No, but you said,
the universe is the sum of complicated parts, those parts (mostly) being brains.
In other words, reverse engineering?
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.
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.
It’s an interested question that relevant to answering the question in the thread title.
Now you are equivocating.
There’s “objects within the universe” and there’s “the universe itself”, as you pointed out in your previous post. 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”
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.
Point conceded.
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 ?
Spoken like a man who’s never taken heroic doses of LSD.
I never said we “understand the universe.” I said:
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.
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!
No, the OP asked “Is the human brain the most complex object in the universe?”.
iamnotbatman did not think that line of reasoning was entirely inconsequential.
I never said we “understand the universe” either. I said by virtue of understanding objects within the universe we understand the universe in its entirety (though I’m not saying we understand the universe in itself).
Do you concede that the universe is made of objects?
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.
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’ll withdraw the assertion when someone without a human brain says it.
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.
Similarly, you can understand your brain without understanding the brain, and you can understand the brain without understanding your brain.
You said:
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.
All these things are true, depending on definitions.
dorsk188, the only caveat I would add to the post you are responding to 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:
I think the above words are crystal clear. Pick your definitions, and go to town.
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.
Objects within the universe follow the laws of physics; however, the universe itself can not be said to follow the laws of physics.
What is “a coherent object unto itself”?
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.
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.