# Is the human brain the most complex object in the universe? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [January 31, 2012, 2:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-human-brain-the-most-complex-object-in-the-universe/611259 "2012-01-31T02:39:24Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 6
**Author:** ![Kozmik](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/8dc957/32.png) [@Kozmik](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kozmik)\ **Post date:** [February 2, 2012, 4:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-human-brain-the-most-complex-object-in-the-universe/611259/101 "2012-02-02T04:15:27Z")
> [@iamnotbatman](#): > > The universe is not made of brains. No, but you said, > [@iamnotbatman](#): > > Furthermore, while the universe might be more complicated than the brain, it is only so by virtue of being a sum of complicated parts, not because it itself, like the brain, has an emergent property making it as a whole more complicated than the sum of its parts. the universe is the sum of complicated parts, those parts (mostly) being brains. > [@TriPolar](#): > > I think the way to get to AI in whatever form is to simulate the operation of the brain in the sense of producing the same results, then working back towards the biological implementation. In other words, reverse engineering? ---
**Author:** ![JThunder](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/e95f7d/32.png) [@JThunder](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JThunder)\ **Post date:** [February 2, 2012, 4:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-human-brain-the-most-complex-object-in-the-universe/611259/102 "2012-02-02T04:28:30Z")
> [@TriPolar](#): > > I find that highly arguable. It’s like saying the type of paper is fundamental to the content of a book. You’re missing the point. The brain is capable of learning and exhibiting cognition precisely because it can grow, adapt, and organize itself. That is why it’s foolish to ignore these qualities, saying, “Well, let’s pretend that the brain doesn’t have these abilities. After all, most man-made don’t.” It amounts to evaluating the brain’s complexity while ignoring its most distinctive qualities. ---
**Author:** ![JThunder](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/e95f7d/32.png) [@JThunder](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JThunder)\ **Post date:** [February 2, 2012, 4:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-human-brain-the-most-complex-object-in-the-universe/611259/103 "2012-02-02T04:30:35Z")
> [@Kozmik](#): > > How would a simulation of objects within the universe be different from a simulation of the universe itself? That’s an interesting question. It’s also irrelevant to the subject at hand. As I said, we are talking about objects within the universe itself, not the universe in its entirety. All this talk about simulating the universe is straying far afield of the topic at hand and has no relevance to this discussion. ---
**Author:** ![Kozmik](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/8dc957/32.png) [@Kozmik](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kozmik)\ **Post date:** [February 2, 2012, 5:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-human-brain-the-most-complex-object-in-the-universe/611259/104 "2012-02-02T05:20:57Z")
> [@JThunder](#): > > That’s an interesting question. It’s also irrelevant to the subject at hand. It’s an interested question that relevant to answering the question in the thread title. > [@JThunder](#): > > As I said, we are talking about objects within the universe itself, not the universe in its entirety. Now you are equivocating. There’s “objects within the universe” and there’s “the universe itself”, as you pointed out in [your previous post](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=14730255&postcount=85). And then there’s “the universe in it’s entirety” as you pointed out in your post above. “the universe itself” + “objects within the universe” = “the universe in its entirety” ---
**Author:** ![JThunder](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/e95f7d/32.png) [@JThunder](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JThunder)\ **Post date:** [February 2, 2012, 5:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-human-brain-the-most-complex-object-in-the-universe/611259/105 "2012-02-02T05:40:55Z")
You’re drawing a false distinction. The universe itself IS the same as the universe in its entirety. It’s simply a different kind of phrasing. And as I’ve said before, it’s irrelevant to the topic at hand. The OP asked whether the human brain is the most complex object in the universe. The universe is NOT one of the objects in the universe, so that line of reasoning is entirely inconsequential for the purposes of this thread. ---
**Author:** ![Kobal2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kobal2/32/20_2.png) [@Kobal2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kobal2)\ **Post date:** [February 2, 2012, 5:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-human-brain-the-most-complex-object-in-the-universe/611259/106 "2012-02-02T05:54:23Z")
> [@JThunder](#): > > It certainly is a case wherein the design is not perfect. That doesn’t make it less than complex, though. A wristwatch that loses a few seconds per day is still a highly complex mechanism. Ditto for one that eventually runs down. Point conceded. > [@](#): > > They have EVERYTHING to do with what the brain is and does. The brain’s ability to grow and organize itself are fundamental to functions such as cognition, learning, and memory recall. One shouldn’t ignore these features simply because they don’t exist in most man-made objects – or because they don’t support one’s desired conclusion. Yes. And then again, no. Yes, the brain considered as a blob of meat does need these features to be able to do what it does, and loses functionality when those features are somehow impaired. But from an information theory standpoint, it doesn’t. If we were to map and model a brain using virtual neural networks and such, those would not be able to regrow and reorganize their component matter, yes ? It would all be done via software. So from a functional standpoint, those features present in all biological systems are not required, because the same function can be achieved through other means. For example, an artificial heart doesn’t repair itself, doesn’t beat because a complicated chemical reaction forces it to contract rythmically and isn’t regulated by constant stimuli from the brain ; instead it simply doesn’t decay, a battery powers it, a microchip tells it how to “beat” and it probably doesn’t pump blood via self-constriction either but rather via… I actually have no idea. Turbines, maybe ? I do know Cheney doesn’t have a pulse. Does that make an artificial heart less, more or just as complex as the real thing ? ---
