Colin Allen and Robert Lurz confirm my trans-brain hypothesis

Indiana University cognitive scientist Colin Allen and CUNY consultant Robert Lurz have conducted several studies on how animals perceive the minds of others.

In the autobiographical essay, Allen notes what in Animal Studies has been called the “logical problem”: brain reading is logically equivalent to body reading. This is a mystery for “scientists,” who are theologically devoted to a brain/body distinction (=dualism). At their Brooklyn College Neuroscience lab, Allen and Lurz have desperately attempted to construct experiments to separate the two, but Allen concedes in the article, first, that the experiments are so complex that it is “not possible” for humans to fully comprehend them; and second, that even if humans could fully comprehend them, the experiments wouldn’t “eliminate… every alternative [body] reading hypothesis.”

I am the first to say: No kidding! But of course, as I’ve been saying for literally years (click on the “brains studies tag, below), your brain is everywhere, e.i. it is your body. Recall the diagram in my original post.

In light of the recent failure of fringe research, however, I’ll diagram how this is supposed to work, then diagram my explanatorily superior model.

Exhibit A: Medieval mind/body dualist view of animal perception (Allen, Lurz, Laura Sanders)

Exhibit B: Correct “Trans-brain” view of animal perception (CTBVoAP) (me, Godfrey-Smith, Reid, Loftus, New York Times)

As you can see, the second diagram posits the more elegant theory. For one thing, it follows Occam’s Razor in only positing one type of thing (what I call “singlism”). Second, and more importantly, it doesn’t posit mysterious, occult faculties by which perception can pass through certain parts of the body. Also, I’ve taken account of the fact that, in dogs at least, there is more than one perceptual mechanism – both eyes and nose, the latter of which seems curiously absent in Allen and Lurz’s work.

Laura Sanders flagrantly ignores my discoveries

Recently, the Orwellian think tank “Science News” has hosted a series of essays on so-called “consciousness” by Laura Sanders, whose Brain Studies credentials consist in nothing more than degrees in earth and library sciences. The series threatens to have three parts, the first two already vomited – here and here.

The essence of Sander’s view is that all thinking goes on within the skull; furthermore, the thinking is fostered and constituted by electricity. On the medieval skull-centric view, note that I offered a refutation back in 2008. If you recall, my thesis (a distant cousin of the “Extended Brain” thesis of neuro-physicist David Chalmers) is that your brain is “everywhere.” Recall that my primary evidence came from the nature of pain, with a healthy dose of Occam’s Razor. Since then, of course, my “trans-brain” view has been endorsed by the New York Times, has enjoyed historical precedent, and has been empirically verified in other mammals.

So much for Sanders’ antiquated view of the brain’s location. Now what about the electricity allegedly surging throughout our bodies? Given what we otherwise know about the human body, this is actually impossible. Small children, as is well known, have the mushiest of skulls. This is because, as Europeans have shown, their bodies are mostly water. Now consider the fact that, among people who drop electric appliances into their bathtubs, the leading cause of death is electrocution. Since babies are so full of water – and since they generally have more active brains than adults, which is why they are so good at learning languages – then if they were full of electricity, they would be perpetually self-electrocuting. However, to the chagrin of the Social Security Administration, babies live to adulthood (and beyond) with alarming frequency. If Sanders doesn’t address this in part 3, then her charlatanism will be all the more apparent.

When it comes to trans-brains, humans aren’t the only ones

Experimental zoologist and philosopher Peter Godfrey-Smith has shown that, in octopi, the brain is everywhere, including but not limited to the arms.  HT: Three Quarks Daily, the blog for the e-intelligentsia.

Godfrey-Smith isn’t the only neurophilosopher to endorse my thesis. John Loftus did so here.

If you want to explore the full public record on this, see my initial publication here, and my discussion of the NYT study here. I give some crucial historical perspective here.

UPDATE: I have joined Google+! See my profile here.

Bad advice from disreputable people, i.e. studies by scientists

When scientists aren’t indulging in their weird fetish conferences, they are busy giving bad advice to young people.

This time around, scientists have given people even more incentive to become moderately intoxicated. Inebriation, they argue, will “lower” the risk of certain kinds of diseases. By the same logic, because drunkenness lowers inhibitions, and confidence raises attractiveness, and romantic partnerships increase lifespan, moderate drunkenness will “lower” the risk of death. But that is clearly nonsense!

And in any case, as anyone paying attention will know, buzzed driving is drunk driving. See for example this study.

You might be saying to yourself, “Wait a minute how can we reduce the risk of disease, when this guy Kevin says we are disease?” To this I say: Just because some lowly grad student named “Kevin” says something, doesn’t mean it’s true. After all, which is more likely: (1) That you are a person with free will, thoughts, feelings, and a body or (2) that some grad student on the Internet named Kevin has made an original contribution to science?

Lessons from 17th century optics

Those of you who have noticed will have noticed, eventually, that I have been increasingly focused on my theory of the trans-brain which says – if I may avoid nomenclature for a minute – that your brain is everywhere. My theory was originally stated here, gained momentum thanks to the New York Times here, saw the desperation of its opponents here, and was supported by a budding neurophilosopher here.

