Basic HTML Version
March-April 1972
The
PLAIN TRUTH
HUMAN MINO
ANOANIMAL BRAIN
AGraphic 11/ustration
p ouR
physical beings - rat, cat,
chimp, and man - are comparcd
with respect to
(1)
Physiological
Brai n and (2) Mental Activity.
(These graphs are only illustrative
of the general principie and are ob–
viously not intended to be absolute
or quantitative.)
In the bottom graph, a gradual
increase in complexity of physi–
ological brain is exhibited from rat–
to-cat-to-chimp-to-man. In the top
graph, a gradual increase in com–
plexity of mental activity is mani–
fested from rat-to-cat-to-chimp. But
that's where the similarity ends. The
chimp-to-man step is accompanied by
a spectacular jump in mental activity.
Let's view these two graphs
through the eyes of the materialist.
Remember, he has an assumptive
axiom to grind: He must maintain
that all human mental activity is
solely and exclusively generated by
the human physiological brain. And
for this to be true, man's position on
the mental activity graph would have
to be completely dependent upon,
and be totally explaioed by, man's
position on the physiological brain
graph. Or, in other words, the solid
arrow in the mental activity graph
would have to correlate
consistently
with the similar arrow in the physi–
ological brain graph.
But, much to the dismay of the
materialist, when he attempts to har-
monize these graphs with his theories,
he generates a coutradictiou.
Man is
way
out of liue. The
arrows don't match-they're not even
close. Something is obviously wrong.
The materialist's
logic
is good. It's
his
axiom
that's off. The full blame
fo r the inconsistency - th is mismatch
of arrows- must be squarely placed
on materialism's cardinal principie:
human brain equals human mind.
The point is fundamental. The
two graphs correlate perfectly for rat,
cat, and chimp: a progressive incre–
ment in complexity of physiological
brain is reAected by an analogous
increment in mental activity. This
means that
for animals materialism is
wholly tme:
Animal brain accounts
for all ·of animal mental activity.
Now, if this
same
correlation be–
tween physiological brain and mental
activity would also hold true for
man, theu materialism would be cor–
rect, and human thought would have
precisely the same dependence on the
human brain as animal thought has
on animal brain.
But bere's the point: What
does
happen when the leap is made from
chimp to man? A dramatic
break
in
continuity occurs in the mental activ–
ity grapb. And only a simple increase
occurs in the physiological brain
graph.
The critica! COI'I'elation is de–
stroyed!
And that's the point! Who
is responsible? Not the animals.
Only man!
We can come to but one con–
clusion: Man must be different. The
equation, "brain equals 100% of
mental activity," valid for animals,
is not valid for man.
Finally, we present the problem in
reverse. What would it take to valí–
date materialism? The only way
would be if the physiological brain
graph
consiJtently correlated
with the
mental activity graph with respect to
man. This correlation could be either
linear or non-linear- so long as the
same correlation betweeo mental
activity and physiological brain
which exists for every animal would
equally exist for man.
How would materialism's premise
- human mind equals human brain
- be verified? Nothing less than
either of the following two condi–
tions would be required:
( 1) Man's physiological brain
would have to be
enormousl)'
more
complex than chimp's, suddenly
jumping far beyond the progressive
brain development shown from rat–
to-cat-to-chimp.
(2) Man's mental activity would
have to be only
slightly
above
chimp's, just the mere extension of
the gradual increment in mental
activity displayed from rat-to-cat–
to-chimp. (This is indicated by the
light green cxtension of the arrow in
the top graph. Note that the figure
shown is a
complete/y hypotheticai
being
-
a nonexistent creation that
could only be barely superior to ape
in mental activity.)
But both of these would-be "sav–
iors" of materialism's cornerstone - –
human mind equals human brain -
are hopelessly nonexistent. To the
open-minded individual, it is fruit–
less to ratiooalize the uniqueness of
the human mind as merely physicaL
39