In the News with Analysis

Glen M. Sizemore gmsizemore2 at yahoo.com
Thu Jun 20 14:29:29 EST 2002


Behavioral facts are not neurobiological facts and neurobiological facts are
not behavioral facts. That is simply the way it is. The notion that we will
solve the frightening problems facing us by "better understanding the brain"
is silly for two reasons. 1.) We know very little about how the brain
"brings about behavior" (actually it is better to say "how the brain
mediates the effects of the environment") and 2.) It will probably never be
possible or practical to change behavior in a widespread way by direct
intervention with nervous tissue.

If we wish to avoid the inevitable disaster toward which we seem to be
moving, we will need to understand the phylogeny and ontogeny of behavior as
well as cultural processes. Neurobiology will remain largely irrelevant.

"Kenneth Collins" <k.p.collins at worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:KDoQ8.52341$UT.3533834 at bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> Glen M. Sizemore wrote in message <3d11cb34$1_6 at news5.nntpserver.com>...
> >KC: it's=all= Neuroscience, all appropriate for bionet.neuroscience, all
> >stuff upon which the Survival of Humanity depends, and unavailable
anywhere
> >else on the face of the planet.
> >
> >
> >GS: If you think the solution to world problems is "in the brain" you are
a
> >bigger moron than you appear to be (wait.....that's not possible). To
alter
> >ourselves in ways conducive to the survival of our culture and species is
a
> >matter of arranging environments and this is behavioral science, not
> >neurobiology. Neurobiology will not contribute one iota to solutions for
> the
> >massive problems that face us.
>
>
> ho, ho, ho,
>
> Behavioral Science is Neuroscience. even in the realm of the Supernatural.
> One cannot experience a Miracle if it does not, in some way, impact the
> physically-real stuff of one's nervous system.
>
> if you 'disagree', please give me any example that you propose as a
> 'contradiction'.
>
> "arranging environments"
>
> Same-Stuff. Gains it's relevancy through the 'lens' of the nervous system,
> in exactly the way i've been describing.
>
> if you 'disagree', please give me any example that you propose as a
> 'contradiction'.
>
> k. p. collins
>
> >[...]
>
>





More information about the Neur-sci mailing list