In one of the audio courses I am taking at the moment (Neurological origins of individuality) much is made of the incomprehensible complexity of the human brain. Estimates of the average number of neurons in the brain have come up with numbers like 100 billion. Tie this in with the capability of each neuron to accept input from and give output to up to 10 000 of its fellows and you begin to get an idea of the complexity of the system.

Given this extraordinary capability for variety and individuality how come we are so similar? Wittgenstein shows us with his private language argument that we must have at least sufficient commonality of experience to enable shared concepts and communication. Given the subtlety and complexity of language this must be common to a high degree.

However, to swing back the other way again, think for a moment of just how fundamentally different some people are (teenagers, for example) from yourself.

How can both these two seemingly contradictory statements be correct?

Could the answer be forthcoming when we learn more about what is inherent and genetic and what is environmental and inculcated? Perhaps everyone has a capacity for language hard-wired, but no one has genetic coding for dress-sense, or musical appreciation?

However, given the tremendous differences between languages and the difficulties experienced in discovering innate language or a common rule-set for grammar, perhaps very little is inherent.

Dave would like to propose that the answer might lie in understanding how different people working independently come up with the same solutions to the same problems. Perhaps the vast complexity of the human brain means that even seemingly large variation in its structure and environment lead to relatively small percentage changes in difference between us all.

Got a suggestion?, email Dave