Posted by:
Lot's Wife
(
)
Date: June 14, 2020 03:28PM
Yeah, you are changing your position.
Our debate stems from my saying that brain imaging and other techniques have identified parts of the brain that function in particular ways. In specific, I mentioned reading and dyslexia. You replied by saying that is nonsense. Now you are moving the goal posts. You are arguing that "okay, science HAS found regions that are "correlated" (my word, subsequently appropriated by you) with specific functions but we still don't know precisely how the functioning occurs. But that was never the question. I never claimed we knew HOW some function occur, just WHERE the functions predominately occur.
------------
> COMMENT: But, you did! Quote: "And yet scientists
> know *exactly* what happens if you damage the
> frontal lobe through a lobotomy, what sorts of
> brain injuries are correlated with psychopathy,
> and where damage will preclude visual processing
> (helpfully called the "visual cortex"), what parts
> of the brain are involved in reading or conversely
> dyslexia. If your position were correct, there
> could be no such localization of function."
Yes, I said "exactly." But I did NOT use that word the way you allege. I said that science knows exactly what sorts of functions are impaired by injury to specific locations. I stand by that. If you damage someone's visual cortex, people's vision is harmed. That is unquestionably true. I do not need to know how "exactly" the functions are impaired to know "what sorts of brain injuries are correlated" with damage to specific functions.
------------------
> Neuroscientists do, of course, do have a lot of
> general information and general locations. But,
> to use your example, the pre-frontal lobes
> represent a big functional place in the brain,
> billions of neurons and neuronal connections. To
> identify some particular function as correlated
> with the pre-frontal lobes is hardly a meaningful
> "localization." After all a number of cognitive
> functions involve the prefrontal lobes. Moreover,
> in the case of Damasio, he acknowledges several
> other places in the brain that are correlated with
> emotion; all of which are also very "regional" in
> description rather that specific to individual,
> isolated neural structures.
You see, this is where you adopt my position. I never claimed to know how the brain achieves functional results. What I said from the beginning is that brain imaging can and does identify parts of the brain that produce certain functions. Time and again you have denied that and yet here you cite Damasio as supporting my views.
------------------
> COMMENT: This is a better example than Damasio's
> concentration on reason and emotion; so I will
> grant you that. But even here you have to deal
> with problems of unification; i.e. the so-called
> "binding problem." The visual system is no doubt
> the best understood "system" in the brain, but
> even here there are global structures involved
> that complicate any localization claim.
No, I do not have to deal with "unification." I never made any claims about that. What I said, and you rejected, was that science has identified regions associated with functions. I stand by that argument, not the one you now want to foist upon me.
---------------
> COMMENT: Damasio's books are about the cognitive
> functions of the mind, and in particular emotion;
> and not specifically about the mind-body problem.
> Look at my last cited quote:
>
> "Even with the help of neuroscience techniques
> more powerful than are available today, we are
> unlikely ever to chart the full scope of neural
> phenomena associated with a mental state, even a
> simple one. What is possible and needed, for the
> time being, is a gradual theoretical approximation
> supported by new empirical evidence."
>
> He was saying that even with his own established
> correlations there are ambiguities of
> localization. In general, he favors a "systems
> approach" to the brain, rather than a localizes,
> modular approach.
That's interesting. It is also irrelevant to what you and I were discussing. You said on several occasions that brain imaging had failed to identify regions that are associated with functions. That was incorrect, as you reluctantly acknowledge with regard to visual perception above. I do not know, and did not say, that science will grasp "the full scope of neural phenomena associated with a mental state."
---------------------
> COMMENT: No. The problem we are discussing is
> "localization." Identification of "regions" of
> the brain as being *involved* with a cognitive
> mental state or function (along with other
> regions) is not localization of a function.
Really? If a person has a stroke that kills the part of the brain that processes visual images, that person will to one degree or another become blind--and neural imaging will indicate where the damage occurred. Likewise, reading is concentrated in three parts of the brain. In dyslexics, however, only one of those regions is activated in reading--as imaging shows. That is the argument you initially and frequently rejected. You were wrong.
-----------------
> Ideally, localization would provide the necessary
> and sufficient neural processes that correlate
> with the function in question. *That* is what
> eludes neuroscience. But this is not to say that
> they have not made significant progress toward
> such localization by identifying various regions
> of the brain that might be involved
Yeah, that is what I have been saying from the very beginning. You've denied localization countless times. Now you are talking about science having not arrived at "necessary and sufficient neural processes." That's moving the goalposts.
----------------
> Moreover, there is
> considerable ambiguity in deciding how a given
> function is to be demarcated; particularly with
> such nebulous characterizations of "emotion,"
> (Damasio's main theme!) (Read Uttal's book, it
> discusses these issues at length.)
Again, this is an interesting point. It is not, however, what we were arguing about. You denied that brain imaging had localized concrete functions in particular parts of the brain. You have now acknowledged that that is incorrect.
---------------
> COMMENT: Brain imaging is helpful in identifying
> correlated regions of the brain *involved* in
> certain generally described cognitive processes.
> It most certainly CANNOT isolate "specific brain
> localizations" for "specific brain functions."
> That is just a fact when you are dealing with 100
> billion neurons, and trillions of possible
> connections in a complicated neural network.
> Every neuroscientist understands this limitation.
It's amusing that you use my terminology, "correlation," to argue against my point. It is also interesting that you above accepted my example of visual processing but now reverse yourself by saying science "CANNOT isolate 'specific brain localizations' for 'specific brain functions.'" I reiterate: there are several functions--including visual processing, language, and reading--that science has, through imaging and other techniques, localized.
----------------
> COMMENT: Again, neuroscientists have a general
> idea of various regions in the brain where
> language is processed, and sensory data of various
> sensory modalities is processed.
Thank you. That is, and always has been, what I said.
-----------------
> COMMENT: You apparently haven't read the Damasio's
> books or writings on this subject. So, really, how
> can you make such a statement. Damasio is speaking
> of both. But his books are about correlations
> between the brain and emotion and reasoning. And
> he identifies very general regions of correlation;
> and acknowledges that repeatedly! READ THE BOOKS!
I have no problem accepting that those are very good books and that they discuss "brain and emotion and reasoning." But that is not what we were discussing. I will defend my position, not the straw man you are constructing for me.
---------------
Henry, why not just admit that you were talking about "reasoning" and "emotion?" I would not have objected to what you said about those. But when you said that brain imaging had not localized functions like vision, audible processing, language, reading, etc., you were wrong. Period.