I do find it interesting trying to explain to people that historians deal in arguments, not in facts. History isn’t a catalogue of dates and names, but what happened around those things, and how we now and those who were alive at the time perceived and responded to those events.

Yes. It's all motor cortex. Brains didn't evolve so we could sit in the corner and think.

We also used to think, for a minute or two, that "what" and "where" were separate in the prefrontal cortex. Now we know that is not true. They are not even separate in visual cortex. The solution to the perceptual binding problem is that there is no perceptual binding problem.

And to carry this point further, we also used to think neurons were specialized. But we now know that many neurons are multifunctional and show "mixed selectivity".
doi.org/10.1016/j.ne...

Indeed. The more we learn, the less specialization we see. There are motor signals in primary visual cortex, for example.

Point taken about RT but let's not broaden it up too much because then you get close to "non-functional". I assume that if there is a brain signal and we can't find the function (yet), it is far, far, more likely that the problem is our lack of understanding.

Nobody? Are you sure about that? I still see phrenology like claims of functional localization from some people. You are right. It is wrong and ignores neurophysiology.