefs down this line, but all basically say the same thing, at birth the soul is pure and closest to God like, than at any other time in life.

Down psychological lines, the infant childs brain is also pure. The infant childs brain is the most sane, of any other person on earth.

Actually the facts are that the infant is born without the circuits to process knowledge, build memories and establish emotions. A new born is more like buying a desktop cabinet, there's no cpu, no ram or hardrives, but you did get a motherboard. You now just have to develop the cpu and ram, then develop the hard drives and hardwire them, and then install the software!

After that its all down hill...
 
Last edited:

MSizer

MSizer
Children are born in a state of brain exuberance, their brain is not fully devoloped, and will not be until the person is in their twenties. All the senses are in place except for the visual cortex, so vision for the first few months is blurry and only in black and white.

Wild Child syndrome clearly indicates that children are born with no knowledge, and that they will relate and associate to anything which is available to them.

Pertaining to the soul at birth. There are many beliefs down this line, but all basically say the same thing, at birth the soul is pure and closest to God like, than at any other time in life.

Down psychological lines, the infant childs brain is also pure. The infant childs brain is the most sane, of any other person on earth.

Do you know what "sane" means? Many cerebral defects are congenital, which means even if "saneness" is applicable to a baby, which would at best be a relative applicability, it is not universal among newborns. Psychopathy is inherited, so a psychopath is a psychopath at birth.
 

Beyondo

Active Member
Another note is that the corpus collosum doesn't fully myelinate until the thrid year. This means that right and left hemispheres of the brain are not integrating in the first years of life. They are ineffect developing indepentantly! Strangely the child is actually a split brain selves.

My question is how do the two hemispheres introduce each other? LOL. I mean what a shock when you discover that there is this other self communicating to you as thoughts! Such a experience could create the behavior of imaginary friends. Its as if a window opens that allows the left to peer into the right and vice versa.

I remember that about 3 or 4 I began to visualize characters in my imagination as real entities. My mohter was a devote catholic and so the stories of Jesus were taught to me as soon as I could talk. I remember Jesus appearing to me and god the father was with him. God the father wasn't a physical being but a light whose thoughts I could understand. I then could not see Jesus' face and was forced to only look down at his feet.

It's funny how much a three year old can understand...
 
Last edited:

MSizer

MSizer
There have been some interesting split-brain disorders. There's an uncommon operation that will sometimes act as a last resort to combat epilepsy whereby they will actually sever the corpus collosum. Some people recover fairly well, others not so much. I can't remember where or when or who the guy was, but one such person who had it done was asked to cover one eye and read a series of questions on cards and give the answers outloud. One of the questions was "do you believe in god", and he answered "yes". Then they asked him to do the same thing over again, but while covering the other eye, and he no longer believed in God! When they pointed out to him that he had answered differently, he became confused and couldn't explain it. I wish I could remember the rest of the story. There was something about the way he walked home every day from work. Something about not knowing where any of the landmark buildings were along the way, but I can't remember what the heck the problem was. I wish I could, 'cuz it was really funny (well, probably not for him!).
 

The Voice of Reason

Doctor of Thinkology
T Because remember the soul is judged by god for its actions, so clearly a soul is equivalent to a self or persona.
There is no evidence (whatsoever) that "soul" exists. Your assignment of its development to God makes your post even more bizarre.

The concept of "self" and the development of personae have nothing to do with the concept of "soul" - at least, not to a nonbeliever.
 

Beyondo

Active Member
There is no evidence (whatsoever) that "soul" exists. Your assignment of its development to God makes your post even more bizarre.

The concept of "self" and the development of personae have nothing to do with the concept of "soul" - at least, not to a nonbeliever.


I am questioning those who believe in a soul how they can reconcile that there is no self at birth? Yet most religions believe the soul enters the body at conception.
 

footprints

Well-Known Member
Actually the facts are that the infant is born without the circuits to process knowledge, build memories and establish emotions. A new born is more like buying a desktop cabinet, there's no cpu, no ram or hardrives, but you did get a motherboard. You now just have to develop the cpu and ram, then develop the hard drives and hardwire them, and then install the software!

After that its all down hill...

