profhugodegaris

Species Dominance, Artilects, Artilect War, Cosmists, Terrans, Gigadeath, Essays, Media, etc

IMPLICATIONS OF WOMEN’S 10% SMALLER BRAINS, AND KURZWEIL’S 300 MILLION PATTERN RECOGNIZER HIERARCHICAL BRAIN MODEL

IMPLICATIONS OF WOMEN’S 10% SMALLER BRAINS, AND KURZWEIL’S 300 MILLION PATTERN RECOGNIZER HIERARCHICAL BRAIN MODEL

Prof. Dr. Hugo de Garis

profhugodegaris@yahoo.com

https://profhugodegaris.wordpress.com

 

This flyer points the finger at women’s 10% smaller brains, and draws conclusions concerning women’s inferior ability to have abstract thoughts due to women having a smaller number of pattern recognizers in their brains.

Ray Kurzweil wrote a book a few years back called “How to Create a Mind” in which he attempted to provide a fundamental theory of how the brain functions, i.e. he tried to provide the neurosciences with a comprehensive idea to organize neuroscientific thinking the way that Darwin’s theory of evolution structured and dominated thinking about biology.

In essence, Kurzweil thinks that the human brain is comprised of some 300 million “pattern recognizers” arranged in a hierarchy of increasing abstraction, for example, those recognizers responsible for the detection of meaning in a sentence might start with pattern recognizers that detect single line components of capital letters, e.g. the horizontal stroke of the capital letter “A.”

Two other pattern recognizers might detect the north-east stroke, and the north-west stroke. These three detectors could feed their output signals to another pattern recognizer that is responsible for the detection of the letter “A”. Similar pattern recognizers could exist for the detection of the letters “C” and “T.” The outputs of these 3 letter detection circuits could feed into a detector for the word “CAT.” Other word detectors could feed their outputs to sentence detectors for the sentence “The CAT sat on the mat” etc.

This simple illustration shows the hierarchical nature of these pattern recognizers that might exist in the brain, 300 million of them thinks Kurzweil. Each recognizer contains a similar number of brain cells  (called neurons), so since there are about 100 billion neurons in the human brain, that would imply that each recognizer should contain about 100B/300M = 300 neurons, which is about the number of neurons in a cortical column in the neocortex, so his theory fits with the neuroscience data.

Admittedly, his hypothesis is tentative, and only a theory, and yet, many people are thinking that the human brain uses much the same neuroscience module over and over again, with each module adapting and learning, based on its experience, i.e. the basic building block of thought is the same, used with vast repetition, i.e. of the order of 300 million times, according to Kurzweil.

It seems to me, speaking as a masculist, that this interesting piece of neuroscience, has masculist implications, given that women have 10% smaller brains.

The prehuman baby doubled its brain size in a mere million years, and this was only a few million years ago. In order for the baby’s head to fit through the birth cannel, the baby had to be born prematurely, so that its brain and skull growth could continue after the birth, which meant that human females had to be permanently present to care for their infants, who were utterly useless and dependent on their mothers.

Thus women were tied down by their infants and unable to hunt meat for themselves, becoming entirely dependent on men to hunt meat for them. Smarter male hunters, with bigger brains, were sexually selected by women, because smarter males provided more meat to their female sexual partners, increasing the odds of survival for women who mated with smarter men with bigger brains.

A similar logic applies to the sexual selection by women of other traits of men, e.g. men who are taller than women, fiercer than women, more aggressive than women, stronger than women, etc, all sexually selected by women, because such taller, fiercer, more aggressive, stronger males were more able to defend women against the attacks of the males of enemy tribes, who could kill them and their babies.

Thus women sexually selected a host of qualities in their men, resulting in a greater degree of sexual dimorphism and brain power.

Men have 10% larger brains as a result of the sexual selections by women, who preferred smarter men, because smarter men were better hunters, more likely to be able to hunt down and kill sources of protein to feed his woman and her babies.

Now, to connect the above Kurzweil 300 million pattern recognizer hierarchical brain model and the fact that women have 10% smaller brains than men – what does that imply?

There are some 100 billion neurons (brain cells) in the human brain, so 10% of them is about 10 billion neurons, i.e. a lot. To reduce a male’s average brain size to the average female’s brain size would be analogous to taking an ice cream scoop out of the male brain.

10 billion neurons is, given the above numbers, about 10B/300 = 30 million pattern recognizers, i.e. a lot. So if Kurzweil is correct in his model, i.e. that there are some 300 million pattern recognizers in the human brain (i.e. the male human brain), then women have some 30 million fewer pattern recognizer circuits in their brains.

