[acomar]

> "We haven't yet found a specific neural structure for recognizing faces" is far from evidence that no such structure exists.

proving a negative is, famously, quite hard. an unsolved problem, even. facial recognition has a plethora of evidence beyond an argument from evolution. the notion that we humanize tools is one that, as yet, lacks that evidence. I urge people to be more skeptical of arguments from evolution. we understand very little about our evolution and it's easy to insert our own worldviews and beliefs into such arguments, allowing them to state virtually anything we like in a plausible envelope with the shape of a scientific argument. I'm not just calling the argument about humanizing tools pseudoscience -- I'm applying it equally to every other argument from evolution that lacks other motivating evidence.

[anonymouskimmer]

I understand your original point was about a neural structure involved in humanization, and not of facial recognition, but am responding to the point you let the interlocutor derail this to.

> > "We haven't yet found a specific neural structure for recognizing faces" is far from evidence that no such structure exists.

> proving a negative is, famously, quite hard.

Whether structure or not, we do have very strong evidence that a mechanism of facial recognition exists as there are people who lack this mechanism to various degrees.

This article posits that we have indeed discovered a specific neural structure involved in facial recognition: https://www.aipc.net.au/articles/the-neuroscience-of-facial-...

> The brain has even evolved a dedicated area in the neural landscape, the fusiform face area or FFA (Kanwisher et al, 1997), to specialise in facial recognition. This is part of a complex visual system that can determine a surprising number of things about another person.

[acomar]

thanks, I appreciate this