Instead of continuing to focus on the present and future, I think it is important for me to show how my theory is grounded in the scientific tradition. Two views of the brain dominated the pre-, during-, and post-Englightenment period. One was defended by Descartes and Newton. The other view was developed by someone no one has heard of, Thomas Reid. Thomas Reid pointed out that the Descartes of the world believe that the brain has things in it that it perceives. In other words: I am not seeing a tree in the world, I am seeing a tree in my brain. That’s what the Descartes and Newtons think.

To this, Reid issued a resounding “Nein!” Allow me to quote Reid.

[T]he brain has been dissected times innumerable by the nicest anatomists; every part of it examined by the naked eye, and with the help of microscopes; but no vestige of an image of any external object was ever found. The brain seems to be the most improper substance that can be imagined for receiving or retaining images, being a soft moist medullary substance” (Inquiry into the Intellectual Powers of the Human Mind II, iv [256b], quoted in another book, pg. 80).

The other book goes on to quote Reid again: “We are so far from perceiving images in te brain, that we do not perceive our brain at all; nor would any man ever have known that he had a brain, if anatomy had not discovered, by dissection, that the brain is a constituent part of the human body” (ibid ibid, ibid [257a], quoted in ibid, pg. ibid).

Do simulacrums of my pathbreaks get any more fortuitous? Gleaming from these difficult passages are truths Reid gleaned which were far ahead of his, as it was, Sits im Leben. First, Reid is quite right that the brain is unsuited to receive images. We know from the theory of the trans-brain, and from an elementary application of Pascal’s razor, that it is quite enough to say that the eyes are what see objects. It is remarkable that Reid was able to know this through pure reason alone. We today only know it because animal rights organizations have allowed us to experiment on dogs and rats, which have remarkably similar visual systems to apes, which are similar to us. The transitive genomic principle will get you the rest of the way. Anyhoozle, Reid points out that we really don’t perceive “our brain” at all – because we use it itself to perceive! The subject of perceiving cannot be its own object, according to the widely accepted Universal Grammar. Yet – and here Reid reveals himself as a scathing rhetoricalist - because of “anatomy” we now “know” we have brains, which are “constituent part[s] of the human body”!

Reid’s point is this: If the brain is a mere constituent of the human body, and perception happens in brains looking at themselves, and yet this is impossible, then we can’t actually see! But we couldn’t see anyway because we’re really just looking at our brains! But if we are looking at our brains, then we can see after all! But if we can see, then it can’t be with our brains! But if it is not with our brains, and it is with our brains, then our brains must be more than we have supposed them to be. Hence, if I may return to the vulgar colloquial, your brain is everywhere.

For those of you who don’t understand words, here is a zenn diagram of the differences between Reid and his discontents.

Thomas Reid was effervescent enough to foresee that the brain must at least include the eyes.

Neurophilosopher John Loftus investigates brain studies

Many of you will have, as of late, noticed, my many preoccupations with the burgeoning field of brain studies. See, i.e. here, and i.e. here.

There is a brilliant man named John Loftus who has a blog, called Debunking Christianity. But really I see Loftus as being primarily a kind of scientist. Not one in the academy per se (to his penultimate credit) but as an independent scientist and intellectual, in the tradition of Aristotle, Descartes, and Buckminster Fuller. For example, Loftus’ scholarly refutation of so-called Intelligent Design is almost as good as mine, which is a high compliment to him coming from me. For good measure, I’ll also add my two take-downs of seventh day adventist theologian William Dembski.

To get back to brain studies, Loftus has recently investigated the mind/body problem.

Unless you can solve [the mind/body] problem for me I cannot take seriously any beliefs in gods, spirits, poltergeists, out of body experiences, or miracles performed in the physical world by a spiritual God.

As I have shown, in an important sense the brain is the body, as demonstrated by especially pain studies, and even further especially the amygdala. And insofar as the brain is not the body, it is part of and through the body.

Like Loftus, I think the current attempts to solve this “problem” are way off base. Scientists are too quick to just assume an occult phenomenon like pain-at-a-distance (called “projection”), akin to gravity, in order to localize the human brain in the skull. This is patently absurd, as daily human experience demonstrates.

This John Loftus fellow is also similar to me in that he gets frustrated when people hear a “noise in the night” and invoke something mystical to solve it, ’cause they’re scared. Is this not my exact point in refuting Brian Greene on dark matter? Twice?

Latest in brain science

Some frauds at the journal Science Daily have published a study seeking to show that what they call “the brain” (the wrinkly thing in skull) has to “spit” to stay alive. It oozes blood every now and then to get rid of “debris.”

This fantastical brain-of-the-gaps theory is an attempt to keep traditional brain science alive while the evidence becomes ever clearer that the human brain is located throughout the human body.

