neuroscience training?

ken kpaulc at earthlink.net
Thu Mar 11 08:53:50 EST 2004


"David Longley" <David at longley.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:REXLwSAK7EUAFw4M at longley.demon.co.uk...
> In article <2HU3c.32952$aT1.17693 at newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net>, ken
> <kpaulc at earthlink.net> writes
> >I'm Sorry, just now, I'm too 'tired' to reply
> >in detail - because it entails reiterating
> >everything that I've discussed over the years.
> >
> >"Glen M. Sizemore" <gmsizemore2 at yahoo.com> wrote in message
> >news:bd30b63fbef5db982b3c1dfcfd654050 at news.teranews.com...
> >> I bash cognitive "science" because it invokes
> >> unobservables when it needn't and uses them
> >> to "explain" the behavior from which they are
> >> inferred. The entities are almost always meta-
> >> phors for things that whole humans do.
> >>
> >> Q: What do you get when you take about a
> >> million people who are too stupid to see that
> >> explaining "seeing," by saying that a part of your
> >> brain sees, is no explanation at all?
> >>
> >> A: Mainstream psychology.
> >
> >I don't disagree with you that Mainstream
> >Psychology misses the mark. It does.
>
> But not as much as you do Ken - and that's saying
> something.

Hee, hee, hee

> >> When one looks inside, one sees neurons
> >> and glia and brain juice, not beliefs, stored
> >> memories, representations, or desires. The
> >> latter are inferences from behavior with no
> >> independent instantiation - in a very real
> >> sense, these things ARE behavior, not the
> >> physiology that explains the behavior the
> >> mental entities are said to cause.
> >
> >Behavior is what happens when neural dyn-
> >amics drive the effectors.
> >
> >The neural dynamics are the neural dynamics.
> >
> >The neural dynamics can be studied in and of
> >themselves because the 'normal' neural Topology
> >is permeated by consistent ordering principles.
> >
> >And, when these ordering principles are followed
> >all the way down, voila, the wellspring of Behavior
> >within the Biology is fully-disclosed.
> >
> >But Behavior remains a =by-product= of the Bio-
> >logy's functioning.
> >
>
> The above is muddled nonsense and like so many
> muddles in this area, the  muddle's a function of
> language misuse. I social learning failure.

> "Biology's functioning" *is* (roughly speaking)
> *behaviour*.

Hee, hee, hee

> Asserting that behaviour is a "by-product" is as
> erroneous and  misleading as asserting that the
> characters and words that you're now reading
> on your screen are the "by-products" of your
> computer's functioning.

Hee, hee, hee

Using "computers" as an 'analogy' with respect to
nervous system function doesn't Compute.

Nurvus sist'ms ain't 'puters.

Ef 'puters were narvus sist'ms th'd no lowng'r be 'puters.

> Just as there's merit to studying MOSFET and
> CMOS technology, PGAs, serial ports, modems
> and network technology, it's just wrong to say that
> what one **does with all of that** is "a by-product".
> It's that which shapes all that's fabricated and
> evolves. I'll say that again - it's what one does with it
> which shapes what's fabricated and how it evolves.

Jees, yuh don' ev'n kerry-thru yer own 'nal'gee.

What're'ya talkin' 'bout 'puters or narvus sist'ms?

In yer nalgee' 'puter is starn'l spereent'l 'varm'nt to
narvus sist'm.

Iff'n tit's sarvyible, et don't maater what a narvus
sist'm's starnal spereen't varm'nt es. Thuh narvus sist'm
eydapts its infermashun prawces'n optim'lly with reespec
tuh et, no mater whuh et tis - 'cludin' 'puters.

Es a tast of yer 'nal'gy, shew muh uh 'puter thet kin do at.

Git't?

Yer anal'gy' ain't warth a rotti'n Roky Mowt'n erst'r.

Tit don' 'pute, seh?.

> The same of course is true when it comes to
> neurones, ganglia, and the rest of neural architecture.

Hee, hee, hee.

> You (like so many of us) just take the behaviour
> which has shaped its selection too much for granted,
> and you do that because you don't work with it.

Tell muh, Pullleeeeseeee, h'w duz "b'hav'r" gaw 'bout
shep'n' tits seelect'n"?

Huh? Huh? Huh? ["P. S. ..."]

> If you look into it more closely,

"Thairs's yer trobl." [Dixie Chicks]

Ain't nobody "look[ed]" "clos[er] th'n muh.

> you may start to see that far from being a "by-product",
> behaviour, and it's environment actually shapes (guides
> and selects) all of the research,

Tell muh, Pullleeeeseeee, how does "beh'v'r" 'n
"envarm'nt" go about shep'n, gaeydd'n, 'n
seeelect'n that thar reeesarch?

> and to the extent that people get behaviour wrong,
> they get their research and what they say wrong too!

Tell muh, Pullleeeeseeee, how'dey noow thet dey git't
"wrawng"?

> This is very apparent in your case.

Tell muh, Pullleeeeseeee, how'd'y noow thet et's "par'nt"?

> Stripped of all the "cognitivist" hyperbole and other
> metaphysical gloss, the good work in neuroscience
> would appear as "mundane" and uninteresting to
> most onlookers (and possibly to many participants) as
> that conducted on biological processes elsewhere.

Yuh abashin' Bilgy?

Them thar's fit'n wards, theer, Buckeroo.

> In your case you just do it with less finesse than
some others.

Tell muh, Pullleeeeseeee, how'd'y noow thet, Podna?

> >Think about it in terms of a manufacturing process.
> >
> >We work to understand how the manufacturing
> >process produces the manufactured product.
> >
> >An Automobile is the end-result of a manufactur-
> >ing process.
> >
> >But an Automobile isn't the Manufacturing Proc-
> >ess.
> >
> >If uou assert that it's so, then, go to your Auto-
> >mobile and get it to give me the new car I need :-]
> >
> >Cheers, Glen, ken [k. p. collins]
>
> You're wrong.

Wheere's muh kar?

> You're even more confused than the rest of us!.
> This shows in your writing (a social behaviour).

Tell muh, Pullleeeeseeee, whaaat's wrawng w'muh rit'n?

> It's something *you* should look into even
> more urgently than the rest of us..

Whot shed ah lukinter?

Seh? Nurvus sist'ms hev theer own 'tern'l gools. Thay
don' givrdamn 'bou nothin' els.

B'hvr tis wha hep'ns as nurvus sist'ms achev thar 'tern'l
gawls, as bi-prawdits a th' daygrie thet thay 'cheev tadee
ee ohvar aye m'nmuhzaashun.

Git't, Podner?

K. P. COllins

> >> "ken" <kpaulc at earthlink.net> wrote in message
> >> news:tpx3c.4952$Cm3.3521 at newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> >> > "Glen M. Sizemore" <gmsizemore2 at yahoo.com> wrote in message
> >> > news:e0732ced1b39cc7c757f085f6a632eaf at news.teranews.com...
> >> > [...]
> >
> >
> >
>
> --
> David Longley





More information about the Neur-sci mailing list