They Also Mentally Calculated Faster Than a Brain Could Ever Do

The credibility of claims that mathematical calculation comes from brains is inversely proportional to the speed and capacity and reliability at which things can be mentally calculated. There are numerous signal slowing factors in the brain, such as the relatively slow speed of dendrites, and the cumulative effect of synaptic delays in which signals have to travel over relatively slow chemical synapses (by far the most common type of synapse in the brain). As explained in my post here, such physical factors should cause brain signals to move at a typical speed very many times slower than the often cited figure of 100 meters per second: a sluggish "snail's pace" speed of only about a centimeter per second (about half an inch per second).  Ordinary everyday evidence of very fast and accurate math calculation is therefore evidence against claims that unaided human math calculation occurs because of brain activity, particularly because the brain is totally lacking in the things humans add to constructed objects to allow fast recall (things such as sorting and addressing and indexes). Chemical synapses in the brain do not even reliably transmit signals. Scientific papers say that each time a signal is transmitted across a chemical synapse, it is transmitted with a reliability of 50% or less.  (A paper states, "Several recent studies have documented the unreliability of central nervous system synapses: typically, a postsynaptic response is produced less than half of the time when a presynaptic nerve impulse arrives at a synapse." Another scientific paper says, "In the cortex, individual synapses seem to be extremely unreliable: the probability of transmitter release in response to a single action potential can be as low as 0.1 or lower.")  The more evidence we have of very fast and very accurate calculation occurred by humans unaided by any devices,  the stronger is the evidence against the claim that human math calculation occurs from brain activity. 

It is therefore very important to collect and study all cases of exceptional human mathematics performance. The more such cases we find, and the more dramatic such cases are, the stronger is the case against the claim that unaided human math calculation is a neural phenomenon. Or to put it another way, the credibility of claims that math calculation is a brain phenomenon is inversely proportional to the speed and reliability of the best cases of human math  performance.  The more cases that can be found of humans that seem to calculate too quickly and too accurately for a noisy address-free brain to ever do,  the stronger is the case that human thinking is not a neural phenomenon but instead a spiritual or psychic or metaphysical phenomenon.  My previous post "They Mentally Calculated Faster Than a Brain Could Ever Do" described many such cases, as did my post "They Too Mentally Calculated Faster Than a Brain Could Ever Do." Now let us look at some more cases of this type. 

Some cases of exceptional math performance can be found in the book The Great Mental Calculators by Steven B. Smith. Below from page 179 are the results of very hard math calculations by Arthur Griffith (born 1880):

We see above a record of blazing-fast speed in very hard math calculations.  The "extraction of cube root" referred to is solving the problem: what number multiplied by itself three times gives the supplied number?  The "extraction of a square root" referred to is solving the problem: what number multiplied by itself twice times gives the supplied number? 

A long newspaper article on Arthur Griffith can be read here. We read this:

"While engaged in working a series of tests Griffith multiplied 142,857,143 by 465,891,443 and obtained the product 66,555,920,495,127,349, in ten seconds. He multiplied 999,999,999 by 327,841,277, and had completed the writing of the product, 327,841,276,672,188,723, in nine and a half seconds. Other numbers required a longer time, but in no case was the time needed to complete the multiplication more than thirty seconds. Factors of numbers were called out as quickly as the number was submitted. The fifth power of 996, which equals 980,159,361,278,976, was obtained in thirty-seven seconds. Cubes of large numbers were given without hesitation, and in case the number was not a perfect cube the number which is the nearest perfect cube was given at once."

Using the web site here, I verified that the first  multiplication result is correct. The second multiplication result, 327,841,276,672,188,723, is incorrect only in the fifth-to-last digit, all other digits being correct. We can't tell whether it was a calculation error by Griffith, or an error by whoever wrote down his answer or who typeset the newspaper article. 

On page 297 the author says he was asked by Wim Klein to give two five-digit numbers. The author gave 57,825 and 13,489. In 44 seconds Klein multiplied the two numbers together mentally. On the same page we are told Klein extracted the 19th root of a 133-digit number in under two minutes. 

On page 301 we read this about lightning-fast calculations by Maurice Dagbert:

The same page refers to astounding multitasking and number memorization capabilities of Dagbert:

We read on the next page that Dagbert does not write any intermediate results, but simply announces the number calculated. On page 58 of the book Mental Prodigies by Fred Barton, we have the comment below, which may explain some of Dagbert's abilities. It is a description of something like a photographic memory for numbers:

On page 60 of the same book we read about these "instantaneous" mental calculation feats of Dagbert:

On page 63 of the same book we are told that Dagbert would do performances in which he faced away from a blackboard, and audience members would call out 2-digit numbers that were placed in a grid like the one below. Without  ever viewing the blackboard, Dagbert would correctly name all numbers and their positions in the grid, as well as telling the sum of each of the columns. 

