Questions on the Nature of memory, personality, etc.

Glen M. Sizemore gmsizemore2 at
Mon May 17 06:08:58 EST 2004

GS (previous): Well..I don't know what you have in mind by "limitations."
technologies are ok, but what is really troublesome is that
which areas are transiently more active when people or animals do
things (and defining what they ARE doing is an issue) doesn't get you
anywhere, really, at least not in isolation. The problem is that we
have a good idea how physiology mediates behavioral function. If you
collected fMRI data from now 'til doomsday, you still wouldn't know.

RM: Okay. The problem about functional imaging techniques like fMRI or PET
is that they measure metabolic activity indirectly and with a huge
delay. They have a nice spatial and a poor temporal resolution. As you
cannot do electrophysiology in humans, you have to rely on these
coarse mesurements. If you are trying to correlate higher cognitive
functions like speech processing with these data, then you are
throwing around with big words and make big assumptions without solid
ground. Those studies are generally regarded to be suspicious.
We don't know how physiology mediates behaviour... If you had read
what we're researching on... well what everybody is working on : this
is it.

GS: I follow, as well as contribute to, behavioral neuroscience (and much of
what I have published may be criticized in some of the same ways I criticize
the work of others - but at least there is little or no mentalism in what I
have published).

GS (previous): Now this is really interesting stuff. Do you know of O'Regan
They're behaviorists only they don't know it.

RM: YES. I'm familiar with their works. I'm also familiar with the
successful works of Paul Bach-y-Rita. I like both. Of course tehy are
behaviourists, too. But at least their theories work and Bach-y-Ritas
devices work as well.

GS: Sorry...I don't know what you are saying here. Are you laboring under
the notion that I am against behaviorism? I am not - quite the opposite.

GS(previous): Well, I would have to agree. But it isn't "cognitive science;"
unless you can tell me what "cognitions" are.
GS(previous): And what, exactly, is human cognition?

RM: My God. I am interested in attentional mechanisms, conscious
perception, binding, exploratory motor behaviour, visual processing,
attention for action, response selection, emotions... I think whatever
definition I look up on the internet... this would be quite a good
share of "cognition". And if this does not suffice in your eyes...

GS: What is "attention?" What is "conscious?" What is "processed" and to
what end? Who (or what) "selects" responses? What are emotions, exactly?
See? You're not really out of the clutches of animism.

GS(previous): Let's far you have talked about behavior, and you
about physiology..nope...I don't see any cognitions, do you?

GS(previous): Does it have anything to do with
"human behavior?"

RM: Sure thing. You can't regard the brain detached from the body.
External physiological reactions go hand in hand with certain tasks.
E.g. saccades, nystagmus, ANS activity. We act therefore we are. Of
course you have to have a look inside the black box and predict and
explain what you see.

GS: Needless to say, my point is that what you are doing - if you are doing
anything useful at all - is investigating the physiology that mediates
behavioral function. But in order to do this, one must not be waylaid by
notions like "attention" or the misguided implications of the red herring of
"binding." In order to investigate the physiology that mediates behavioral
function, you first have to know how behavior functions. You first have to
know what "attention" really "is," and why "binding" is a red herring.

GS(previous): Let me ask you this: Do we see the world, or do we see a copy
whatever sort) of the world "in our brain?" Do you talk about storage
retrieval at all?

RM: There are retinotopic mappings of various forms to be found in the
brain. However, I think that the world acts as an outside memory. I
think you know the discussions. This is my opinion. No, I don't talk
about storage and retrieval at all. These terms are very biased
towards the good old computational metaphor of mind. But it might also
be due to the fact that I'm not working on memory processes right now.

GS: Good answer for the most part. But inconsistent with some of what you
have said above and prviously. What's that? You don't see how? I know.

GS(previous): In my opinion, the cognitive "science" movement is the worst
ever happened to psychology, philosophy, AI, behavioral neurobiology,
anthropology etc. I think it might have also been responsible for

RM: Do you remember the part about "not productive". This is heading
nowhere. Sry.

GS: At least it is heading no place that you want it to go.

GS(previous): You're welcome. BTW, do you know the German word that
to "the
soul of the nervous system?" It starts with "R" - something like

RM: Sorry. Sounds funny... but I never heard it before and can't think of
a single word describing "the
soul of the nervous system". BTW: reumarch... sounds like a dutch word

GS: Hmmm..fortunately, the notion was short-lived and no one seriously
maintains that the "soul" has anything useful to say about biology. Now the
"mind" and "cognitions" - that's a whole other

RM: . . . . . ..
To make it short. You want to an explanation and a definition of
cognition. You want it without behavioural experiments.

GS: Huh!?!?

RM: These are
futile because we "don't know how physiology mediates behaviour".
You want cognitions... NOW ! Well... why isn't there anybody looking
for cognitions ?
There are people looking for attentional effects, for conscious
perception, action selection, cortical plasticity, memory processes,
emotions. And then they use electrophysiology, imaging techniques and
behavioural paradigms to find out "how physiology mediates
And you ask : Where is the cognition in there ?
If terms like, attention, conscious awareness, action selection not
comensurable with your big picture of human cognition... well these
tiny little terms we try to explain are exciting enough for me.
And if contemporary methods in neuroscience contain too much
behaviourism for you... well, so be it.

GS: !?!?!?!?!?? It should be clear that "modern neuroscience" contains too
much animism for me.

RM: Here are short replies to the last posting... but I don't think we're
heading for a solution here.
I think we should discontinue this discussion. Please :)

GS: Let's hope you do science better than you read.

"Robert M?rtin" <robertmaertin at> wrote in message
news:85d56b27.0405161400.1eac5c3a at

More information about the Neur-sci mailing list