Ken, the difference between doing useful and constructive work and not
doing so is notoriously difficult to explicate, Popper and his disciples
had a good shot at it, so did Quine. Most researchers are tacitly or
explicitly aware of this problem and settle for following convention as
a modus vivendi just to get things done and earn a living. Some get
lucky, but those who do still have to do *something* useful - that's why
people pay attention.
When I read what you have done I feel frustrated that you haven't been
able to put things together in a way that really does tell us something.
I really don't think I've seen anything from you which either I or
others have not said more clearly and usefully.
The problem is that there's as much nonsense in neuroscience as there is
in other integrated disciplines, and this is particularly the case when
one comes to the literature on brain and behaviour. This has to be the
case as there is lots of controversy.
In AoK you certainly cover some anatomy - but doing this is relatively
easy once you've worked in the field for a while. It's like drawing
subway maps! I agree it's a hard job learning the stuff, but it is like
learning any language - one can still end up making vague and general
statements which don't amount to anything useful or testable, just as
one does in our natural folk psychology.
That's what I think you are doing. That's where I think you have gone
awry. To correct that you need to pay attention to the appropriate
'reinforcing verbal community' - and again, you're not doing that
sufficiently. That's why people will think you are 'mad'.
It's dangerous not to listen! Languages are not private systems.
In article <60yqb.29625$Ec1.2717347 at bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
KP_PC <k.p.collins at worldnet.att.net> writes
>I cancelled my internet account yesterday,
>but found need to be online today, so I re-
>instated it. I'll explain in another post.
>>But, since I'm online, I'll address your 'reality'.
>>"Reality Therapist" <not at here.not> wrote in message
>news:jk9jqvsgk2n33dvkli6g3bgsf4pkchvhir at 4ax.com...>| On Tue, 04 Nov 2003 09:47:08 +1100, Matthew Kirkcaldie
>| <Matthew.Kirkcaldie at removethis.newcastle.edu.au> wrote:
>|>| There are, however, empirical criteria for the determination of
>| reality. Three of them are:
>|>| 1. The name of this forum is: bionet.neuroscience.
>|>| 2. Ken posts a steady stream of random current news.
>|>| 3. The name of this forum is NOT: bionet.anything.
>>Everything I discuss is Neuroscience.
>>I provide the basics of my position in AoK.
>>For whatever reason, folks could not grasp
>AoK's synthesis of Neuroscience, so, in the
>other discussions I post, I'm addressing what's
>been in AoK all along at a more-comprehensive
>'level'. All of it, including stuff like my discussions
>in Physics, is 'just' more Neuroscience.
>>I accept that some, including, apparently, you,
>'cannot' see that, which is why, long before
>Matthew suggested that using a 'kill file' is
>probably appropriate in such cases, I instruct-
>ed folks in how to use 'kill files'.
>>I'm =not= wanting to 'bother' folks who don't
>want to do Neuroscience, or who cast 'neuro-
>science' into some straight-jacketed 'mold'.
>>In fact, I'd prefer it if those so inclined would,
>in fact, 'kill-file' my ID.
>>It's 'hilarious' - I'm doing stuff that's never before
>been achieved in Neuroscience [in all of Science]
>and you barge-in unable to see that I'm just doing
>Neuroscience, complaining, Erroneously, while
>doing absolutely nothing in Neuroscience, and
>declaring such to constitute "reality".
>>'Kill-file' my ID in your newsreader, =please=.
>>k. p. collins