What you call without the circuits to process knowledge, is commonly referred to as brain exuberance, dendrites and synapses grow wild in order for the child quickly relate and associate to knowledge. As the relationship of association is made, the dendrite to synapse connection is made. The infant childs brain is bigger than adult size.

Emotions have little to do with this. Emotions are neurotransmitters. The adrenal gland as one example, is working when the child is born.

Your insistence on trying to relate and associate the human brain to a computer, will inhibit your knowledge along this path.
 

Beyondo

Active Member
What you call without the circuits to process knowledge, is commonly referred to as brain exuberance, dendrites and synapses grow wild in order for the child quickly relate and associate to knowledge. As the relationship of association is made, the dendrite to synapse connection is made. The infant child's brain is bigger than adult size.

Not quite right...certain brain circuits are in placed, many cortical structures are either completely without neurons and others have not myelinated yet. The first stages of imprinting causes neurons to actually grow in certain areas. In the first month the infant can not store episodic events, meaning there is no short term memory, nor is there any long term memory. However the brain is developing structures that will later become short term memory systems. So the child is not gaining knowledge at this stage of development but is getting the necessary circuitry to process, store and retrive information (knowledge) as a contextual experience and an episodic event.

Also the infants brain is not larger than adult brain.

Emotions have little to do with this. Emotions are neurotransmitters. The adrenal gland as one example, is working when the child is born.

Emotions are the very means that an infant starts to gain knowledge, it called "affect". Emotional feelings of joy and shame are imprinted through visual cues from facial expressions. Yes, adrenal chemistry is working in the infant but its effect is to apply blood flow and other chemistry to innervate cortical tissue so as to grow new neural circuits.

Your insistence on trying to relate and associate the human brain to a computer, will inhibit your knowledge along this path.

And the analogy fits very well. The infant is without short term memory (RAM) and long term memory (Hard Drives), lacks the ability to process information (no CPU) and has no knowledge nor neural processes to store or retrieve episodic information (no software, inclusive of drivers and information management systems to control information exchange). What is in place is the biochemical environment to build the processors, the ram and the hard drives along with the information exchange protocols and management systems for information retrieval and storage. Actually the more appropriate kind of hardware/software analogy is the Field Programmable Gate Array (FPGA). FPGAs can be programmed to build any kind of circuit on the fly! Meaning if you need an I/O processor or memory bus driver or memory access driver or a form of memory or a cpu or many cpus, the FPGA can morph into those kinds of circuits. So too are biological neurons building I/O processors, memory access circuits, information processing systems (CPUs) and forms of memory.

What you are failing to understand is the need for information management in the brain and the ability of neurons to build wetware infrastructure that are hardware like mechanisms found in computer information systems. You think that memory as neural circuits is just a bunch of wild neurons that can just connect and make it all work. But the subtly is that it is not like that. The new born does not have any infrastructure to provide information retrieval, storage or processing. A neural circuit building connections is not processing information as a solution, it is in fact trying to develop a solution. Once it has evolved a solution can it be considered a processing system. Your insistence that fails to understand the brain as a form of information management system is what will keep you believing in brain transmission theories that can see into the future. :franken:
 
Last edited:

footprints

Well-Known Member
Not quite right...certain brain circuits are in placed, many cortical structures are either completely without neurons and others have not myelinated yet. The first stages of imprinting causes neurons to actually grow in certain areas. In the first month the infant can not store episodic events, meaning there is no short term memory, nor is there any long term memory. However the brain is developing structures that will later become short term memory systems. So the child is not gaining knowledge at this stage of development but is getting the necessary circuitry to process, store and retrive information (knowledge) as a contextual experience and an episodic event.

We have known the effects of infant brain exuberance for many years. Yes it is 100% correct where conscious knowledge is concerned.

Also the infants brain is not larger than adult brain.

Due to infant exuberance it is. I will tell you something else, so too is an adolescent brain.


Emotions are the very means that an infant starts to gain knowledge, it called "affect". Emotional feelings of joy and shame are imprinted through visual cues from facial expressions. Yes, adrenal chemistry is working in the infant but its effect is to apply blood flow and other chemistry to innervate cortical tissue so as to grow new neural circuits.

LOL, no it isn't. It is due to the effect of relationship and association. It is what snaps the dendrites to form a passage to the synapse. Emotions are neurotransmitters which influence the knowledge.

