So I am reading "The Illusion of God's Presence" by John Wathey. Within it he suggests a theory made by many others that thoughts of a god are a product of a physical process within the brain (a mind module) that makes us look for a cause to perceived events or sensations.

This makes sense from an evolutionary perspective. Evaluating and responding to differences in sounds, view or smell et al would assist in detecting predators. Some of those predators might have been tigers or bears or other hominids.

Then I try to envision the actual thing happening in the brain to cause all this. The brain is just a massive signal receptor with different gates and 100 billion potential paths all interconnected. The very first time an infant saw light there was an immediate first sense perceived. A first path was laid connecting light to nothing bad. The light was a memory signal and the nothing bad was the gated response it was connected to by the limbic system. So that became the path for those particular sensations at the same time.

Those paths being laid is rather important. Neurons develop the more they are activated (fired). By develop I mean the dendrite paths between them actually widen allowing electron flow to speed up. Myelination occurs more on the dendrite walls of paths used and lessens on those not. Those highly used paths offer less and less tolerance to electron flow which means signals around them tend to follow them more. At some point the sheathing builds so much that a superneuron connection is made where the neurons and directly linked with no alternate dendritic threads.

This whole process of laying down paths and creating these patterns or constellations of connections is going on all the time in our brains. Every signal from our senses causes a potential pattern and when certain patterns of sense combinations occur we may have memories linked to them by the hypothalamus. The hypothalamus is always linking each constellation to the next in short term for continuity in the short term memory. But sometimes it gates and connects that particular combination to long term memories also.

The hypothalamus also gates to the amygdala. Those fear responses created by the gated signal to the amygdala are also subject to process of path "laying down" described above but they have to be built different. Maybe in reverse. Because you can become conditioned to a sudden sensation and not respond to it in fight/flight mode. These things listed above are all fact. I can literally build an electric circuit board and mimic these things. But here's where we start some hypothesizing.

Ok. If you're familiar with the way a circuit works then then keep in mind how an on/off switch works. Think of it as a simple blade switch - you shut it and the circuit is completed. If I have a bunch of different junctions all linked together then the signal will go through ALL of them at once unless we have a threshold that has to be passed in order for those specific neurons to fire and that path to be the one taken. Neurons do have such a threshold and it is lessened by the lesser resistance imposed by the dendritic network. So if a specific path has been used a lot then statistically that path is the most likely to be taken due to the widening and the potential for having a superneuron in the path. So similar patterns activate similar areas.

We also have some control over the patterns. We can recall LT memory and even condition it to become active for sensory inputs that we feed it. This is the basis for learning and conditioned responses. But this is an active mechanism and working in the cerebrum it is subject to equal control by the limbic system. If you're focusing on something else and a loud bang happens the amygdala still activates flight or fight response unless you're worked very hard to condition that response away (and even then it might fail). There is no executive control to put you objectively outside of the situation and prevent limbic response. Well, not yet.

Here's my theoretical part. We know that the prefrontal cortex (PFC) provides executive control and decision-making and logic and reasoning. But we don't know what that means or exactly how that's done. We know what happens if it is damaged. We know when it matures and becomes able to best perform that function. We THINK that logic and reason are always there and the executive function is what "kicks in" at maturity. These things are all still propositions and subject to various levels of scrutiny and debate.

I have been trying to figure out a tie between that PFC maturity and consciousness. I believe it was in Yuval Harari's "sapiens" where he talks about a cognitive revolution where homo sapiens brain took this incredible leap forward. I wonder if that's not a factor controlled by the development of a PFC?

There would be a lot of environmental factors that would need to happen for a brain to develop a PFC. First it would have to be developed enough for the potential to be there. I am not sure what the threshold would be for that. What evidence is there to show that a sentient being or animal has the ability to gain an objective vantage point (outside of 1st person) and then able to make a decision based on that position? I have always found the ability to empathize to be a key component or observable factor maybe?

The complex animals who operate in social groups seem to have a propensity for actions we might deem empathy. Corvids (crows, ravens etc..), dolphins, canines, elephants, whales, apes, chimps, bonobos etc... all exhibit social activity and alter their immediate behavior in anticipation of potential future gain. Crows will cache food for later use and even pretend to cache if they think someone is watching. But they will also take food to a juvenile crow who is hungry (unlike a caching squirrel). Maybe that is an avenue to determine potential?

Anyway, I believe the neuron density of the brain and the size compared to body would be initial factors given the comparisons of those listed above. You'd also have to look at total neural matter mass as octopii would skew any results about years of learning and the like. Then the total "experience" achieved would be a very important factor so lifespan would be important. Also, the brain takes an inordinate amount of energy to operate effectively so the potential "thinker" would need to have access to abundant resources.

My point is maybe all these factors only culminated together finally in homo sapien some 80,000 years ago with enough repetition to let a PFC develop into an executive control center? I do wonder how to answer the question of artwork on the walls of caves. Wouldnt you think that would be forward looking?

Any thoughts would be appreciated. Well, except for ones that call me stupid. There's no reason to be rude. I'm not stupid.