[leftyted]

> But while not everyone might agree, I tend to think the difference may be more related to subtle neuro-anatomical differences (such as number of neurons) rather than the presence of specialized "brain modules".

"Specialized brain modules" seems like an unfair way to state the argument. The article mentions "maps" or "scaffolding" that "drive the final organization of the brain," which is a bit more subtle.

But doesn't she allow for the possibility that something like "number of neurons" could drive human difference? What else could be meant by:

> Or can we explain it using low-level principles we’ve inherited from lower animals

I agree with you that the source of the human-animal distinction isn't relevant to the question of whether the distinction is worth making. I think the distinction is worth making regardless of the source of the distinction (though the "higher" and "lower" language seems silly).