On page 306 of The Great Mental Calculators we read of the astonishing calculation ability of Shakuntala Devi:

In the 1952 newspaper story here, we read of rave reviews of Devi's calculation abilities. A reporter attempts to stump her:

"Your reporter, at this point, slyly glanced at a piece of paper he had laboriously prepared, and asked: 'What is the cube root of 3,375 multiplied by the cube root of 117,649 divided by 5?'

'147,' said Shakuntala, stifling a yawn, and adding, almost apologetically: 'I am usually given problems that present difficulties of one sort or another.' ”

 The answer of 147 is correct. You can get the intermediate numbers in this calculation by using the cube root calculator here, but no such tools existed in 1952. 

On page 311 of The Great Mental Calculators, we learn of the astonishing short-term memory of Hans Eberstark, who could memorize 40 digits after hearing them spoken only once:

Raccoons Are Rather Smart With Less Than 3% As Many Neurons as Humans

 A recent article in the Independent is entitled "I studied the brains of raccoons. Here’s what it tells us about human intelligence." We have an article written by a neuroscientist (Kelly Lambert) who correctly describes how smart raccoons are; but her article may lead to wrong ideas about the brains of raccoons. 

Speaking of raccoons, the neuroscientist states, "the species – Procyon lotor – is known for its impressive intelligence, curiosity and problem-solving skills." We have part of the article suggesting that raccoons were so clever that they were not used as research subjects, because the raccoons kept figuring out ways to escape through ventilation ducts in research laboratories.  We read this:

"And the role confusion continues today with glimpses of humanlike behaviors in raccoons as they enter our living spaces. One report described raccoons interacting with playground equipment at a child care center on Canada’s west coast in ways similar to human children, and even breaking into classrooms as if they were auditing the morning lesson....After introducing young raccoons to slinkies, puzzles and blocks, I sat in awe as they interacted with these objects with the focused enthusiasm of preschoolers on a mission....Early behavioral research suggested that raccoons can learn a task, walk away and later return to solve it accurately – as if having mentally rehearsed the solution. In contrast, other species, including dogs and rats, needed to maintain continuous focus. Scientists have speculated that raccoons have mental imagery capabilities similar to humans."

But none of this should be possible, according to "brains make minds" claims -- because raccoons have fewer than 3% of the cerebral cortex neurons that humans have. Humans are believed to have about 86 billion neurons, with about 20 billion of them in the cerebral cortex. But according to a paper co-authored by Lambert, "The raccoon cerebral cortex has an average 438 million neurons." 

Does Lambert tell us in her Independent article that raccoons have less than 3% of the cerebral cortex neurons of humans? She does not. Instead she gives us the following paragraph that seems designed to give us the wrong idea about raccoon brains: 

"Working with neuroscientist Suzana Herculano-Houzel, my laboratory at the University of Richmond has found that raccoons pack an astonishing number of neurons – an amount comparable to primates – into their brains. Scaled up to size, a raccoon brain would contain roughly the same number of neurons as a human brain."

The statement seems designed to give the casual reader the idea that raccoons have neurons numbers similar to humans. They do not. Raccoons have less than 3% of the cerebral cortex neurons of humans. And comparing total neurons in raccoons and humans, we find that the total number of neurons in raccoons (about 2 billion) is less than 3% of the total number of neurons in humans.  The page here gives the total numbers. 

Trying to explain why raccoons with so few neurons can be so smart, Lambert states this: 

"In collaboration with ecologist Sara Benson-Abram’s research team, we also found that raccoons with more sophisticated cognitive abilities had more neural cells in the hippocampus, reinforcing the idea that their learning and memory capacities map onto similar brain systems as those in people. Taxi drivers in London, who frequently use their knowledge of the 25,000 streets in London, also have a larger hippocampal area."

We have no paper reference for these claims, which are not well-founded. The first claim by Lambert is probably referring to the paper here, co-authored by her, Sara Benson-Abram and others. Its study group sizes were way too small for the study to qualify as any decent evidence for the claim that "that raccoons with more sophisticated cognitive abilities had more neural cells in the hippocampus." The study group size corresponding to "raccoons with more sophisticated cognitive abilities" was a study group of only 7 animals. No claim about a greater number of hippocampal neurons should be taken seriously unless that study group was 2 or 3 times larger, consisting of at least 15 or 20 animals. 

