neuroscience training?

Glen M. Sizemore gmsizemore2 at
Sat Mar 6 06:01:36 EST 2004

} DD: Find any undergraduate level book on biological psychology. Those
} books are the result of neuroscience as driven by cognitive science.
} GS: Actually, cognitive "science" only began to poison "neuroscience" (at
} least in some official sense) relatively recently. Before that, the
} was a more frank kind of animism. Get it? I didn't think so.

DD: My, someone woke up with a valium deficiency today.

GS: I guess you're speculating about some putative endogenous
benzodiazepine? Actually, this is hardly a temporary thing. Think of it as a
lifelong hatred of mentalism and cognitive "science."

DD: The TOTE theory (test-operate-test-exit) of Miller, Galantner and
Pribram was firmly rooted in both information processing theory, and
that of top-down executive control from the frontal lobes.

GS: Information as in stuff like "The nucleus accumbens receives information
from..." This is the way "information" is typically discussed, and it is
homunculism. Then, when called on it, they fall back on technical usages of
"information" as if their explanation was about that all along.

Frontal lobes? Is that were the executive homunculus lives?

DD: That was
1960. It's the earliest theory I can think of at the moment, because
of my training with Pribram. There may be earlier. Even by him.

GS: That's about right. Animism was always lurking in the shadows, and when
the cognitive devolution began with Chomsky's Big Lie, it was all down hill
from there.

DD: While there is a great deal being contributed to neuroscience without
consideration of cognitive phenomena,[...]

GS: Which are what exactly? Subjective experiences? Or are they the fanciful
processes that are thought to be "behind" experience and behavior? Or do you
just use "cognitive" as a synonym for "neurophysiological?"

DD: [...]it either doesn't remain that
way as it is picked up and used by those who attempt to put the
deconstructed pieces of the puzzle back together,[...]

GS: You mean like how the alleged mind or real brain is supposed to create
an internal picture of the world?

DD: [...]or it tends to serve only as a starting point for yet another
adequate lab report.

GS: Sorry, don't know what you're driving at here.

DD: BTW, do you know Wally Pritchard? He and I have spent some time
discussing nonlinear analysis. He's done some very good work in that
field as well as in substance use. His surrogate data compression
technique is a pretty nifty hack.

GS: I know of him, yes.

"Doktor DynaSoar" <targeting at> wrote in message
news:cv5i405rrf5rsufvcdi9n2hsfcet88hqk9 at
> On Fri, 05 Mar 2004 02:54:56 GMT, "Glen M. Sizemore"
> <gmsizemore2 at> wrote:

More information about the Neur-sci mailing list