# 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:** 9
**Author:** ![Mangetout](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mangetout/32/19_2.png) [@Mangetout](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mangetout)\ **Post date:** [February 4, 2012, 11:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-human-brain-the-most-complex-object-in-the-universe/611259/161 "2012-02-04T23:58:26Z")
> [@iamnotbatman](#): > > The universe is not a jet engine; as a macroscopic aggregate it has no epiphenomenal complexity. It seems you aren’t understanding anything I’ve been saying. At this point all I can do is ask you to read my previous posts, because I’ve explained why your last sentence is not true (depending on your definition of complexity) more than three times so far in this thread, including in the rest of the post you are responding to. Where is this epiphenomenal complexity occurring? Somewhere other than the universe? ---
**Author:** ![Trinopus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/2bfe46/32.png) [@Trinopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trinopus)\ **Post date:** [February 5, 2012, 12:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-human-brain-the-most-complex-object-in-the-universe/611259/162 "2012-02-05T00:08:19Z")
> [@TriPolar](#): > > . . . I think an object can be considered any set of physically joined components without problems. . . . Well…yes and no? Obviously, I’m niggling terribly here – but isn’t that what this whole thread has been about? “Physically joined” entails a vast spectrum of items being more or less integral to each other. A tow-truck is physically joined to the car it’s towing…but most of us would think of them as two objects. As I said, it invites “line drawing.” How integral (is that modifying an absolute?) do the truck and the car have to be to be a single object? Welded together? Built together from the origin? What degree of physical joining would make two brains “one object?” I’m envisioning some Frankensteinian process of grafting one into the other – **RaftPeople** notes this can happen in nature – so shouldn’t the increase in complexity be accepted as a “trivial exception” to the claim that a single brain is the most complex object? > [@](#): > > So either of my two brains could be considered an object, as could their subcomponents. But the two cannot be considered a single object because they are located in different parts of my body and aren’t physically joined without intermediate components that are not part of either brain . Again…what if, by art or nature, they were physically joined? And again, apologies for the absurd pedantic nitpicking; I’m only approaching it as a kind of game. (ETA: not trolling, I pray you! More like pilpul!) (Reminds me of an old math class where students enjoyed popping up with exceptions to various rules, based on the unique properties of the empty set. After a while, the teacher said, “Okay, no more trivial exceptions!”) ---
**Author:** ![Kozmik](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/8dc957/32.png) [@Kozmik](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kozmik)\ **Post date:** [February 5, 2012, 4:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-human-brain-the-most-complex-object-in-the-universe/611259/163 "2012-02-05T04:00:05Z")
> [@iamnotbatman](#): > > We “understand” the universe better than we understand brains, because we understand the rules, and we understand the interplay of objects Do we understand the interplay of brains? > [@iamnotbatman](#): > > For the brain, we do not understand _how_ the secondary phenomena of cognition and consciousness derives from the primary. > [@iamnotbatman](#): > > The motion and interaction between atoms In other words, we do not understand _how_ the secondary phenomena of consciousness derives from the primary phenomena of the motion and interaction between atoms. > [@Mangetout](#): > > The brain can’t be more complex than the universe if it’s part of the universe. Excellent observation. The human brain is contained in the universe; however, consciouness is not contained in a human brain (though I’m not necessarily saying that consciousness is contained in the universe). ---
**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 5, 2012, 4:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-human-brain-the-most-complex-object-in-the-universe/611259/164 "2012-02-05T04:21:41Z")
> [@Kozmik](#): > > Excellent observation. The human brain is contained in the universe; however, consciouness is not contained in a human brain (though I’m not necessarily saying that consciousness is contained in the universe). Consciousness is not a thing. It is a poorly formed concept. ---
**Author:** ![iamnotbatman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/858c86/32.png) [@iamnotbatman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iamnotbatman)\ **Post date:** [February 5, 2012, 5:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-human-brain-the-most-complex-object-in-the-universe/611259/165 "2012-02-05T05:35:29Z")
> [@Mangetout](#): > > Where is this epiphenomenal complexity occurring? Somewhere other than the universe? Inside the universe. As I’ve been saying, you can define things however you like. However it is uninteresting to define complexity in such a way that the universe’s complexity is greater than or equal to the complexity of the objects it contains, because it depends on what epiphenomenal level you are interested in (primary, secondary, …, N-ary). As I see it, the only two sound options are to 1) only consider the primary phenomena, which implies that the complexity of everything is the same, and renders any discussion of complexity trivial and uninteresting, or 2) discuss complexity in terms of the relevant epiphenomena. Option 2 is what we do in our daily lives, because it is the only option with utility. But going a bit deeper, if you think hard about complexity, as researchers in algorithmic information theory have done, you will find that nothing is so simple as you seem to think. How would _you_ define complexity? I would bet you can’t come up with a coherent and non-trivial definition that isn’t equivalent to discussing algorithms and information content. And when you do, you learn interesting things. For example in algorithmic information theory, the set of all descriptions has zero complexity; in other words complexity is not even a monotonically increasing function of the size of the set the complexity is describing! So no, just because brains are a subset of the universe does not at all mean that the universe is more complex than the brain. But this