I will be unavailable for several days

... so I leave you with the sweet soulful sounds of the greatest singer/songwriter ever to grace the multiverse:

As usual I am late to the party

But I just want to comment on two things that Egnor has said in response to Novella concerning a materialist explanation of the mind.

First Egnor gives us a tutorial on the eloquent and non-eloquent areas of the brain and gives us the following diagram:

[The] non-eloquent areas (where brain anatomy does not correlate with specific function) are in tan, and the eloquent areas (where brain anatomy does correlate with specific function) are the named colored areas. As you can see, most of the brain mass is non-eloquent and does not anatomically correlate with specific brain function in any precise way. In fact, one can surgically remove much of the non-eloquent brain without significant discrete neurological deficit. Major portions of the frontal lobes, temporal lobes, parietal lobes, occipital lobes, and cerebellar hemispheres can be removed (and are removed, in operating rooms every day) without substantial specific loss of function.

I wish had a picture but the best thing I could find was this summary of different brain functions by Brodmann area. If you take a look through it you can see that the idea that large parts of the non-eloquent brain do not correlate with specific function is quite absurd.

Furthermore, the eloquent brain is called so not because it correlates with a specific function, but because damage to those areas is necessary for regular daily activity. Damage here leads to readily apparent and predictable changes in behavioural output, such as language use or motor control. Damage to non-eloquent areas also leads to predictable changes in behavioral output. However, discerning those changes requires specialized tests because they only manifest under certain conditions, not because there is a poor correlation between anatomy and function. I find it difficult to conceive that anyone, given our current knowledge, would assert this is not the case.

Second, Egnor gives us his standards for scientific proof of a material mind:

Novella has no evidence for a 1:1 correlation between brain anatomy and higher mental function. This evidence is required if materialism is to be supported, because materialism asserts that brain matter is the complete cause of the mind, without remainder. Thus far, for higher mental functions, the remainder is huge, and there is no reason to believe based on the science that a 1:1 reduction of mind to brain will ever be found, especially with regard to higher mental functions such as reasoning.

Now think about that for a moment. Egnor is asking not just for a high correlation but an absolute correlation as proof of materialism. There is no margin for errors in measurement, stochastic processes, or individual differences, let alone the limits of current or future technology to accurately measure brain function. Egnor has essentially said no amount of evidence will convince him that materialism is correct. That doesn't surprise me at all nor does it bother me at all, but it would be nice if he just came out and said that rather than imply that some empirical evidence would convince him otherwise. Within biology you never see a correlation of 1.0 even for the most basic functions (I would be very suspicious if I did). But this absolute correlation Egnor looks for as proof of materialism raises some problems when we start looking at non-biological fields of scientific inquiry.

For example, within chemistry we have a decent understanding of how elements interact to form complex molecules. A diamond, a decidedly non-living entity, is a crystalline formation of carbon atoms. It has a predictably structure that is restricted by the covalent bonding pattern of carbon although impurities and defects in the structure are not uncommon. It would seem that the results of cutting a diamond (the material) could be reliably predicted by complete knowledge of the lattice orientation, imperfections, inclusions, etc. However, even with years of experience diamond cutters do not know for certain how a diamond will spit when struck. Does the fact that one cannot use a materialist approach to predict diamond splitting with absolutely certainty mean that a) our imprecision is due to our lack of perfect knowledge (a lack that may exist in perpetuity), or b) there is an additional immaterial essence of the diamond (the form) that is unknowable and ultimately determines what shape the cut diamond will be. It seems improbable that the latter is the case, but I would not be surprised if Egnor believes it is. Frankly not too much he says would surprise me at this point.

Talk about an impossible standard.

I really don't mind when I hear a "god of the gaps" style argument. People are free to fit in their particular non-empirical entity of choice in any gap they want. But the "god of the gaps" accusation is not a comment on the success of current theories to fill in the gaps. It is a comment on the abject failure of god as an explanatory device. I have no illusions that we can attain perfect knowledge and explain all things, but that should not be mistaken as a belief that with perfect knowledge one could not do so in principle. With each new gap that is filled in by a materialist approach to the mind it becomes increasingly unreasonable to assert that the mind can best be accounted for by an immaterial essence. Inference to the best explanation, as fans of abductive reasoning would say.

Image via Xavier Studio

I have often felt I needed something like this

In speaking with those of the American, Christian, born-again persuasion I have often felt that I needed the help of a translator. Not for every word, just a few words that seem, within certain religious circles, to have an entirely different meaning from everyday English. Turns out there is such a book:

Many Americans are bilingual. They speak a secular language of sports talk, celebrity gossip and current events. But mention religion and some become armchair preachers who pepper their conversations with popular Christian words and trendy theological phrases. If this is you, some Christian pastors and scholars have some bad news: You may not know what you’re talking about. They say that many contemporary Christians have become pious parrots. They constantly repeat Christian phrases that they don’t understand or distort.