There is also no robust evidence that "taxi drivers in London, who frequently use their knowledge of the 25,000 streets in London, also have a larger hippocampal area." Such claims are based on the study  “Navigation-related structural change in the hippocampi of taxi drivers” which found no notable difference outside of the hippocampus, a tiny region of the brain. Even in that area, the study says “the analysis revealed no difference in the overall volume of the hippocampi between taxi drivers and controls.” The study's unremarkable results are shown in the graph below. 

The anterior part of the left half of the hippocampus was about 25% smaller for taxi drivers (100 versus 80), but the posterior part of the right half of the hippocampus was slightly larger (about 77 versus 67). Overall, the hippocampus of the taxi drivers was about the same as for the controls who were not taxi drivers, as we can see from the graph above, in which the dark bars have about the same area as the lighter bars. 

By claiming that "taxi drivers in London, who frequently use their knowledge of the 25,000 streets in London, also have a larger hippocampal area," Lambert is repeating one of the groundless "old wives' tales" of neuroscience, which is something that neuroscientists frequently do. 

Raccoons are not the only species that acts in a very smart way, despite having less than 3% of the neurons of humans.  Ravens show a wealth of high-level cognitive abilities, even though they have only about as many neurons as raccoons -- about 2 billion, which is less than 3% of the number of neurons that humans have. 

Postscript: Speaking of organisms that do mighty mental feats with tiny brains, below is a quote from a scientific paper:

"Who knew that bees with their tiny brains could memorize flowers and also human faces, solve problems of arithmetic, and learn to use tools. Until the last few years it was thought that social insects were governed only by instinct. It was all nothing more than innate behaviors. But recent research tells us something very different. As Princeton Professor Lars Chittka explains, 'Much of the workings of the bee’s mind can be understood only when one considers the natural challenges of the constantly changing market economy in which it must operate. The pressures of operating in this setting are often expressed in terms of physical performance. For example, a bee can carry its own body weight in nectar and or pollen; it may need to visit 1,000 flowers and fly 10 kilometers to fill its honey stomach only once; and 100 such trips may be required to generate a teaspoon of honey. Less appreciated are the mental efforts required along the way: in visiting 1,000 flowers, the bee has to work 1,000 floral ‘puzzle boxes’ whose mechanics can be as complicated as operating a lock and no two flowers species are quite alike in the mechanics that have to learned to gain access.'  Similarly, Monarch butterflies with brains the size of the head of a straight pin somehow in their annual 2,500 mile migration from the U.S. and Canada to the forests of central Mexico where they hibernate, fly day by day from the same tree their parents flew to the next tree their parents stopped for the night. And if that tree falls or is cut down, the next generation will pick a new tree and their progeny will stop there as well. How can they possibly even know which direction to fly, let alone identify one tree from another as they travel?"

Papers Find Massive Image Chicanery or Dubious Doings in Neuroscience Studies

None of the "brains make minds" claims of neuroscientists depend on imagery, there being no photos that do anything to substantiate either the claim that brains make minds or that brains store memories, So someone might claim that the degree of fake or mislabeled images in neuroscience has no relevance to whether brains make minds.  But there is a possible relevance: if there are honesty problems or accuracy problems with many of the images used in neuroscience research, that is another reason for distrusting cognitive neuroscientists; and the less trustworthy cognitive neuroscientists are, the more we should doubt their dogmatic claims. 

A recent article at the Retraction Watch site (https://retractionwatch.com/) has the title "Widespread image reuse, manipulation uncovered in animal studies of brain injury." The "image reuse" being referred to is when some scientific paper has an image that it claims is data from new original research done by its authors, even though the image seems to be the same image published much earlier in some other scientific paper.  

We read this:

"More than 200 papers on ways to prevent brain injury after a stroke contain problematic images, according to an analysis published today in PLOS Biology...René Aquarius and Kim Wever, of the Radboud University Medical Center in the Netherlands, first noticed these patterns in 2023 when they started working on a systematic review of animal studies in the field...Of the 608 studies they analyzed, more than 240, or 40 percent, contained problematic images...At first, the pair tried to check the images manually, but the work was too slow. So they turned to ImageTwin, which cross-checks uploaded images against a database, making the process 'more efficient and accurate,'  Wever said.  The results showed a sprawling network of images that not only appeared in articles on early brain injury, but also showed up labeled under different experiment conditions across studies on Alzheimer’s disease, epilepsy and lung cancer, and other unrelated fields....In total, their analysis found 37 of these papers in research fields other than early brain injury. Overall, 133 of the 608 articles contained an image that also appeared in another publication, a pattern typical of paper mills or image reuse among an author group, Aquarius said...In their new publication, the researchers took a conservative approach to identifying image reuse, so Aquarius called the 40 percent estimate a 'best-case scenario.' "