The silliest thing about this so-called breakthrough is that it actually only applies to mice. However, cognitive scientist Noam Chomsky has demonstrated why studies of mice are inapplicable to studies of humans:

My theory of the trans-brain, gaining momentum

My most dedicated readers will recall my groundbreaking work at the intersection of brain and pain studies. My major post on the topic is here. In that post I proffer myriad arguments and proofs that demonstrate conclusively that beyond a reasonable doubt the human mind/brain is located everywhere. The brain system (as I would say now, having developed the theory further) is analogous to other biological systems, e.g. the immune system or language system or digestive system. Even though mainstream science has obfuscated this truth, it is immediately obvious upon clear and distinct contemplation.

Just recently the New York Times published research verifying my findings, even drawing up a diagram eerily similar to my own. The upshot of the NYT study is that our “brains” don’t actually do all the thinking – our bodies think too! Furthermore, the NYT focused on the hardest case – abstract concepts. I had focused only on pain sensation, because in that case the transbody location of the brain is so obvious. But I am merely providing the shoulders for giants.

All of those who doubted in the comments of my post should be ashamed of themselves.

Back to posting

Thank you for your letters and other missives while I was away. I have now fully recovered. My chiropractor successfully reduced the dopamines in my metalimbic pathway, and I’m feeling serene. In fact, with my new appetite I’ve been gorging on Omega 3′s, no matter what the lipids people say.

The first step will be to respond to the hundreds upon tens of comments left during my absence. While the cat is away, the mice commit many logical fallacies.

William Dembski’s estrogen level exceeds 800 lb/ml

So William Dembski – in addition to histrionically closing discussion after my simple yet devastating objection to his ego-maniacal self-praise made him “weary” – has now deleted my comment altogether on The Panda’s Thumb. Several individuals, including Mr. Tomato Guy, have asked for the original comment. Although my victory over Dembski is now being trumpeted throughout the scientific community, I’ll post it here for posterity.

notedscholar

08/19/2009

11:39 am

Not to burst your bubbles, but this isn’t actually a pro-ID article. It’s more about math than anything else.

NS

Lastly, a video about Dembski becoming “weary”:

Where is your brain? Everywhere!

Alright, the Evolution post was fun. But now back to more serious stuff. This post has to do with neuroscience. Here I’m questioning a pretty mainstream view, and not a weird obscure view (like 0.999…=1 or Imaginary Numbers). I’m questioning the Theory of Pain Projection, which actually has surprisingly decent reasoning behind it. But – that can’t stop the truth from shining through. Enough ado for now, read on!
According to various forms of science, pain and other phantoms are always registered in a place called “the brain.” So, for example, when I stab my hand with a pencil, or stub my toe, the only place that “knows” I’ve been injured (so the story goes) is in my brain. Indeed, it happens in the part of the brain known to professional frauds as the “parietal lobe,” located in the “postcentral gyrus.” If this doesn’t remind you of Descartes’ error, it should. Now let’s imagine for a moment that all this isn’t damnable hogwash of the most devilish sort. It would mean that these parts of our brains are what allow us to register pain and pleasure… in our hands!

Refuting this is quite elementary, and indeed I think you will find it liberating, being suddenly able to abandon the counterintuitive notions with which you have been indoctrinated. Perform the following experiment:

Find a knife. Hold the knife in your left hand. Extend your right hand onto a flat service. Thrust the knife downward into your right hand, but not with enough force to puncture the epidermal tissue.

Where do you feel it? Do you feel it in your brain? Or do you feel it in your hand? My guess is that you feel it in your hand. Now these scientists, known in older and therefore wiser cultures as witches, will tell you that you only think you feel pain in your hand due to “projection.” Talk about colonialist condescension! In other words, the feelings supposedly “project” to an imaginary place called the “reticular formation,” which frankly sounds obscene and unbecoming (perhaps that’s supposed to prevent us from investigating it). And your emotions are caused by the “amygdala,” which because it violates phonetic rules ought not to be considered a real or meaningful word (Wittgenstein proved this). In any case, everyone knows that emotions happen in the heart, because as Wittgenstein explained, words are defined by their usage, not the consensus of the scientific community. And besides, emotions are literally felt in the chest area.

So what about this projection business? Occam’s Razor tells us that rather than suppose the highly complex and superstitious theory that the brain is magically transmitting messages and deceiving us as to the location of our feelings, we should instead suppose the extremely intuitive and ontologically parsimonious explanation, namely, that our brain is in fact located everywhere. Consequently it is actually a bigger organ than the epidermeous, a little known fact. Congratulations, brain. Now you’re the biggest and the heaviest!

To appreciate the significance of my findings, which surely represent the beginning of legitimate Brain Studies, take a glance at what an accurate diagram of the human body might look like (hopefully to be placed in anatomy textbooks someday, perhaps posthumously).

Now before you say it: I know this diagram doesn’t include all the other parts of the body. But I am just making the point that our pain receptors, and tools of consciousness and cognition, are manifestly located wherever we can feel pain and pleasure. This view of the brain corresponds best with the theories of John Leslie in his work, as well as noted cognitive scientist Richard Swinburne’s in his pathbreaking study, The Evolution of the Soul, published by Oxford University Press. I definitely recommend reading that one.

Important note: I am not denying the existence of the physical organ called “the brain.” I am just limiting its traditional functions. There’s a key difference there.