neuroscience training?

David Longley David at longley.demon.co.uk
Thu Mar 11 12:51:10 EST 2004


In article <Ob_3c.14739$%06.6605 at newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net>, ken 
<kpaulc at earthlink.net> writes
>"David Longley" <David at longley.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:REXLwSAK7EUAFw4M at longley.demon.co.uk...
>> In article <2HU3c.32952$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
>
>

I'm not whether I should congratulate you Ken!. You would appear to have 
"come out" as a hillbilly!

Whilst I suspected you had it in you, I still reckon you should actively 
seek out an independent professional assessment (just in case you find 
yourself slipping back into that even less comprehensible "psycho" 
persona again!
-- 
David Longley



More information about the Neur-sci mailing list