Basic HTML Version
January
1972
The
PLAIN TRUTH
Human Mind Versus Animal Brain:
Materialism Says No Basic Difference
O
NE COGENT example of mate–
rialistic reasoning would frame
the following scenario:
"If
a group of babies somehow
managed to survive to adulthood
in complete isolation from the res t
of society, they would not have the
benefit of educacional institutions,
libraries, rules, traditions, legends,
or even language. And as a result,
they wouldn' t get much accom–
plished. Rather, they would spend
their time scratching their naked
bodies, hunti ng for food, running
from f ire, grunting, shouting, lust–
ing, mating, beating their chests,
and hiding from thunder. These
people would not invent airplanes,
telephones, guns, pianos, ballpoint
pens, heart- lung machines, razor
blades, or even paper cups. They
would probably display fear, rage,
greed, lust , affection, wonder, awe.
But they would
tzot
display much
of what we have come to know as
aesthetic appreciation or intel–
lectual achievement. Their actions
would not greatly differ from
ch imps.
" Man has, however, managed
one important difference from the
primates - bis ability to pass on
information from one generation
to another. Therefore {reasons our
good materi alistic friendJ to com–
pare modero man with chimp can
be most misleading. lt' s Iike com–
paring two frogs, one that can
jump
eight
inches and one that
can jump
ten
inches. There's not
much real difference - but on a
stairway of
uine-inch
steps, one
f rog
will
leave the other far be–
low. It is easy to be misled by
appearances."
We agree. The "two frogs on the
steps" analogy epitomizes the entire
scope of materialism's main point. Jt
propounds that the fundamental dif–
ference between the mental output of
man aod the mental output of ani–
ma ls is deceptively minor. But this
minor difference - in whatever ref–
erence system this "minor differ–
ence" exists - exceeds the crucial
threshold
foc
mental advancement.
The analogy of the "two frogs on
the steps" applies here. lt explains
how the concept of "threshold"
applies to the problem of the rela–
tionship between human and animal
mental activity. The frog which can
jump only
eight
inches can
never
reach even the second (nine-inch )
step, whereas the other frog, which
can jump a bare two inches
highef,
can eventually hop to the top of the
thousands of steps in the Empire
State Building.
( Nine
inches is, in
this example, "the threshold.")
Consequent ly, a triumphant mate–
rialist points out, if a "non-material–
ist observer" carne along near the
end of this process and saw one frog
at the bottom of the fi rst step, con–
tinously jump ing up, hitting its
head on the second step and fall ing
back down to the first step, and then
compared this frog with its compan–
ion frog who was merrily vaulting
step after step on the 1OOth Right of
stairs of the Empire State Building,
the non-materialist, being rather
naive, would probably come to an er–
roneous conclusion. He might well
postulate that since both frogs were
nearly identical in structure and
function, the leaping frog, hundreds
of feet above its fellow frog, "must
be vastly superior" - and this "vast
superiority must be due to a vastly
superior brain-mind capacity gener–
ated by sorne non-materialistic
factor."
"This deduction," sarcastically
comments the materialist, "may seem
absurd." And it is. "But," he contin–
ues, "religionists casually reach just
such an absurd deduction regarding
the supposed 'unbridgeable gap'
separating the mental act ivi ties of
man ( the vaulting frog) and chimp
(the head-hitting frog) ." The de–
duction is absurd ( nalve would be a
nicer word) because thc concept of
"threJho/d"
is overlooked.
T he materialist proclaims that here
lies the simple,
who/ly physica/
solu–
tion: The one ( man) has
exceeded
the crucial threshold - which is the
capacity to pass on information from
one generation to the next - and
the other ( chimp, dolphin, etc.)
has
1101.
And this, not sorné ethereal non–
materialistic factor, is the
only
dif–
ference between the two, concludes
tre materialist.
But is his view cocrect?
Oc
is the
materialist overlooking something
vital? H e is considering brain
outprtl
and cumulative knowledge passed on
from one generation to the next.
But he is ignoring brain
input.
Take, for example, the illustration
of the group of babies who sucvive
to adulthood in complete isolation
from the rest of society, without ben–
efit of the accumulated knowledge by
preceding generations.
What would be lacking would be
knowledge input. And without it,
they would, it is falsely assumed,
grow up much like apes or chimps.
Animal instinct causes new-born
animals automatica!ly, without teach–
ing or learning, to do what they need
to do. But a new-born human baby,
of itself, is utterl y helpless. It is born
with a human MIND, as yet unfilled
with knowledge. l t does
not
come
equipped with the same kind of in–
stinct as the new-born animal. It
must be taught - or learn -
EVERYTHING. And as he grows, the
human being must guide his actions
by his mind - through brain INput,
- through knowledge taught or
learned - not by instinct.
The new-born calf is on all fours
and walking, in about five minutes.
The new-bocn human
learns, oc
is
taught, to walk - in about a YEAR.
The new-born calf starts walking. It
is not taught.
It
walks by instinct in
order to fulfill a need for its
mother's milk. The human baby
must also be fed , and taught in time
to eat.
Now, reverse the materialist's
original illustration. Take a grou;l of
chimps, apes, elephants or dolphins
- newly boro. Try to TEACH them,
as humans are taught from birth.
Give
them
the advantage of accumu–
lated HUMAN knowledge. At the
same time, take this group of human
babies, and give them the same
teachings of accumulated human
knowledge, a little ata time, at what–
ever cate the child's brain is capable
of absorbing.
By age 18 the human boys will
know more than their fathers - or
thi11k
that they do. By age 18 how
much knowledge (INput) will the
chimp, ape, elephant, or dolphin,
have received ?
The human MIND is capable of
learning - of receiving knowledge
- and USING IT - in a manner that
leaves a VAST GULF between
it
and
the virtually equal (in size, weight,
and quality) and most complex ani–
mal brain.
5