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

David Longley David at longley.demon.co.uk
Tue Sep 9 09:24:57 EST 2003


In article 
<uYk7b.132148$0v4.9666726 at bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>, KP_PC 
<k.p.collins at worldnet.att.net> writes
>"David Longley" <David at longley.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:ixlTTGLPtbX$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
>
>
>

Re-read what you have said and spot the self-refuting position
it adopts.

-- 
David Longley



More information about the Neur-sci mailing list