<nIRxd.1133850$Gx4.123946 at bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>, kenneth
collins <kenneth.p.collins at worldnet.att.net> writes
>"kenneth collins" <kenneth.p.collins at worldnet.att.net> wrote in
>news:xJNxd.15273$uM5.8712 at bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...>| "[...]
>|>| 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-
>>'moving away from' that 'moving
>away from' Being-Alive.
>>Which is 'just' more "climbing" of
>>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.
Yes Ken, many of us do get it - but do you know where *you* got it from?
(cf. Herrick and Sherrington, personally, I got it from my supervisor
Crow). 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 the extensive
work which continues to be done to explicate the molecular and
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 in order 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 that you try to look into
some of the detailed work on the monoamines and the direction of
behaviour (DA 5-HT and NA) and how, over the past 30 years or so, this
has finally started to pay useful dividends (largely as a result of work
in behaviour genetics).
As it is, you're not saying anything new or useful (and I mean to be
helpfully provocative/critical). You're expressing the basics (which go
back decades even before even I was born - see website ;-) and in a
rather "florid" manner too (perhaps out of frustration and just a little
psychosis <g> (which shouldn't worry you too much as there's a lot more
about than most folk appreciate!). The risk here 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 the 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 (and the discipline).