--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "salyavin808" <fintlewoodlewix@...> wrote: > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "PaliGap" <compost1uk@> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "seventhray27" <steve.sundur@> wrote: > > > It has been suggested here, that a person does not have full brain > > > development until they are 25. And I think the part of the brain > > > that is not fully developed, IIRC is that part which evaluates the > > > future consequences of our actions. I am just putting that out there > > > as one thing to consider. > > > > Yes I see that has been mentioned here. There must be something > > wrong with my brain though, 'cos this idea seems to me to be > > off-the-wall bonkers beyond belief. Do you *really* believe this? > > Really? > > > > Einstein published his first paper at the age of 22. It was on > > "Conclusions from the Capillarity Phenomena" - But his > > brain had not yet reached the stage where it "evaluates the > > future consequences of our actions"?
> Why would his brain have had to be fully developed to write > a scientific paper? Well it's not clear to me what a brain's being "fully developed" means. But it seems to me to be a reasonable starting point to suppose that being able to get published qualifies "prima facie". > > Then again perhaps it was 23 year old war hero Frank Edward Young > > (VC)'s brain that was at fault: > > > > "On 18 September 1918 south-east of Havrincourt, France, during > > an enemy counter-attack and throughout intense enemy fire, Second > > Lieutenant Young visited all posts, warned the garrisons and > > encouraged the men. In the early stages of the attack he rescued > > two of his men who had been captured and bombed and silenced an > > enemy machine-gun. Then he fought his way back to the main > > barricade and drove out a party of the enemy assembling there. > > Throughout four hours of heavy fighting this officer set a fine > > example and was last seen fighting hand-to-hand against a > > considerable number of the enemy" > Why do you think a 'not fully' developed brain is at fault? Well I don't (of course). This person's brain (if we are to talk this way) seems to have been capable of the highest functions. A counter-example to the brain theory we are considering here? Yet there is a response: Perhaps Frank Edward Young's bravery and heroism can be "explained away" in our brave new world of brain- talk. If only he had been twenty five he would have had sufficient cc's of grey matter to have "understood the consequences of his actions". He could have laid low instead of rushing about getting shot at* (it seems we are to suppose that neither Einstein nor Young had the presence of mind/brain to realise that if you stick your head above the parapet the "consequence of the action" is that you come under fire). In other words these qualities of courage and bravery are a brain defect. They can be "explained away". No doubt I am missing something of the theory I am criticising. But I'm just calling it as I see it. * As I think I would have done at any stage of my brain's development. Which suggests that even when puny, my brain had enough horsepower to make calculations of the form "If I do x, y is likely to happen".
