T. S. Kuhn's "Paradigm Shift" - why it's 'difficult'

KP_PC k.p.collins at worldnet.att.net
Tue Sep 9 08:54:34 EST 2003


"David Longley" <David at longley.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:ixlTTGLPtbX$EwqY at longley.demon.co.uk...
| In article
| <yQY6b.130812$0v4.9535784 at bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
KP_PC
| <k.p.collins at worldnet.att.net> writes
| >"Bill Pascoe" <Bill.Pascoe at newcastle.edu.au> wrote in message
| >news:3F568339.1060609 at newcastle.edu.au...
| >| What is the AoK reference?
| >| [...]
| >
| >"AoK" is an acronym for ""On the Automation
| >of Knowing within Central Nervous Systems:
| >A Brief Introduction to Neuroscientific Duality
| >Theory", which is a manuscript that describes
| >a unified theory of central nervous system
| >function, cognition, affect and behavior, giving
| >concrete biological mechanisms for the
| >phenema of creativity, curiosity, volition, and
| >a lot more, all of which reduces directly to the
| >proven Neuroscience experimental results.
| >
| >It was written long ago and remains not formally
| >published.
| >
| >I send it out in the form of an old MSDOS (c)
| >hypertext doc to anyone who wants to give it
| >a read.
| >
| >Please msg back if you want a copy. [If so,
| >please be a bit patient. I'm online only spor-
| >adically these days.]
| >
| >Cheers, Bill, ken
| >
| >
| Of course you could just conjecture that
| neophobia is perhaps a behavioural
| antecedent to the plasticity which has in
| the past been referred to as "learning"
| or "habit formation".

I presume you are addressing my comments
earlier in this thread, which are not quoted
above, which 'grates', but, no, I can't.

The big difference is, not that I ignore
"learning" or habituation, but that everything's
tightly-integrated in NDT.

The surmise that you've proposed is an example
of the sort of 'dangling' "detail that I addressed in
another thread.

| [...]

| Thus, naloxone suppressed pellet eating
| if the pellets were novel and if naloxone
| was administered before eating tests. The
| results suggest  naloxone enhances
| neophobic effects of novel  foods  and
| that  suppression of novel pellet eating
| is not due  to  enhanced effects  of
| novelty of apparatus cues or  to
| conditioned  taste aversion.
| [...]

While I =do not= 'discount' these, or =any=
experimental results, I strongly disagree
with the "suggest[ion] because, as soon
as one intervenes neurophamacologically,
one is no longer looking at a "nervous system",
but an artificially-modified 'other-thing', which
leads right back to the unavoidable-need for
hierarchical-integration that can be relied-in
during the course of hypothesis-making.

The difference is akin to going into a carnival
fun house blindfolded, or eyes-wide-open.

In other words, neither naloxone-interference,
nor its acted-upon substrates, a nervous
system make.

Please forgive what I understand must seem
'agrandizment' of the position with which I am
'familiar'. It's not that, but the 'seeming' occurs
as a function of our individually-unique
experiential totals.

Also, before you 'buzz' me, please forgive my
non-standard hyphenation. I'm using it, these
days, to help me remember the Joy of 'whimsy'.

k. p. collins






More information about the Neur-sci mailing list