And the analogy fits very well. The infant is without short term memory (RAM) and long term memory (Hard Drives), lacks the ability to process information (no CPU) and has no knowledge nor neural processes to store or retrieve episodic information (no software, inclusive of drivers and information management systems to control information exchange). What is in place is the biochemical environment to build the processors, the ram and the hard drives along with the information exchange protocols and management systems for information retrieval and storage. Actually the more appropriate kind of hardware/software analogy is the Field Programmable Gate Array (FPGA). FPGAs can be programmed to build any kind of circuit on the fly! Meaning if you need an I/O processor or memory bus driver or memory access driver or a form of memory or a cpu or many cpus, the FPGA can morph into those kinds of circuits. So too are biological neurons building I/O processors, memory access circuits, information processing systems (CPUs) and forms of memory.

What you are failing to understand is the need for information management in the brain and the ability of neurons to build wetware infrastructure that are hardware like mechanisms found in computer information systems. You think that memory as neural circuits is just a bunch of wild neurons that can just connect and make it all work. But the subtly is that it is not like that. The new born does not have any infrastructure to provide information retrieval, storage or processing. A neural circuit building connections is not processing information as a solution, it is in fact trying to develop a solution. Once it has evolved a solution can it be considered a processing system. Your insistence that fails to understand the brain as a form of information management system is what will keep you believing in brain transmission theories that can see into the future. :franken:

LOL, in a healthy brain all the infrastructure is already in place, all it needs is the connections to make it start happening. If no connections are made, such as in Wild Child syndrome, no knowledge is gained and the use it or loose it process starts to take place.
 

Beyondo

Active Member
We have known the effects of infant brain exuberance for many years. Yes it is 100% correct where conscious knowledge is concerned.

Read some books on the subject because you're clueless of this subject matter.

Due to infant exuberance it is. I will tell you something else, so too is an adolescent brain.

LOL, perhaps your brain is smaller than a new born's...Again read some books on the subject.

LOL, no it isn't. It is due to the effect of relationship and association. It is what snaps the dendrites to form a passage to the synapse. Emotions are neurotransmitters which influence the knowledge.

Again you are clueless on the subject and have zero knowledge of the term "Affect" and how it applies to learning.

LOL, in a healthy brain all the infrastructure is already in place, all it needs is the connections to make it start happening. If no connections are made, such as in Wild Child syndrome, no knowledge is gained and the use it or loose it process starts to take place.

Absolutely incorrect! A new born doesn't even have short term memory!

Overall footprints your shoot from the hip, "This is the way I think it works", "A little homoculus just starting out brain that just needs knowledge" giberish is WRONG.

I will say it again footprints; Get an education, Please! You need to get up to speed on things like "Cognitive Science", "Neural Networks", "Artificial Neural Networks", "Brain Development", "Affect", etc, You have demonstrated a complete lack understanding of the subjects listed time and time again, because of this I will not argue any of your points on those subjects.

I will again recommed some books for you to read, "Affect Regulation and the Origin of the Self" by Allan Schore, and "Rethinking Inateness" By Jeffrey Ellman, et al, also the work book for "Rethinking Inateness", "Neuroanatomy through Clinical Cases" by Hal Blumenfeld. Education is not free, these books will set you back a few dollars, at least $220.00 U.S.

Also google Jefferey Ellman and Allan Schore you might learn somethings...
 
Last edited:

stiletto

Naughty But Nice
The defining qualities of male and females, outside the genitalia of course, is developed and irreversible within 18 to 24 months!

I disagree. The differences between males and females, and the superiority of the female brain and intellect, are too great to not already be present in some form before birth. :p
 

Beyondo

Active Member
I disagree. The differences between males and females, and the superiority of the female brain and intellect, are too great to not already be present in some form before birth. :p

LOL, If the female is born in Russia, Europe, or Asia, then perhaps. :sad:

American woman, get away from me
American woman, mama let me be
Don't come knocking around my door
I don't want to see your shadow no more
Colored lights can hypnotize
Sparkle someone else's eyes
Now woman, get away
American woman, listen what I say :drums:


But seriously the facts say otherwise...
 
Top