The Retraction Watch article is based on the scientific paper here, entitled "High prevalence of articles with image-related problems in animal studies of subarachnoid hemorrhage and low rates of correction by publishers." That paper states this:

"Estimates of the prevalence of inappropriate image duplication in (biomedical) research remains uncertain and are dependent of the body of literature that is being investigated. Reports are sparse and cover widely different literature samples. Out of >20,000 articles from 40 scientific journals, 4% contained problematic figures [18], while Danish researchers detected inappropriate image duplication in 19% of preclinical depression publications [19]. Image-related issues were identified in 6.1% of the assessed articles published in Molecular and Cellular Biology [20] and in 16% of articles published in Toxicology Reports [21]. Finally, in a sample of articles published in the journal Bioengineered, >25% contained inappropriate image duplication [22]. A synthesis of the sparse data estimates the combined misconduct rate (including fabrication, falsification, and plagiarism) to be 14%, 1 in 7 research articles [23]. The 40% prevalence observed in our study far exceeds these figures, suggesting an alarming level of integrity issues in the preclinical subarachnoid hemorrhage literature."

Sometimes you have imagery malfeasance that is so common in some particular field that some researcher can use an "everybody does it" kind of defense. An example is what goes on in brain scan visuals that purport to show areas of "superior activation" in the brain. There massively occurs misleading visuals that give the impression that the amount of variation is much greater than it is. Typically the variation will be some very small amount such as 1 part in 200. But you will see visuals that try to make such differences look much greater than 1 part in 200. 

Page 68 of a scientific paper ("More Than Meets the fMRI: The Unethical Apotheosis of Neuroimages" by Eran Shifferman) has a quote talking about the kind of shady business that goes on when these visuals are produced:

"The time series of voxel changes may be motion-corrected, coregistered, transformed to match a prototypical brain, resampled, detrended, normalized, smoothed, trimmed (temporally or spatially), or any subset of these, with only a few constraints on the order in which these are done. Furthermore, each of these steps can be done in a number of ways, each with many free parameters that experimenters set, often arbitrarily. After preprocessing, the main analysis begins. . In a standard analysis sequence, experimenters define temporal regressors based on one or more aspects of the experiment sequence, choose a hemodynamic response function, and compute the regression parameters that connect the BOLD signal to these regressors in each voxel. This is a whole-brain analysis, and it is usually subjected to one of a number of methods to correct for multiple comparisons… the wholebrain analysis is often the first step in defining a region of interest in which the analyses may include exploration of time courses, voxelwise correlations, classification using support vector machines or other machine learning methods, across-subject correlations, and so on. Any one of these analyses requires making crucial decisions that determine the soundness of the conclusions."

After the quote, the paper author says, "This detailed description shows that BOLD-fMRI NIs [neuroimages] represent mathematical constructs rather than physiological reality (Burock 2009)." Page 70 of the same paper states this:

"A ubiquitous statistical error in functional neuroimaging is the non-independence error (aka double dipping): using the same data for selecting the voxels of interest and then using these voxels for the secondary analysis, the one upon which the functional conclusions are based9 . Double dipping violates random sampling because the test statistics are not inherently independent of the selection criteria of the region of interest, thus statistically guaranteeing the outcome of the second analysis and rendering them useless (Kriegeskorte et al. 2009; Vul et al. 2009). Similarly, as mentioned before, statistical tests in neighboring voxels are not independent of one another, because time series in neighboring voxels are intercorrelated (Peterson 2003). Analyses have shown that the non-independence error is widespread in BOLD-fMRI studies (40-50% of published papers) and that the severity of the distortions of the results presented in these papers could not be assessed. This necessitates replications and reanalysis (Kriegeskorte et al. 2009) or the results of these studies “mean almost nothing”, since they are 'using seriously defective research methods and producing a profusion of numbers that should not be believed' (Vul et al. 2009)."

On page 71 we have this complaint about the use of way-too-small study group sizes in brain scan studies:

"Yet another sizeable statistical concern is unfitting sample sizes: most published fMRI studies have sample sizes that would be considered exceedingly small by conventional standards (Yarkoni 2009; Button et al. 2013; Ingre 2013), if they include sample size calculations at all (Guo et al. 2014). It is established that in fMRI studies, small studies (n=16) fail to reliably distinguish small and medium-large effect sizes from random noise as do larger studies (n=100) (Ingre 2013). However, Wager et al. (Wager et al. 2009) report that across 415 fMRI studies reviewed, the average group size was smaller than 12, with some using only 4 subjects."

Page 73 refers to a "localization project," by which the author means attempts to show that particular brain regions activate more strongly when some type of cognitive activity is performed.  We read, "The cumulative effect of these types of data variability is a serious impediment on the localization project, suggesting that there are no macroscopic-level delineations corresponding to cognitive performance, and that they are probably a methodological artifact (Gonzalez-Castillo et al. 2012; Thyreau et al. 2012)."

The author of the scientific paper is apparently suggesting that you cannot actually find any evidence that particular regions of the brain are more active during particular cognitive activities. On page 76 the author refers to those running brain scan studies, saying, "This practice all too often amounts to unethical science, one where the generators of data overlook known shortcomings of their tools of the trade and press forward with producing claims too strong to be supported by exploiting the strong appeal of their meticulously crafted images."

Misleading Claims and a Revealing Omission in NatGeo's List of "Biggest Scientific Breakthroughs of the Past 25 Years"

 The National Geographic Society was founded in 1888, and since that year it has published a magazine. For very many years the Society was guilty of promoting racism. In 2018 the Society itself had an issue confessing how racist its past publications were. A 2018 NPR article stated this:

"Editor in Chief Susan Goldberg asked John Edwin Mason, a professor of African history and the history of photography at the University of Virginia, to dive into the magazine's nearly 130-year archive and report back. What Mason found was a long tradition of racism in the magazine's coverage: in its text, its choice of subjects, and in its famed photography.

'[U]ntil the 1970s National Geographic all but ignored people of color who lived in the United States, rarely acknowledging them beyond laborers or domestic workers,' writes Goldberg in the issue's editor letter, where she discusses Mason's findings. 'Meanwhile it pictured 'natives' elsewhere as exotics, famously and frequently unclothed, happy hunters, noble savages—every type of cliché.' "

An example of the racism that National Geographic Magazine promoted is mentioned here: a photo caption in which a particular type of dark-skinned person is described as being lowest in intelligence. For more than 70 years National Geographic Magazine helped encourage misguided ideas that dark-skinned people are inferior or savages. 

National Geographic may have reformed its racism by 2018. But at the magazine there is still another form of stupidity : the stupidity of blind materialism.  For decades National Geographic (in its website and magazine) has promoted false or dubious claims about human minds, human bodies, human experiences and human origins. 

For years, National Geographic magazine (and its web site and TV channel) have acted as an uncritical echo chamber for prevailing materialist dogma.  This post sites some inaccurate statements on a National Geographic show about the origin of life.  See this post for a look at a National Geographic show that gave an absurdly biased treatment of a type of paranormal experience.  The Cosmos TV series on the National Geographic channel was an often erring mouthpiece for misguided materialist ideas. The National Geographic show "Brain Games" constantly committed the big error of describing any mental human experience as something that is going on in the brain or produced by the brain.  We never hear on National Geographic about the many powerful reasons for doubting claims that human consciousness and thinking are produced by the brain, and for doubting that human memories are stored in the brain.   

A recent National Geographic article is entitled "The Biggest Scientific Breakthroughs of the Last 25 Years -- And a Few to Watch." There are some serious misstatements in the article, and some of the times it boasts about supposed accomplishments that were never actually accomplished. 

The article starts out with a whopper right in in the first listed "breakthrough." The article lists as it first listed breakthrough "The Completion of the Human Genome, and the Advent of Synthetic Life." No actual "synthetic life" has ever been created by scientists. As an example of "synthetic life," the article claims "scientists developed the first synthetic cell in 2010." But we have a link that merely refers us to a paper describing a study that did not actually create any life from scratch. The study merely involved removing genes from a living cell. That is not creating "synthetic life," but merely tinkering with a pre-existing living thing. The paper is entitled "Design and synthesis of a minimal bacterial genome," and can be read here. The paper was promoted with a misleadingly-titled press release entitled "First Minimal Synthetic Bacterial Cell," one prone to create the utterly false impression that a reproducing cell had been produced from scratch. 

What is particularly ironic here is that the false claim that "scientists  developed the first synthetic cell in 2010" tends to create the impression that cells are relatively easy to create from scratch. But the research being referred to told us the exact opposite. After making a long attempt to modify a cell so that it had the smallest possible number of genes and the smallest possible number of types of protein molecules, while still being capable of self-reproduction, the scientists, were still left with a microbe with 475 genes, corresponding to 475 types of proteins. The resulting stripped-down genome still consisted of 530,000 base pairs. The misleadingly-titled press release entitled "First Minimal Synthetic Bacterial Cell" failed to mention this crucial point from the paper. 

Another false claim in the National Geographic article was the claim that the AlphaFold software had solved the protein folding problem. The problem has not at all been solved, and is still one of the biggest unsolved problems in science. 

Protein molecules are three-dimensional structures built from many different amino acid components, usually hundreds or thousands. A fundamental question is: how do protein molecules get their three- dimensional shapes?  This problem is known as the protein folding problem. We might have an answer for this if it happened that each amino acid stored in it three numbers specifying the 3D position that it should go to. We can imagine a setup in which an amino acid would store three different numbers: one representing the X-axis coordinate that the amino acid should exist at, another representing the Y-axis coordinate the amino acid should go to, and a third representing the Z-axis coordinate the amino acid should go to. We can imagine some complicated molecular machinery that would read such numbers, and drag each amino acids to the appropriate X, Y and Z coordinates (a particular point in 3D space) that the amino acid should go to. Under such a system, a 3D protein molecule like the one below might be constructed from a one-dimensional string-like chain of amino acids. 

But that is not at all the way nature works. An amino acid does not store any numbers. An amino acid stores neither 3D coordinate numbers, nor any other type of number. So how do the more than 20,000 types of protein molecules in our bodies get their intricate 3D shapes? That problem is what is called the protein folding problem. 

The AlphaFold software is able to predict the shape of many proteins not by any thermodynamic calculation process  but instead by a frequentist "pattern matching" approach that relies on some vast database of known 3D protein shapes and their corresponding amino acid sequences. In discussions of the protein folding problem, it is very important to not mix up two very different problems:

(1) The protein folding problem, which is the problem of how it is that one-dimensional polypeptide sequences (chains of amino acids) very quickly within organisms fold into a three-dimensional shape needed for the function.

(2) The protein folding prediction problem, which is the problem of what computer techniques can be used to accurately predict the three-dimensional shape of a protein molecule, giving its one-dimensional polypeptide sequence. 

The AlphaFold software has made progress on the second of these problems, not the first.  News reports about the AlphaFold software will often inaccurately describe it as having made progress on the "protein folding problem" (the first of these problems). But such reports should be only reporting that progress has been made on the second of these problems (the protein folding prediction problem). 

Later in the National Geographic article we have the claim that "The Deep Ocean Reveals How Life Might Have Started." The paragraph that follows this claim does nothing to substantiate it, merely talking about other things. We hear nothing substantiating the idea that any breakthrough occurred here. 

The truth is that scientists have made no progress in understanding how life could have originated. No experiment realistically simulating the early Earth has ever produced life. No experiment realistically simulating the early Earth has ever produced any of the protein molecules that are the main building components of the simplest one-celled life. No  experiment realistically simulating the early Earth has ever even produced any of the amino acids that are the building components of the building components of life. 

Later in the National Geographic article we got the claim that there were "possible biosignatures discovered on Mars, Venus and exoplanets." This is listed as one of the greatest scientific breakthroughs of the past 25 years. But there is no robust evidence behind any of the claims. The claim that a biosignature was discovered on Mars is debunked in my post here. The claim that a biosignature was discovered on Venus is debunked in my post here.  The claim that a biosignature was discovered on planet K2-I8 b is debunked in my post here. The article refers to "exoplanets" (planets in other solar systems), but only mentions only one exoplanet, referring to K2-18b. 

There is a revealing omission in the National Geographic article. None of the claimed breakthroughs did anything to substantiate claims that brains make minds or that brains store memories.   It seems that cognitive neuroscientists are getting nowhere in their attempts to prove that brains make minds and that brains store memories. What they are most noticeably producing are low-quality or not-important science studies that serve to increase their "published paper counts," but do nothing to clarify how a mind can arise.  

Topics That Should Be Studied by Scholars of Brains and Minds

 The left column of the table below gives a series of fascinating topics that should be studied and pondered by any serious scholar of the brain and the human mind. Click on the "Link" words in the middle column to find information about each topic. 

Topic	Links	Relevance
The preservation of intelligence after removal of half a brain in a hemispherectomy operation.	Link	Under the "brains make minds" idea, we should expect that removing half a brain would vastly reduce intelligence. Observations to the contrary challenge such an idea.
The preservation of learned knowledge after removal of half a brain in a hemispherectomy operation.	Link, link, link	Under the "brains store memories" claim, we should expect that removing half a brain would cause a huge sudden loss in memories and learned knowledge. Observations to the contrary challenge such a claim.
The unreliability of synaptic transmission: the fact that a typical chemical synapse transmits a nerve impulse or action potential with a likelihood of 50% or less.	Link	Because the vast majority of synapses are chemical synapses, and because traversing a very small length of brain tissue requires traversing very many chemical synapses,  the unreliability of synaptic transmission would seem to exclude the possibility of any reliable memory recall or accurate calculation by means of synaptic transmission.
Synaptic delay: the fact that each time a signal passes through a synaptic gap in a chemical synapse, there is a delay of about .5 milliseconds	Link	The topic is supremely relevant because of the huge number of synapses that must be traversed for a brain signal to travel over even a very small length of brain tissue. Cumulative synaptic delay (the cumulative effect of such delays) would seem to exclude a neural explanation for instant recall.
High protein turnover in brains and synapses: the fact that the average brain protein has a lifetime of only a few weeks or less, and that no brain proteins last for years.	Link, link,	The short lifetimes of synapse proteins casts the greatest doubt on claims that memories that can last decades are stored in synapses.
The lack of any addresses, sorting, indexes or position notation system in the brain.	Link, link	The lack of such things (present in human-made things that allow a quick access of information) greatly worsen the problem of explaining how humans could ever retrieve relevant answers instantly from a brain, when someone hears a name or sees a face.
John Bly reportedly had "unimpaired faculties without a brain," after "the entire brain had been hollowed out by the action of the tumor."	Link	He "could talk, and, in fact, was comparatively discommoded in no other way than by the loss of vision," and " his retention of memory was remarkable." It is another of many cases conflicting with claims that brains make minds and store memories.
A UK Biobank study of thousands of brains found negligible correlation between brain size and intelligence.	Link	The result is not one we would expect under "brains make minds" assumptions.
Cases of Highly Superior Autobiographical Memory (HSAM), in which subjects could remember almost every day of their adult lives	Link, link, link	Such cases worsen by  many times the explanatory shortfall of the lack of a neural explanation for episodic memories, particularly given that HSAM subjects have ordinary brains
The lack of any known encoding mechanism that might allow the translation of episodic memories and human learned knowledge into brain states or synapse states.	Link	The issue is not merely the non-discovery of such an encoding system, but the lack of any detailed theory plausibly explaining how such encoding could occur.
Out-of-body experiences and near-death experiences: the very many cases in which people report viewing their bodies from outside of their bodies, with such reports often occurring during cardiac arrest, with such reports often involving observations that should have been impossible if the observer was still bound to his body.	Link,	Because such experiences often occur during cardiac arrest, when the brain has shut down and electrically flatlined, such experiences defy all "brains make minds" claims, and also defy claims that brains store memories, as they show the formation of vivid new memories when the brain is electrically shut down.
The failure of attempts to naturally explain out-of-body experiences and near-death experiences, and the widespread occurrence of misleading language in such attempts.	Link, link, link, link	The key observational report of such experiences -- the observation of your body from meters away -- should never occur under the hypothesis that your brain makes your mind.
The failure of brains and DNA to explain instincts.	Link
The lack in the brain of any of the hallmarks of information storage systems	Link
The lack in the brain of any component specialized for reading or writing information.	Link
The evidence for widespread fraud in neuroscience papers.	Link, link	There is apparently a massive occurrence of faking in neuroscience papers, occurring from "paper mill" companies that profit from the creation of fake papers and fake paragraphs, which are sold to neuroscientists under a euphemism of "editorial services." The high degree of fraud undermines the credibility of neuroscience research claims.
Animals such as ravens with tiny brains often perform as well as small children on cognitive tests.	Link	The existence of high intelligence in animals such as ravens with tiny brains undermines the credibility of claim that brains produce minds.
Extreme variations in human mental performance (including the sudden appearance of numerous types of astonishing mental skills) can be produced under hypnosis.	Link	The many very puzzling types of hypnotic phenomena have no explanation under "brains make minds" claims.
Humans have the ability to instantly form permanent new memories, such as when someone suddenly learns of the death of a family member.	Link	Instant learning contradicts prevailing ideas about the creation of memories in a brain, such as the idea that memories form by "synapse strengthening" (something that would take at least minutes).
Inaccurate titles, untrue abstract claims and misleading citations are extremely common in neuroscience papers.	Link	Common claims that such-and-such was established previously by neuroscience research are very often untrue.
Brain scan studies typically involve way-too-small study groups, and also misleading visuals in which tiny differences of less than 1% are deceptively depicted with a coloring scheme suggesting some much larger difference.	Link, link, link	Such studies fail to provide robust evidence that brains are more active during particular cognitive activities.
There exists two hundred years of written evidence for clairvoyance and ESP, with the 20th century providing many convincing experiments conducted by scientists.	Link, link,	Evidence for psi effects undermine the "brains make minds" dogma, as shown by the extremely stubborn refusal of neuroscientists to study such evidence, and the denialism they display when discussing such evidence.
There are well-documented cases of people with very severe brain damage but good intelligence, sometimes above-average intelligence despite loss of half of a brain.	Link, link, link, link	If your brain is the source of your mind, no one with half a brain should have  above-average intelligence or even normal intelligence.
Contrary to claims that thought comes from the frontal lobes or prefrontal cortex, there are case histories defying such claims.	Link
Scattered in three-dimensional space, neurons are not organized in any linear way. For any particular neuron in the brain, there are very many equidistant neurons, equally well connected to that neuron; so for the average neuron there is no such thing as a "next neuron" or a "previous neuron."	Link	Human brains lack any architecture that might explain the memorization of very long sequences of text and numbers, such as some humans demonstrate.
A study found that gray matter volume in the brain peaks at about age 6, that gray matter volume declines by about 12% by age 20, and that gray matter volume declines by about 20% by age 40.	Link	The study contradicts ideas that gray matter in brains does the main work of thinking. Human experience is that intelligence peaks at about age 20, without substantially declining before age 40.
Surgical operations to treat severe epilepsy sometimes completely sever the links between the right and left hemispheres of the brain; and such links are sometimes naturally lost during development. But this does not result in a person with two minds, but leaves a single unified mind (contrary to lies often told on this topic).	Link	The result of a unified human self with two disconnected brain hemispheres is completely unexpected under "brains make minds" claims, but is expected under the idea that the brain is not the source of the mind.
Imaging of dendritic spines in brains suggests that they have short average lifetimes (typically weeks or months), and that they do not last for years.	Link	Because synapses are connected to dendritic spines, the short lifetimes of dendritic spines suggest that a synapse cannot last for years, and that synapses therefore cannot explain memories that persist for decades.
Brain imaging has failed to show any substantial increase in brain activity when a human engages in memory activity such as recall.	Link
Many humans can think and calculate at blazing fast speeds, despite the existence of so many slowing factors and "speed bumps" in the brain.	Link	Numerous factors such as cumulative synaptic delay, the slow transmission speed of dendrites, and the lack of myelination in most axons collectively tell us that a brain should be unable to produce blazing fast thinking and very rapid calculation.
Neuroscientists have no credible account of how relevant instant recall could occur through brain activity.	Link, link	Upon hearing a name or seeing a face, a human can instantly provide many facts relating to that name or face; but such a capability should be impossible from a brain lacking any addresses, sorting or indexes.
A method used very frequently in neuroscience research about memory (the method of trying to judge "freezing behavior" in rodents) is an unreliable method that is basically worthless when trying to judge whether an animal recalled something.	Link	The unreliability of freezing behavior judgments in neuroscience research means that a large fraction of the most widely cited studies are worthless junk science.
There is a lack of correlation between brain states and most mental illness, and the microscopic examination of thousands of brains has failed to back up claims that mental illness is caused by brain states.	Link, link
There are 50 different types of Questionable Research Practices that can undermine the reliability of research studies.	Link	The massive occurrence of Questionable Research Practices in neuroscience studies undermines the evidence value of such studies.
A paper reports that a girl has good mental function despite the almost complete loss of the frontal lobes of her brain.	Link	The case undermines common claims that the frontal lobes of the brain are necessary for cognition.
A woman has both photographic memory and severe unmanageable epilepsy	Link
High-speed life reviews often occur during near-death experiences at times of cardiac arrest.	Link	Because such life reviews involve very strong and quick memory recall activity at a time when the brain is electrically shut down, such experiences contradict all claims that recall occurs through brain activity.
In 1941 the editors of Scientific American confessed that telepathy has been proven	Link	The 1941 confession helps clarify that today's taboo against such evidence is a mere sociological effect.
Some people can memorize information at lightning-fast speeds.	Link	Memorization so quick should be impossible if memory formation occurs through synapse strengthening as many neuroscientists claim, as such strengthening is a sluggish affair occurring very slowly.
A subject MM had an astonishing memory for factual information, exceeding by many times the average person's memory of facts.	Link	As the person's brain was normal, the case is hard to explain under claims that the brain is the storage place of memories.
Bruce Lipstadt had half a brain but above-average intelligence.	Link	Such a case should be impossible under "brains make minds" claims.