"In the world ye shall have tribulation: but be of good cheer; I have overcome the world." –John 16:33

San Pedro Garza Garcia

Tag: Discovery Institute

What the brain does and does not do

It seems like every time one turns around, another neuroscientist has conflated mind and brain. Michael Egnor at the Discovery Institute blog does a great service by calling out the neuroscientific silliness in a NY Times essay by Princeton neuroscientist Michael Graziano. Egnor’s post titled “Are We Really Conscious?”: A Reply to Dr. Graziano’s Brain is a follow-up to Wesley Smith’s post titled Big-Brained Scientist Says We Aren’t Conscious on the same subject. Egnor points out the conflation to Graziano with impressive clarity in his post. He is a skilled neurosurgeon who knows that about which he writes. Here is an excerpt:

The brain’s visual system consists of neurons, axons, dendrites, neurotransmitters, and the like. Protoplasm. Protoplasm doesn’t make faulty assumptions, and brains don’t reconstruct anything. People make faulty assumptions, and people reconstruct things. It may well be that there are aspects of the brain’s visual system that contribute to our faulty assumptions and to our reconstructions, just as there are aspects of my computer monitor (a smudge) that may contribute to my misunderstanding a word printed on the screen. But my smudged computer monitor didn’t misunderstand the word. My computer monitor has no psychological attributes at all. I misunderstand words. Only people misunderstand.

An apt analogy is the relation of the stomach to eating. Our stomach plays an important role when we eat, but we eat. Our stomachs don’t eat.

We urinate. Our kidneys don’t urinate.

We dance. Our feet don’t dance.

Dr. Graziano commits the mereological fallacy — he mistakes attributes of the whole for attributes of the parts. Our organs do things appropriate to them — our brain has action potentials and secretions of neurotransmitters and blood flow and the like. But our brain assumes nothing and reconstructs nothing. We — not our brain — assume and reconstruct.

Read the whole thing. I can highly recommend Wesley Smith’s article, too.

Betty Blonde #189 – 04/07/2009
Betty Blonde #189
Click 
here or on the image to see full size strip.

Discovery Institute on the case of David Barash

I wrote a blog post a couple of days ago on David Barash’s absurd statements about the impact of the study of evolution on History, Philosophy and Theology. Barash is the University of Washington Biology professor who pontificates vigorously and confidently about this from what is, quite evidently, a position of complete ignorance about how work is done in those three fields.

His ignorance does not even slow him down. He continues to clown himself in new venues, the latest being an op-ed he wrote for the New York Times. That seems fitting somehow in as much as the Times is not too much of a paragon of clear thinking and veracity itself.  It turns out that the Discovery Institute in Seattle has been on the case. Their Evolution News and Views blog articles here, here and here are well worth the read both in terms of entertainment and as a reality check for David Barash, PhD.

Betty Blonde #175 – 03/18/2009
Betty Blonde #175
Click 
here or on the image to see full size strip.

Powered by WordPress & Theme by Anders Norén