On 'Hunger'

David Longley David at longley.demon.co.uk
Tue Dec 21 12:56:05 EST 2004


In article 
<nIRxd.1133850$Gx4.123946 at bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>, kenneth 
collins <kenneth.p.collins at worldnet.att.net> writes
>"kenneth collins" <kenneth.p.collins at worldnet.att.net> wrote in
>message
>news:xJNxd.15273$uM5.8712 at bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
>| "[...]
>| "Food"?
>|
>| If you're "hungry", 'move toward' it
>| by 'moving' your legs and torso, 'move'
>| your arms, hands and fingers to 'move'
>| it to your mouth. 'move' the muscules
>| that animate your jaw. "Taste and eat."
>|
>| Anything you can consider is Same-Old,
>| Same-Old stuff -- all Knowledge with
>| respect to 'movememt', and such "Know-
>| ledge" exists, as above, within the neur-
>| al Topology of your nervous aystem
>| =AND= TD E/I-minimization.
>| [...]
>
>What about "humger"?
>
>It's the internal experience of 'moving
>away from' energy-sufficiency.
>
>All "hunger"-correlated behavioral
>dynamics, and all of the =myriad=
>sub-dynamics that comprise it are
>'just' so much 'moving toward' en-
>ergy-sufficiency.
>
>'moving away from' that 'moving
>away from' Being-Alive.
>
>Which is 'just' more "climbing" of
>WDB2T.
>
>Why I'm getting into all of this is
>to give folks a handle on the way
>that all of the =myriad= sub-dyn-
>amics that comprise "hunger" are
>=all= rigorously-correlated to the
>=one= overall =Directionality=
>that is WDB2T.
>
>Get it?

Yes Ken, many of us do get it - but do you know where *you* got it from? 
It appears to me that sometime in your past you have, perhaps unknown to 
yourself, just "discovered" some of the basics of behavioural science 
(you are talking about the reinforcement of rates of emitted classes of 
behaviours), but you still haven't grasped that there's over seven 
decades of empirical research work on what the contingencies are which 
shape "approach" and "withdrawal" behaviours (i.e. both phylogenetically 
selected operant behaviours and ontogenetically shaped/conditioned 
operant behaviours) not to mention he extensive work which continues to 
be done to explicate its molecular and quantitative genetics/physiology. 
This spans nearly all of the life sciences and believe it or not, you 
are skating over all of that with vague generalities.

You're not entirely* on the wrong track (which is the problem), but you 
are missing the perspective which you need to say anything that's useful 
or tangible. The devil is, as usual, in the fine *details*, so my best 
advice to you (again) is to urge you to look into some of the work on 
the monoamines and the direction of behaviour and how, over the past 30 
years or so, this is beginning to pay dividends.

As it is, you're not saying anything new or useful. You're expressing 
the basics (which go back decades before even I was born) in a rather 
"florid" manner, and the risk there is that you will, despite your good 
intentions, just deter others who don't know much about any of this, 
from looking more carefully into the work which *does* go into details 
and which *is* useful (e.g. dopamine receptors, ADHD, expanded triplet 
repeats etc...).

There is considerable variation within behaviour.....and what matters is 
the details.
-- 
David Longley
http://www.longley.demon.co.uk/Frag.htm




More information about the Neur-sci mailing list