**Author:** ![Kobal2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kobal2/32/20_2.png) [@Kobal2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kobal2)\ **Post date:** [February 2, 2012, 5:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-human-brain-the-most-complex-object-in-the-universe/611259/107 "2012-02-02T05:55:23Z")
> [@iamnotbatman](#): > > The universe is not made of brains. Spoken like a man who’s never taken heroic doses of LSD. 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![iamnotbatman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/858c86/32.png) [@iamnotbatman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iamnotbatman)\ **Post date:** [February 2, 2012, 5:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-human-brain-the-most-complex-object-in-the-universe/611259/108 "2012-02-02T05:59:06Z")
> [@Kozmik](#): > > No, but you said, > > the universe is the sum of complicated parts, those parts (mostly) being brains. I never said we “understand the universe.” I said: > [@iamnotbatman](#): > > By any reasonable definition I can think of, the universe is surely more complicated than the brain, since the brain is part of the universe. This is why I was careful to throw around the word “density” in my previous postings. Furthermore, while the universe might be more complicated than the brain, it is only so by virtue of being a sum of complicated parts, not because it itself, like the brain, has an emergent property making it as a whole more complicated than the sum of its parts. You may want to read the whole thing. If I _were_ to say we “understand” the universe, it would be referring to the fact that it follows the laws of physics, and that the parts of which it is composed are not working together as a whole to give rise to a secondary phenomenon that is not understood. There are a few emergent phenomena _within_ the universe, such as “consciousness”, that are not well understood from an epiphenomenal/algorithmic/computational/etc (according to your taste) point of view despite being composed of parts that are themselves understood. The same does not apply to weather (for example), which is well understood from all those points of view. Similarly the same does not apply to the universe as a whole, as it does not appear to, as a coherent object unto itself, exhibit any secondary or emergent properties that are not well understood. But this is all just an issue of context-dependent definitions. ---
**Author:** ![iamnotbatman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/858c86/32.png) [@iamnotbatman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iamnotbatman)\ **Post date:** [February 2, 2012, 6:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-human-brain-the-most-complex-object-in-the-universe/611259/109 "2012-02-02T06:05:55Z")
> [@Kobal2](#): > > Spoken like a man who’s never taken heroic doses of LSD. > > 🙂 My favorite logical fallacy: _appeal to LSD experience_ I would make great use of it if I could only put my point into words 😉 I might be willing to concede the universe is made of brains, if we are careful with our definitions! ---
**Author:** ![Kozmik](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/8dc957/32.png) [@Kozmik](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kozmik)\ **Post date:** [February 2, 2012, 6:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-human-brain-the-most-complex-object-in-the-universe/611259/110 "2012-02-02T06:47:15Z")
> [@JThunder](#): > > The OP asked whether the human brain is the most complex object in the universe. No, the OP asked “Is the human brain the most complex object in the universe?”. > [@JThunder](#): > > The universe is NOT one of the objects in the universe, so that line of reasoning is entirely inconsequential for the purposes of this thread. **iamnotbatman** [did not](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=14730848&postcount=95) think that line of reasoning was entirely inconsequential. > [@iamnotbatman](#): > > I never said we “understand the universe.” I never said we “understand the universe” either. I [said](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=14730942&postcount=98) by virtue of understanding objects within the universe we understand the universe in its entirety (though I’m [not](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=14731651&postcount=104) saying we understand the universe in itself). > [@iamnotbatman](#): > > I might be willing to concede the universe is made of brains, if we are careful with our definitions! Do you concede that the universe is made of objects? ---
