It seems that the dictionary definition is simply "having many parts".
It seems that is completely made up to suit your argument. Note that not a single definition listed below, nor any in the context we are discussing, means at all what you are claiming.
adjective adjective: complex ˌkämˈpleks , kəmˈpleks , ˈkämˌpleks / 1. consisting of many different and connected parts. " a complex network of water channels "
synonyms: | compound, composite, multiplex " a complex structure " |
adjective
1. composed of many interconnected parts; compound; composite: a complex highway system. 2. characterized by a very complicated or involved arrangement of parts, units, etc.: complex machinery.
The reason why I proposed this alternate definition is that I wanted to encourage you guys to think about the information conveyed by parts.
Wait, you just said that seemed like the dictionary definition, now you are admitting you are making it up!
You can accuse me of making up my own definitions, but I don't believe I'm actually doing that.
You just admitted it. Your attempt to deflect that reality has nothing to do with it.
To restate my assertion one more time using the precise dictionary definition of the word, "A brain does not increase in 'the number of parts it has' when it is thinking about something complex."
It still actually does, your incorrect and made up definition having nothing to do with it, however. I generally agree with you on that count, but I thought I would bring up an alternative viewpoint as a basic philosophical exercise.
Philosophy is understanding why we thing what we do and trying to discover if there is a better way to think. You are starting from the position of trying to re-define words, admitting that's what you are doing and then denying doing that thing.
Understanding words is the first step before you attempt philosophical exercises. Learn to crawl before you try to run a marathon.