Comments on: More on persuasive, irrelevant ‘neuroscience’ http://neuroanthropology.net/2008/03/16/more-on-persuasive-irrelevant-neuroscience/ For a greater understanding of the encultured brain and body... Mon, 06 Feb 2012 11:12:25 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.com/ By: Mindhacks on imaging ‘neurohype’ « Neuroanthropology http://neuroanthropology.net/2008/03/16/more-on-persuasive-irrelevant-neuroscience/#comment-1790 Thu, 22 May 2008 23:10:26 +0000 http://neuroanthropology.wordpress.com/?p=150#comment-1790 [...] seem more compelling (as we discussed in ‘Neuroscience’ persuasive, even when irrelevant and More on persuasive, irrelevant ‘neuroscience’). A bit of ‘neuro-speak’ might also make a psychiatry session more effective, but [...]

]]> By: dlende http://neuroanthropology.net/2008/03/16/more-on-persuasive-irrelevant-neuroscience/#comment-466 Sun, 16 Mar 2008 13:53:31 +0000 http://neuroanthropology.wordpress.com/?p=150#comment-466 Developing Intelligence has an informative post, 10 Important Differences Between Brains and Computers, that is worth a look: http://scienceblogs.com/developingintelligence/2007/03/why_the_brain_is_not_like_a_co.php

And for the innate question, it’s so amazingly prevalent. The book, Rethinking Innateness: A Connectionist Perspective on Development, provides a very informative take on how to think about innateness without using the internal-program-drives-everything model. Here’s the Amazon link: http://www.amazon.com/Rethinking-Innateness-Connectionist-Perspective-Development/dp/026255030X/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1205675404&sr=1-1

]]>