So even the native speakers don't understand the language. Glad I'm not the only one. There is a group of people though who do understand the power of Christian speak: politicians.

During his 2003 State of the Union address, George W. Bush baffled some listeners when he declared that there was “wonder-working power” in the goodness of American people. Evangelical ears, though, perked up at that phrase. It was an evangelical favorite, drawn from a popular 19 th century revival hymn about the wonder-working power of Christ called “In the Precious Blood of the Lamb.” Leonard says Bush was sending a coded message to evangelical voters: I’m one of you.

Just like Michele Bachmann. References like that fly over my head. Maybe with the right translation guide they won't.

Your commute is less fun

A railway station in Utrecht has just had a "people accelerator" installed, otherwise known as a slide:



Now if they just replace some footbridges with monkey bars and call the "elevated handpaths" ...

Image via Popupcity

NPR story: " ... the existence of Adam and Eve"

NPR had an interesting, if repetitive, story on the crisis evangelicals have with the historic accuracy of Adam and Eve.

To get down to just two ancestors, Venema [of Trinity Western University] says, "You would have to postulate that there's been this absolutely astronomical mutation rate that has produced all these new variants in an incredibly short period of time. Those types of mutation rates are just not possible. It would mutate us out of existence."

More Destiny Lab

If you want your biblical prophecy accompanied by a dash of alien invasion never fear! Destiny Lab is on the case!



SOME IMAGINE THAT GODS CAME IN ALIEN CRAFTS
THEY REACT IN THIS WAY THERE SO DESPERATE
FOR MEANING AND PURPOSE BUT SATANIC SERVANTS
THEY KNOW THIS THEY HAVE EVIL MOTIVES AM I MAKING YOU NERVOUS?
HUH? I'M JUST SCRATCHING THE SURFACE

No, please don't scratch anymore. I don't think I could handle it.

I will try to take this seriously for the moment

Keith Ablow, Fox News’ resident psychiatrist*, puts forward the argument that men should have veto rights over abortion:

I believe that in those cases in which a man can make a credible claim that he is the father of a developing child in utero, in which he could be a proper custodian of that child, and in which he is willing to take full custody of that child upon its delivery, that the pregnant woman involved should not have the option to abort and should be civilly liable, and possibly criminally liable, for psychological suffering and wrongful death should she proceed to do so.

I have limited the scope of my argument intentionally, in order to focus on what I consider to be a question that puts fairness front and center: If a man has participated in creating a new life and is fully willing to parent his child (independently, if necessary), why should he not have any control over whether that life is ended?

All right, ignoring the way in which this final question is loaded, I can think of several reasons why this should not be the case. It assumes that the pregnancy is the result of a fully consensual relationship. It assumes that a credible claim to paternity is sufficient when paternity can only be determined with any real level of certainty in utero by chorionic villus samples or amniocentesis, procedures which are invasive and have risks inherent in their use. It assumes that, if the relationship was consensual, that the man entered into it without deception on his part as a means to fathering a child. It assumes that competent adults are not the sole arbiters of their own medical decisions. It also assumes a point that I, I'm sure with great controversy, will come out against.

It assumes men and women are biologically equivalent.

I know, I can hear the feminists knocking down the gates already, but I stand by what I say. Men are just incapable being pregnant. Perhaps one day the dude-erus will be reality, but until then we must suffer under the arcane notion that woman have a slight advantage in the baby making process and therefore should have at least some modicum of control over what happens to their bodies.

To continue with the seriousness:

Just in my own practice of psychiatry, I have listened to dozens of men express lingering, sometimes intense, pain over abortions that proceeded either without their consent, or without them having spoken up about their desires to bring their children to term and parent them.

I do not doubt that some men have such intense emotions. I also don’t doubt that there are women who, under pressure from society or a partner, have suffered psychologically from being compelled to carry a fetus to term against their will. These two outcomes are in opposition. Guess whose side I fall on. You don’t have to guess with Ablow:

I understand that adopting social policy that gives fathers the right to veto abortions would lead to presently unknown psychological consequences for women forced to carry babies to term. But I don’t know that those consequences are greater than those suffered by men forced to end the lives of their unborn children.

In addition to the psychological consequences of being stripped of your autonomy, being threatened with jail, gaining 20kg, undergoing 36 hours of labor, facing a small but significant chance of death, receiving a fourth degree vaginal tear if you are lucky and a week of bed rest while you recuperate from major abdominal surgery if you aren’t, all to be topped off by serving as an incubator for the guy who made you go through all of that certainly can’t be greater than what a man goes through when his partner has an abortion. In case you had any doubt about Ablow’s view on sex and pregnancy as it pertains to women, he drives the point home:

And I am absolutely certain that no woman needs to become pregnant who wishes not to become pregnant. Women taking full responsibility for their sexual activity and their bodies would mean that no woman would face the prospect of being compelled to bring a child to term.