isn’t the only way in which you are wrong. When you discuss algorithms and information, it can be applied to relationships between all kinds of objects. For example, if you are considering a computer program, it could be run on silicon just as well as on an abacus, or even planets and galaxies, if they were arranged in the right way. The relevant level of complexity corresponds to a given epiphenomenal level. The universe as a whole does not appear to contain galaxies relating to each other in any interesting, complex way, the same way the neurons in our brains do. The neurons in our brains are running a program. The universe as a whole is note. Sure it does contain very dense, localized areas of complexity. But if you want to have a set of definitions are in any way interesting, you call those neuronal relationships, those localized areas of complexity (brains) “complex”, and the relationships between the macroscopic aspects of the universe, such as galaxies that are boringly moving away from each other in an endlessly expanding void, “not all that complex.” BTW, the title of the OP is “_Is the human brain the most complex object **in** the universe?_”. It is unclear to me what the point is of discussing the complexity _ **of** _ the universe, which I think is a pretty ill-defined subject. ---
**Author:** ![Kozmik](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/8dc957/32.png) [@Kozmik](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kozmik)\ **Post date:** [February 5, 2012, 6:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-human-brain-the-most-complex-object-in-the-universe/611259/166 "2012-02-05T06:10:07Z")
> [@iamnotbatman](#): > > The neurons in our brains are running a program. The universe as a whole is note. Yes. Yes. Which means that there is (at least) one program running in the universe. ---
**Author:** ![iamnotbatman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/858c86/32.png) [@iamnotbatman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iamnotbatman)\ **Post date:** [February 5, 2012, 4:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-human-brain-the-most-complex-object-in-the-universe/611259/167 "2012-02-05T16:17:19Z")
> [@Kozmik](#): > > Do we understand the interplay of brains? The epiphenomenal complexity of group behavior doesn’t appear to be particularly high, however I don’t think we will completely understand it until we understand the human brain. ---
**Author:** ![iamnotbatman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/858c86/32.png) [@iamnotbatman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iamnotbatman)\ **Post date:** [February 5, 2012, 4:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-human-brain-the-most-complex-object-in-the-universe/611259/168 "2012-02-05T16:25:07Z")
> [@Kozmik](#): > > Yes. Yes. Which means that there is (at least) one program running in the universe. Yes. So you might phrase the OP question as “is the brain running the most complex program running in the universe?” The understanding is of course that it isn’t a very useful concept to blindly “combine programs” and call them “more complicated programs” in the same way it doesn’t make sense to combine MS Windows and OS X and call the combination one program. The universe is running many programs, which to a good approximation are running separately in parallel. The question is which programs are more complex, not whether the collection of programs taken together is complex, which is uninteresting because the programs do not work together as part of a larger program. ---
**Author:** ![Kozmik](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/8dc957/32.png) [@Kozmik](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kozmik)\ **Post date:** [February 5, 2012, 5:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-human-brain-the-most-complex-object-in-the-universe/611259/169 "2012-02-05T17:21:20Z")
> [@iamnotbatman](#): > > The epiphenomenal complexity of group behavior doesn’t appear to be particularly high, however I don’t think we will completely understand it until we understand the human brain. Yes, we don’t understand the human brain. Think of Google Cars, which don’t exist yet because we don’t understand the human brain yet. Think of cars in general, each which needs to be controlled by a human brain. You may see people driving cars, or you may see brains driving cars, or you may see cars driving cars. People driving cars. Brains driving cars. You can drive a car (I hope!). I can drive a car (that wasn’t my driving!). However, it is not enough for one to drive a car well; anyone can drive well on a closed course. Indeed, the driver has to be able to drive well and anticipate other drivers, some who are able to drive well and some who are unwilling or unable to drive well. Cars driving cars (Google Cars). All “drivers” are able to drive well because each “driver” is able to anticipate every “driver”. ---
**Author:** ![iamnotbatman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/858c86/32.png) [@iamnotbatman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iamnotbatman)\ **Post date:** [February 5, 2012, 6:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-human-brain-the-most-complex-object-in-the-universe/611259/170 "2012-02-05T18:42:36Z")
And what is your point? ---
**Author:** ![raindog](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/2bfe46/32.png) [@raindog](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/raindog)\ **Post date:** [February 5, 2012, 7:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-human-brain-the-most-complex-object-in-the-universe/611259/171 "2012-02-05T19:40:57Z")
> [@Wesley\_Clark](#): > > I don’t. If you add in all the varied mechanical and electrical devices within an occupied skyscraper it would be more complex than a human brain. But like I said, the brain was never designed to be understood from the outside. Our technologies are. With all due respect… That is silly. While the scope, size and integration of the various things that make up a skyscraper make them look complex----and to some degree they are---- the fact is much of them are not complex at all. To suggest that they are as complex as the human mind is just not the case. ---
**Author:** ![Mangetout](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mangetout/32/19_2.png) [@Mangetout](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mangetout)\ **Post date:** [February 5, 2012, 8:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-human-brain-the-most-complex-object-in-the-universe/611259/172 "2012-02-05T20:21:21Z")
> [@iamnotbatman](#): > > Inside the universe. > > As I’ve been saying, you can define things however you like. However it is uninteresting to define complexity in such a way that the universe’s complexity is greater than or equal to the complexity of the objects it contains, because it depends on what epiphenomenal level you are interested in (primary, secondary, …, N-ary). I think I see what you mean. Thank you for your patience in explaining. ---