**Author:** ![iamnotbatman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/858c86/32.png) [@iamnotbatman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iamnotbatman)\ **Post date:** [February 2, 2012, 7:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-human-brain-the-most-complex-object-in-the-universe/611259/111 "2012-02-02T07:15:58Z")
**Kosmik** , for some reason you are not digesting what I’ve written, now repetitiously. I’ve tried to make clear that there is a definitional distinction between understanding epi- and primary phenomena. One can understand how a lever works, and yet not understand the atoms in the lever. Likewise one can understand the atoms in a lever, and not understand how a lever works. Just the same, we can understand atoms and not the brain, and we can not understand the brain and yet understand the universe. ---
**Author:** ![dorsk188](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/f05b48/32.png) [@dorsk188](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dorsk188)\ **Post date:** [February 2, 2012, 7:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-human-brain-the-most-complex-object-in-the-universe/611259/112 "2012-02-02T07:16:16Z")
> [@iamnotbatman](#): > > I already gave one of many possible examples earlier in the thread. Under the umbrella of definitions in algorithmic information theory I would perhaps define complexity of a system in terms of how compressible the information is that comes out of its emergent properties. For example, can you come up with an algorithm that models human thought? You can certainly put lower bounds on such an algorithm. The algorithm is obviously more complex than 5 print hello goto 5, for example. Etc. With this definition it is in fact rather trivial that the human brain is the most complicated (leaving aside putting multiple brains together and calling them a single object – that’s why I might throw the word ‘density’ around) object in the universe. It’s all in definitions, buddy. It’s entirely feasible that humans could create a computer much more complex than the human brain in the next, say 100 years. Once that machine is created, a human brain isn’t the most complex by any definition. What you are asserting (or at least implying) is: “No species in the universe has yet created a machine that powerful (or evolved one of their own).” You’re making that case based on a single data point (Earth) and total ignorance of every other possible case. No one can reasonably make that case, and I know you’re smart enough to know that. If you want to say the human brain is the most complex object on Earth, you can make that argument (I would still disagree, but not as emotionally). People should just have an ounce of humility, particularly when dealing with the scale of the entirety of freakin’ everything. > [@Bozuit](#): > > I don’t see it as “masturbatory”. I’ll withdraw the assertion when someone without a human brain says it. ---
**Author:** ![iamnotbatman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/858c86/32.png) [@iamnotbatman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iamnotbatman)\ **Post date:** [February 2, 2012, 7:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-human-brain-the-most-complex-object-in-the-universe/611259/113 "2012-02-02T07:46:52Z")
> [@dorsk188](#): > > It’s entirely feasible that humans could create a computer much more complex than the human brain in the next, say 100 years. Once that machine is created, a human brain isn’t the most complex by any definition. > > What you are asserting (or at least implying) is: “No species in the universe has yet created a machine that powerful (or evolved one of their own).” You’re making that case based on a single data point (Earth) and total ignorance of every other possible case. No one can reasonably make that case, and I know you’re smart enough to know that. If you want to say the human brain is the most complex object on Earth, you can make that argument (I would still disagree, but not as emotionally). People should just have an ounce of humility, particularly when dealing with the scale of the entirety of freakin’ everything. I certainly didn’t assert what you seem to think I did, nor did I intend to imply what you think I implied. _Of course_ it is assumed that we are leaving aside the possibility of alien intelligences. _Of course_ if we create a computer of sufficient complexity it may overtake ours. _Of course_ things as they are now may not always be. You may want to go back and read through the posts without assuming such an attitude. ---
**Author:** ![Kozmik](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/8dc957/32.png) [@Kozmik](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kozmik)\ **Post date:** [February 2, 2012, 7:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-human-brain-the-most-complex-object-in-the-universe/611259/114 "2012-02-02T07:49:19Z")
> [@iamnotbatman](#): > > **Kosmik** , for some reason you are not digesting what I’ve written, now repetitiously. I’ve tried to make clear that there is a definitional distinction between understanding epi- and primary phenomena. One can understand how a lever works, and yet not understand the atoms in the lever. Likewise one can understand the atoms in a lever, and not understand how a lever works. Just the same, we can understand atoms and not the brain, and we can not understand the brain and yet understand the universe. Similarly, you can understand your brain without understanding the brain, and you can understand the brain without understanding your brain. ---
**Author:** ![dorsk188](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/f05b48/32.png) [@dorsk188](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dorsk188)\ **Post date:** [February 2, 2012, 9:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-human-brain-the-most-complex-object-in-the-universe/611259/115 "2012-02-02T09:34:53Z")
> [@iamnotbatman](#): > > I certainly didn’t assert what you seem to think I did, nor did I intend to imply what you think I implied. _Of course_ it is assumed that we are leaving aside the possibility of alien intelligences. You said: > [@iamnotbatman](#): > > Furthermore, for some choices of definitions, the brain probably is the most complicated object in the universe. Deal with it. As near as I can tell, you meant something like: “The human brain is probably the most complicated object in the universe (except for any currently unknown, but possible, evolved neural networks [or emergent analogues] throughout the universe, and except for any sufficiently advanced artificial devices constructed by those beings). Deal with it.” Correct me if I’m mischaracterizing your definition, but emergent intelligence isn’t just a clear indication that something is complicated, but it may even be requirement to rival the human brain. But then _of course_ you assume that everyone is precluding alien intelligences. That’s basically saying “the brain’s probably the most complicated thing in the universe, (except for anything that happens to be more complicated)”. Or