Yes, the world where there is no rape, birth control never fails, and pregnancy has no complications.

As the religious conservatives like to say, this is what happens when you view people as a means to an end rather than an end in themselves.

*Must … resist … urge … must … resist … O’Reilly ... joke.

That is an empirical question...

It is not unusual to find groups with a particular ideological agenda, conservative, progressive, liberal, reactionary, or otherwise that make empirical statements without the rigorous data necessary to back it up. I often assume they have no real interest in trying to corroborate or falsify their claims. But if they really are trying then, bless their little hearts, they just don't know what sort of data they need or how to go about collecting it.

For example, according to Jerry Newcombe the group "40 Days of Life" have been using prayer* against abortion providers, with stunning results:

They claim that, so far, at least 4,313 would-be aborted babies (that they know of) have been saved from the procedure. That's 4,313 babies, presumably bringing joy to their mothers right now. They claim that 53 clinic workers have had a change of heart because of the vigils and have left the abortion field as a result ... 40 Days for Life also claims that, thanks to their efforts, 14 abortion clinics have shut down. Again, this is all because of peaceful prayer vigils, around the clock for 40 days in a row in select cities.

All because of prayer! Or maybe not. I haven't been able to find a thorough analysis of their data on their website, and I am a bit incredulous since the scientific evidence for prayer has been rather lackluster. Maybe it was the fasting.

So what sort of data would they need? Well, for starters, I would like to see the baseline data for abortions provided, staff turnover, and center closings for the same period at abortion providers that weren't subject to directed prayer*. Better yet, they should have a list of providers and randomly select half of the sites for prayer vigils, half for no vigils, and keep track of both. Alternatively, they could run an A-B-A design looking at the variables during pre-prayer baseline, prayer*, and post-prayer baseline to see if prayer stopped having an effect once removed.

There is the further problem that even if one did find a change using the above approaches one couldn't assign that effect solely to the power of prayer. It could be that the mere presence of a vigil has such an effect. To test this they would need to hold a vigil during which the participants do not pray. Should we still see a change, then one couldn't say the effect was due to prayer*. The real test though would be to have a prayer vigil that was in close proximity to abortion providers but not visible to anyone on the street or in the clinic, say a next door office building. That would get to the heart of the power of prayer* in this context.

This particular group has set up such a prayer vigil almost literally within a stone's throw of me. Perhaps I should walk over there and offer my services as a scientific consultant.

*And fasting! Don't forget the fasting!

Some poster session advice

I gave some rather terse advice on a different blog about how a poster presenter should behave during their session, giving the impression that presenters should not engage conference participants. If that is what people took from it, I was wrong. Presenters should engage participants, especially young presenters looking to get their name recognized. Just don't overdo it.

With that out of the way, here is some more advice: always have an alternative explanation. Better yet, have a way to test between the existing hypothesis and the alternative (the ever present 'Future Plans' section at the end of the poster). Don't get caught off guard like Paul Nelson.

During my session, several people asked me to provide "your alternative" to the problems posed in my poster. I must admit I wasn't ready for this question ... The overwhelming response from [everyone] was, "OK, Paul --so what do you propose to do?" Next time I'll be better prepared to step into the opening these questions provide.

All right, I find this a little hard to believe. Anyone who has experience with presenting data should know that this is one of the first questions you will be asked. That's why you don't wait for it to be asked, you include it in the discussion. Not to mention that the scientific process is generally a constant comparison of the explanatory power of competing theories.

So kids, let this be your lesson. Know not only how you would explain your data, but how someone else might explain them.

More Christian rap videos

After my link to the Christian rap parody (I hope) video "Creationism is the truth" I received a comment with another Christian rap video, but this time it appears to be the real McCoy. Destiny Lab is a duo making Christian themed rap and their latest oeuvre is called "Evolve or Die"



They have the lyrics on their website:

THERE'S SO MUCH TO SAY AND SO LITTLE TIME
THIS IS A SONG FOR THOSE LEFT BEHIND
AN INSIDERS VIEW TO WHAT'S GOING ON
IF CHRISTIANS ARE RAPTURED AWAY AND ARE GONE

Now, I have said before that if several hundred thousand Christians disappeared one day, the moon and sea turned red, and some messianic politician started to form a one world government I would maybe start leafing through the bible. I mean, I'm an empiricist and those are pretty empirically verifiable observations that are predicted by the more literal Christian set. I've also not lived under a rock my whole life so I've had to endure from said Christians their gleeful explanations of how God will bring his wrath down upon us. A rap song isn't going to give me any more info.

THAT ALIENS SOMEHOW ARE OUT THERE AND BOUND
TO HAVE ALL OF THE ANSWERS AND POWER
TO KNOW THE SOLUTION LIKE INDIGO CHILDREN
SMARTER THAN HUMANS MORE INTUITION

Wait a minute, aliens and indigo children are part of God's end times plan? I was wrong, this is new.