Mumford's first work that I know of after his mathematical peak was on machine vision, in the 1980s. I know this because I went back to the math department to visit and saw him running around with a video camera. I got the impression he was interested in how the actual brain works even back then.
When you've won a Fields Medal and then made fundamental contributions to an entirely different area of mathematics, you might have earned the right to make such comments on Mumford's thoughts. Until then, at least follow the HN site and comment guidelines!
I don't accept your premise -- there are no rights predicated on a Fields medal. At the same time you do make a point, my comment could and should have been more constructive.
I find that the cavalcade of stimulus/fMRI/"We've discovered the part of the brain responsible for beauty/truth/Tea Party/etc." studies, as a class, to be poorly designed experiments which add little to the broad base of scientific knowledge. I am always skeptical if these studies (and I always get voted down.)
I think the mass of these fMRI studies are much like the man looking for his keys under the streetlight. He's not looking there because they're likely to be there, but because that's the only place he can see.
This would be around 30 years ago.