Slashdot Mirror
Scientists Identify Brain's Concept Control Core
Van Cutter Romney writes "Scientists have identified the part of the brain which matches words to objects. While scanning brains from people who suffer from Semantic Dementia they have found that the front end of the temporal lobe seems to be crucial to conceptual application. A better understanding on how this part of the brain works can help develop therapies to counteract Semantic Dementia — the second most common form of dementia after Alzheimer's disease."
the headline implies they've found the location in the brain where it happens, but then they say "it seems to be the frontal lobe". Ok, that's a very large section of the brain, and it doesn't even sound like they are 100% sure. How does a "we think we have an idea" story make it to the front page (repeatedly)?
today is spelling optional day.
We learn so much from damage. In this case it's not so much about cutting as decay, ok, but it's the same concept. You know, of course, that we learned a huge amount about brain modularity and function during the Russo-Japanese war (you know, the hundred-somethingth Japanese invasion of Korea) because bullets were getting smaller and starting to go through heads without killing people.
It is true that correlation by itself does not necessitate causality. But people too often use that as an excuse to discredit a causal relationship that by every criterion is a reasonable one. You should remember that correlation is still a necessary condition for causality(if not a sufficient one), and it is often one of the first clues we have in deciding what causes some effect. If 99% of people with Semantic dementia have some problem with their temporal lobe, and no other observable factor has such a high correlation with semantic dementia, it is reasonable to assert that the temporal lobe has something very important to do in dealing with conceptual and semantic reasoning, which is all this article says.
We do have strong evidence to conclude that all of the areas of the mind that involve concepts, memory, reasoning, and sensory inputs - all of the mental processes that constitute cognition and access - can be explained by a functional state of the brain. Exactly which functional states humans indeed have still to discover. The physical theories we need to explain these processes are still incomplete, but that doesn't mean that we need to assert the existence of a soul or God. While it may be desirable to do so, there is still a lot more to discover about the brain and mind before we adopt a non-materialist theory of the brain. In fact with every new discovery scientists make about the brain, the dualistic theory of the mind holds less water, and seems more and more to be a myth that people invented to explain the mystery of consciousness and subjectivity.
We do not know the exact mechanism by which the physical, syntax-processing parts of the brain "computer" translate into semantics. Some have suggested that this is impossible if we look at the brain as simply a computer. But this doesn't refute physicalism.
It is true that we can definitely not explain is how the experience of these concepts, memories, reasonings, and sensory perceptions arises - that is, what is responsible for the phenomenal aspect of consciousness, that thing that allows us to know "what is it like to be me?" and makes my experience unique to my person. We cannot account for this possibility yet using pure physical theories.
Therefore, this may very well be a non-physical process. I am reluctant to take a side one way or the other - there are compelling arguments for both dualism and monism.
But there is enoughdata to support the idea that at least the great majority of cognitive functioning takes place somewhere in the brain and is a physical process, not a spiritual one.
Why do I have so much trying to put a name to a face if I haven't talked to the person in a long time?
Can they figure out how to map the word "Correlation" to "Causation"?
This is actually a press-problem. Neuroscientists doing this kind of work know the difference, and the field is actually called "Neural correlates". But the popular press seems to always conflate correlation with causation. Bad press!
These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
> But there is enoughdata to support the idea that at least the great majority of cognitive functioning takes place somewhere in the brain and is a physical process, not a spiritual
> one.
True, but I believe a theistic interpretation of such behavior is still superior to a non-theistic interpretation. Why? Think about what science has revealed - there are specific physical areas of my brain that deal with non-physical (ie, abstract) objects such as words or concepts. Why is that? Why should any part of my brain deal with abstract objects unless they actually exist? As Alvin Plantinga has eloquently argued, abstract objects only make sense if God exists.
"Why should any part of my brain deal with abstract objects unless they actually exist?"
u ments/
(I'm assuming here that the poster would personally agree with the stronger statement: 'My brain deals with abstract objects because they actually exist.')
That's begging the question here in the same manner as Plantinga's ontological argument. (The question is, "Does my brain deal with 'abstract objects,' or is this just metaphor for a process that reacts to similarities in experience?")
Not to mention the false dichotomies this implies: "Either my brain does not deal with abstract objects, or they exist" and "Either my brain deals with abstract objects, or they do not exist." There is no logical implication of the truth of either side of the proposition on the basis of the other side; we are not necessitated to accept either.
Of course, one can believe that the brain manipulates abstract objects or that abstract objects have some transcendant form of existence. That's different, however, from asserting the logical necessity of their existence, which is a bit presumptuous with regards to the cause/effect relationship of language and reality.
One needn't posit unnecessary entities, however. And it's great that these scientists are learning more about process that can be shown repeatedly to have a direct causal effect on cognition.
Some light reading for anyone interested in the philosophy surrounding these sort of ontological arguments: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/ontological-arg
Tags != Comments, and -1 (Troll) != -1 (I Would Respond Angrily To This Poster So They Must Be Trolling)
Try as he might, he couldn't come up with any word for the animal he was thinking of other than "Benfucker."
Never did find out what kind of tracks they were.