**Author:** ![Kozmik](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/8dc957/32.png) [@Kozmik](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kozmik)\ **Post date:** [February 6, 2012, 11:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-human-brain-the-most-complex-object-in-the-universe/611259/173 "2012-02-06T23:55:51Z")
> [@iamnotbatman](#): > > And what is your point? My point is that there is a problem with viewing the brain as a closed system and viewing the universe as a closed system. ---
**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 7, 2012, 12:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-human-brain-the-most-complex-object-in-the-universe/611259/174 "2012-02-07T00:05:40Z")
> [@Kozmik](#): > > My point is that there is a problem with viewing the brain as a closed system and viewing the universe as a closed system. No there isn’t. You can view it however you want. Viewing brains and the universe as closed systems don’t cause any problems. ---
**Author:** ![Kozmik](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/8dc957/32.png) [@Kozmik](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kozmik)\ **Post date:** [February 7, 2012, 12:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-human-brain-the-most-complex-object-in-the-universe/611259/175 "2012-02-07T00:12:19Z")
> [@TriPolar](#): > > Viewing brains and the universe as closed systems don’t cause any problems. You [said](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=14741137&postcount=164) consciousness is a poorly formed concept. I say the universe is a poorly formed concept as well. Is consciousness a closed system? ---
**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 7, 2012, 12:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-human-brain-the-most-complex-object-in-the-universe/611259/176 "2012-02-07T00:13:55Z")
> [@Kozmik](#): > > You [said](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=14741137&postcount=164) consciousness is a poorly formed concept. I say the universe is a poorly formed concept as well. > > Is consciousness a closed system? Define ‘closed system’ before I continue. ---
**Author:** ![Kozmik](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/8dc957/32.png) [@Kozmik](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kozmik)\ **Post date:** [February 7, 2012, 12:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-human-brain-the-most-complex-object-in-the-universe/611259/177 "2012-02-07T00:22:10Z")
[closed system](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=14729466&postcount=71): My brain only controls my mental faculties, and not yours and anyone else’s. ---
**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 7, 2012, 12:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-human-brain-the-most-complex-object-in-the-universe/611259/178 "2012-02-07T00:34:16Z")
At the simplest level, a brain is a closed system. It surely can be part of a non-closed system. Conciousness is just an ego driven explanation for reflection. We can’t use reflection to determine how the brain works, so we assume there is some woo-ish explanation for our ability to reflect and it’s effect on human thought. The universe could certainly be called a closed system based on a physical description, but I don’t know enough about the interactions of the components on a universal scale to comment. Why don’t you distract yourself with [Mach’s Principle](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mach's_principle)for a while and tell me how you think that affects your concepts of the universe and closed systems. Personally I’m satisfied with examining the brain processes. The universe sounds like too much work to figure out. ---
**Author:** ![iamnotbatman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/858c86/32.png) [@iamnotbatman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iamnotbatman)\ **Post date:** [February 7, 2012, 6:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-human-brain-the-most-complex-object-in-the-universe/611259/179 "2012-02-07T06:37:14Z")
> [@Kozmik](#): > > You [said](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=14741137&postcount=164) consciousness is a poorly formed concept. I say the universe is a poorly formed concept as well. You started a thread titled “Is the human brain the most complex object in the universe?” and now in order to advance your argument you call into question the coherency of the concept of the universe… it seems to me like that discussion might deserve a separate thread! ---
**Author:** ![Kozmik](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/8dc957/32.png) [@Kozmik](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kozmik)\ **Post date:** [February 7, 2012, 7:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-human-brain-the-most-complex-object-in-the-universe/611259/180 "2012-02-07T07:17:35Z")
> [@iamnotbatman](#): > > We “understand” the universe better than we understand brains, because we understand the rules, and we understand the interplay of objects (the universe as a whole has no emergent properties that we do not understand as directly derivable from the primary properties). We “understand” [traffic](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Traffic) better than we understand the universe, because we understand the rules, and we understand the interplay of objects (cars). However, driving is coherent. In other words, you _can_ drive; I _can_ drive. Traffic, on the other hand, is incoherent. Just because you can drive and I can drive, it does not follow that _we_ can drive. Because there can only be one brain behind the wheel! But what if traffic could be coherent? What if there could be one “brain” behind the wheel, a “Google brain” controlling all cars which can be called Google cars? So I’m not calling into question the the coherency of objects (cars, brains). I’m not calling into question the coherency of rules (driving). However, I’m calling into question the coherency of traffic and of the universe itself. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-human-brain-the-most-complex-object-in-the-universe/611259.md?page=8) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-human-brain-the-most-complex-object-in-the-universe/611259.md?page=10)