maybe what you’re saying is that there are probably no natural abiological phenomenon which would produce something more complicated than a human brain. But if there _were_ a natural abiological phenomenon that produced something like, say a crystalline planet core that functioned like a solid state hard drive that became self-aware, wouldn’t that then be an “alien intelligence” and thus disqualified? Maybe you could restate your actual assertion once more, but include the unspoken assumptions and make caveats for the most likely implications that you may not be intending, because I’m not even sure what you really meant to say. If you really mean “the most complicated natural object on Earth” or “the most complicated currently known phenomenon” or whatever then _just say that_. Don’t bring the whole damned cosmos into it. When you say: “in the universe”, you shouldn’t get defensive and blame people’s “attitudes” when they assume you mean it. ---
**Author:** ![iamnotbatman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/858c86/32.png) [@iamnotbatman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iamnotbatman)\ **Post date:** [February 2, 2012, 9:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-human-brain-the-most-complex-object-in-the-universe/611259/116 "2012-02-02T09:44:26Z")
> [@Kozmik](#): > > Similarly, you can understand your brain without understanding the brain, and you can understand the brain without understanding your brain. All these things are true, depending on definitions. ---
**Author:** ![iamnotbatman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/858c86/32.png) [@iamnotbatman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iamnotbatman)\ **Post date:** [February 2, 2012, 9:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-human-brain-the-most-complex-object-in-the-universe/611259/117 "2012-02-02T09:53:16Z")
**dorsk188** , the only caveat I would add to [the post you are responding to](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=14727674&postcount=30) is adding the word “known” between “complicated” and “object”. I don’t think this caveat is really necessary for the rest of us here, since it’s pretty obvious we can only speak to what we know, but for you, sure, if it helps. Inserted and pasted: > [@iamnotbatman](#): > > The guy writing the NYT article was making the point that diagnosing maladies of the human brain is a lot more complicated than diagnosing a broken bone. The phrase is arguably mildly hyperbolic, but he wasn’t exactly weighing in on the universe’s inferiority to us, or any other silly thing you seem to be projecting onto the phrase. Furthermore, for some choices of definitions, the brain probably is the most complicated _ **known** _ object in the universe. Deal with it. I think the above words are crystal clear. Pick your definitions, and go to town. ---
**Author:** ![TriPolar](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tripolar/32/3008_2.png) [@TriPolar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TriPolar)\ **Post date:** [February 2, 2012, 12:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-human-brain-the-most-complex-object-in-the-universe/611259/118 "2012-02-02T12:59:30Z")
> [@Kozmik](#): > > In other words, reverse engineering? It’s a back and forth process. We can develop equivalent software faster than we’ll derive the function of the existing hardware. That gives a direction to head as we continue to examine the hardware. Approaching from both ends trying to meet in the center is the approach. But achieving AI is the goal. With that, the machines can start doing most of the work, eventually all of the work, and my damn kids can welcome their new android overlords. I’ll be dead by then, so I don’t care. ---
**Author:** ![Kozmik](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/8dc957/32.png) [@Kozmik](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kozmik)\ **Post date:** [February 2, 2012, 4:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-human-brain-the-most-complex-object-in-the-universe/611259/119 "2012-02-02T16:44:54Z")
> [@iamnotbatman](#): > > If I _were_ to say we “understand” the universe, it would be referring to the fact that it follows the laws of physics, and that the parts of which it is composed are not working together as a whole to give rise to a secondary phenomenon that is not understood. Objects within the universe follow the laws of physics; however, the universe itself can not be said to follow the laws of physics. > [@iamnotbatman](#): > > Similarly the same does not apply to the universe as a whole, as it does not appear to, as a coherent object unto itself, exhibit any secondary or emergent properties that are not well understood. What is “a coherent object unto itself”? ---
**Author:** ![iamnotbatman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/858c86/32.png) [@iamnotbatman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iamnotbatman)\ **Post date:** [February 2, 2012, 5:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-human-brain-the-most-complex-object-in-the-universe/611259/120 "2012-02-02T17:05:29Z")
> [@Kozmik](#): > > Objects within the universe follow the laws of physics; however, the universe itself can not be said to follow the laws of physics. You are playing semantic games. I’m not sure what your point is. If you define the universe as all that is measurable; it is that which follows the laws of physics. If you are getting at whether we understand the origin of the universe, that is another question. Again, definitions. > [@Kozmik](#): > > What is “a coherent object unto itself”? An object with properties corresponding to its characteristics as a whole rather than merely a list of properties of its constituent parts. A cat can be looked at just a collection of atoms with an artificial boundary, or it can be looked at as a coherent object with properties secondary to the laws of physics. The universe is not like a cat. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-human-brain-the-most-complex-object-in-the-universe/611259.md?page=5) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-human-brain-the-most-complex-object-in-the-universe/611259.md?page=7)