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.

Advertisements

10 thoughts on “Laura Sanders flagrantly ignores my discoveries

  1. Pingback: Tulane maths professor John Armstrong pwns electromagnetism | Plano Electrician

  2. First of all, remember, Laura Sanders is not positing a new theory. She is explaining an accepted theory of science.

    That point aside.

    Voltage differences matter. A toaster is about 110V in the US, and brain signals are much, much less. Also, adults bodies, which are only slightly less watery, can accept up to 450 V of localized electricity in electroconvulsive therapy with almost no risk of serious damage.

    Best from the real world,
    Dieu

  3. I hope you didn’t sprain something with that twisted bit of logic about how babies would electrocute themselves with their own thoughts.

    As Dieu already noted, adult bodies are mostly composed of water, too. Pure water isn’t actually a very good conductor, but when you dissolve some salts in it (like is found within living bodies), it gets much better. That’s one reason even the relatively low voltages of household appliances can be dangerous — they interfere with our body’s even lower-voltage electrical signals. If our bodies couldn’t conduct electricity at all, we wouldn’t be able to use electrical signals within them, like when nerves trigger muscles to contract. High currents, like from lightning or high-tension wires, also cause damage from the heat generated by our body’s resistance (it’s not a perfect conductor, you know), but that’s something altogether different.

    However, I realize you don’t want to be distracted by facts, so please continue to equate a high-voltage toaster with a low-voltage baby. I’m sure your readership is amused by your continual self-confusion.

  4. My darling Angel
    I doubt that the “scholar” who runs this site could possibly damage his brain anymore.

  5. NS,
    You claim that Laura Sanders credentials do not qualify her to speak on this topic. if you want to use this argument, I recommend that you reveal your credentials.

  6. NS is a daft ninny,

    Whether or not I even HAVE credentials wouldn’t mitigate the point that her credentials are non-qualifying. We can assume for the sake of argument that I have no credentials, indeed anti-credentials. It is still the case that my point about Sanders is correct.

    NS

  7. Dear NS,
    Are you that inept at using Google that you were unable to find the correct Laura Sanders’ credentials? She has a Ph.D in Molecular Biology. The two degrees that you incorrectly paired to her in your first paragraph in fact belong to two different ladies with the same name. It’s rather mind-boggling that you were unable to not only discern that both of those degrees belonged to two different women (who look nothing alike) but that you also were unable to simply check the ScienceNews website, look under staff bios, and properly cite the neuroscience writer’s credentials. I’ve linked to the staff bio page below. http://www.sciencenews.org/view/page/id/72079/description/Science_News_Staff_Bios

  8. I understand that your (lack of) credentials have no effect on hers. What I was pointing out was that you have yet to reveal the things that qualify you to speak on the subject of brain studies, you idiot.

Type your comment(s) into the computer screen

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s