A Response to “Systemic Functional Neuroscience” (Parody)

A Response to “Systemic Functional Neuroscience”

Dr. Lance R. Myelinthick, DPhil, FRBS

Head of Reductionist Clarity Unit, Institute for Neural Mechanisms Without Inconvenient Metaphysics

Dear Editors,

I was recently made aware of a so-called “manifesto” circulating under the absurd title “Systemic Functional Neuroscience.” As the name suggests, this work—if one can even call it that—seems to blur the lines between neuroscience and linguistics to the point of unintentional farce. It posits that the brain’s neural activity could be modelled as a “text,” each synapse performing the role of a “word,” and that meaning somehow emerges from this process as if the brain were some sort of semiotic orchestra.

Let’s be clear: The brain is a biological organ. Its function is not to “realise meaning,” but to respond to stimuli in a manner that has been honed by millions of years of evolutionary pressures. The proposal that we could read neural activity as some sort of narrative or metaphysical poem is, frankly, absurd. The idea of consciousness as an emergent “text,” where neurons act as symbolic units composing the self, is a delusion best left to philosophers who’ve yet to see a functional MRI.

Moreover, to suggest that “meaning” might be instantiated through these neural processes undermines decades of rigorous research into the mechanistic operations of the brain. The fact that consciousness arises from the unfolding of neural dynamics does not mean we are now free to paint this process with the brushstrokes of literary theory.

Let’s stick to what we know: The brain is a highly efficient, highly wired meat processor that makes decisions, controls motion, and reacts to stimuli. There is no need to drag metaphysical speculation and symbolic systems into this highly delicate machinery.

If we are to begin entertaining the idea that the thalamus, cortex, and prefrontal regions “instantiate meaning” like a linguistic system, I fear we will be no better off than the 19th-century phrenologists who claimed to identify the seat of the soul on a person’s skull. Neuroscientific progress must continue to remain grounded in empirical data—not the fantasies of interdisciplinary cross-talk between fields that have, frankly, no business being in the same conversation.

In closing, let me be blunt: The brain does not “mean.” It processes. Let’s remember this fundamental point as we venture into the next century of cognitive science.

Sincerely,

Dr. Lance R. Myelinthick, DPhil, FRBS

Head of Reductionist Clarity Unit

P.S. I’m happy to engage in further debate on this topic, but only if we keep the discussion rooted in the actual mechanics of brain function and not its imagined “metafunctions.”