It therefore seems plausible that women would not be able to think at the same level of abstraction as men, because they have fewer pattern recognizer modules to do that. This prediction of women’s inability to think at the abstract level that men can, makes sense.

It is a common opinion amongst men that women seem unable on the whole to think in terms of the “big picture” i.e. at an abstraction level that takes into account the higher levels of implications of situations they are thinking about. Women are notorious for thinking “small picture,” missing the bigger picture, not being able to see the deeper implications of a situation, which is why women typically aren’t very interested in politics, and the more macro scale consequences of political philosophy.

The term female philosopher is almost an oxymoron. Women comprise only a few percent of professional philosophers, similarly with pure mathematicians, and theoretical physicists, or classical music composers, etc.

These empirical, day to day realities are consistent with the idea that women have some 30 million fewer pattern recognizers in their brains than men, so it is to be expected that they cannot think at the abstraction levels that men are capable of.

Let us assume, that as neuroscience advances, the above theories turn out to be true and well confirmed, then what conclusions for masculism can one draw from the above ideas?

I think it is reasonable to say, that if the above neuroscience based inferiorities of women relative to men are scientifically confirmed, then men will feel justified to see women as more childlike than men see other men, and hence men will not have the same expectations of women, that men ascribe to other men.

Men will see women as more childlike, less intellectually capable than men, and be justified in this view given the neuroscientific evidence, when it is confirmed.

However, even if it turns out that women are mentally inferior in the above sense, that is not an excuse that women should not strive to be FIPs (financially independent persons). Even if women can only perform at a level 80% – 90% as well as men in the world, in jobs, that does not mean that women should be made to be childlike parasites off men’s money, i.e. to be fluffies (traditional women who expect to parasite off the money of a man.)

Women still have a moral duty to pull their financial weight, given that we now live in the era of the contraceptive pill, in which women have mostly at most 2 kids, and hence have a 4 decade career window. Now that women can work, the masculists say that women must work, because anything else is parasitism off the money of men, i.e. manslavery.

If neuroscience shows clearly that women are mentally handicapped by a whopping 30 million fewer pattern recognizer module circuits, then that will be a powerful piece of propaganda for the masculists, who are aiming to put down feminazi arrogance, when these feminist women try to claim that women are the superior sex, which in the light of the above, if it’s true, would be simply delusional.

If women do have some 30 million pattern recognizers less than men in their brains, then that fact would be truly damning for women, and would force them to eat humble pie and simply submit to men’s greater intellectual capacity to abstract.

Personally, speaking as someone who spends his day studying the mathematical works of the planet’s smartest men, i.e. the works of genius of the greatest pure mathematicians on the planet, I notice that it is unusual for me to come across a book at such a level written by a woman. When I do, my first reaction is one of surprise – “Oh, a woman!” because it is so unusual. My second reaction is one of disappointment, because I know that its standard will very probably be mediocre, for obvious statistical reasons.

Women such as Emmy Noether, are one in a billion, the only truly world class female pure mathematician (famous for her work in ring theory in pure math, and the Noether theorem in physics) making her the Newton of female mathematicians.

In fact, since her male colleagues at Goettingen, (Germany’s Harvard) used to joke about her, calling her “der Noether” (der is the male form of “the” in German, implying that they thought that Noether had a rather androgenized brain) it is likely that she had a more male constructed brain, by being more androgenized in the womb, making her more a “male brain in a woman’s body.”

A few percent of women are like that, i.e. who were tom boys as girls, having had more male like interests and aggression levels, liking rough competitive play that is typical of young boys.

One wonders how long it will take neuroscience to confirm the above ideas, i.e. the neuroscientifically based inferiority of women’s brains, i.e. women’s inability to think abstractly, due to a significantly smaller number of pattern recognizers in their female brains, i.e. a whopping 30 million of them, i.e. 10% of the number in men’s brains, a non-negligible proportion, not 1%, not 5%, but a substantial 10%. That figure is large enough to justify the opinion of many men, that women have “child minds.”

Cheers,

Prof. Dr. Hugo de Garis

profhugodegaris@yahoo.com

https://profhugodegaris.wordpress.com

(YouTube channels) “de Garis Masculist MGTOW Flyers”  “de Garis Essays”)

(Patreon) patreon.com/profhugodegaris

(Minds) minds.com/profhugodegaris

%d bloggers like this: