it's been awhile since I read it. I don't believe most of it, but it's worth reading for the ideas.

exactly.

Another example; take face recognition. There is not a single area in the brain responsible for this; it involves at least half a dozen interconnected and distributed areas. So where does 'face recognition' occur? If we devise an algorithm for face recognition that may (or may not, since we're not sure how it's done) be implemented in the brain, we can hypothesize that different parts of this algorithm are performed by different parts of the brain. But do different parts of this algorithm correspond to high-level psychological functions? No. Point being that high-level psychological functions are not localized in the brain, but that maybe low-level non-psychological functions (that comprise the high-level psychological functions) may be localized in the brain.

Of course, this is all still largely hypothetical, though it is very likely correct.

You need to read Jean Piaget's "Children's Conception of Space" for true perceptual understanding.

He goes into great detail about face recognition as an elementary perception developed in babies.

Whether it's an elementary perception says nothing about whether it requires a distributed network of brain areas. Piaget was a psychologist, not a neuroscientist; as such, he has nothing to offer regarding the plausibility of localization of function in the brain.

Care with this type of comment. There are many examples of people working in one field but making a profound contribution in another. Here is one:

In 1947 Crick knew no biology and practically no organic chemistry or crystallography, so that much of the next few years was spent in learning the elements of these subjects. During this period, together with W. Cochran and V. Vand he worked out the general theory of X-ray diffraction by a helix.

Then came:

In recent years, he .......... in an attempt to find the neural correlate of consciousness, a problem he defined as the search for the link between the mind and the brain.

So recognizing that the rapid increase in human brain size corresponds to the development of technology is wishful thinking?



Here are some details.

http://serendip.brynmawr.edu/bb/brainevolu...brainevol4.html

“Big brains are related to strong social bonds, high levels of intelligence, intense parenting, long periods of learning, and ability to deal with volatile environments.”

http://www.wellcome.ac.uk/en/genome/genesa...y/hg07f008.html