the liver and the brain
David at longley.demon.co.uk
Wed Sep 1 09:30:46 EST 2004
In article <363d693e.0409010606.7b12d802 at posting.google.com>, ray
scanlon <rscanlon at nycap.rr.com> writes
>Glen M. Sizemore writes:
>> GS: The modification of behavior by experience is the usual definition of
>> learning. Of course, operant conditioning is defined by a change in
>> frequency of an originally spontaneous (at the level of behavior) response
>> (defined by its effect on the environment).
>Perfectly true, if you are a behaviorist. But for brain people,
>learning is a change in synaptic strength due to neural activity. The
>neural activity may, or may not, rise to the level of motor activity.
>Behavioral science is a lovely discipline, but it is a different
>discipline. Neural science must be reducible to molecular biology. I
>do not believe that behaviorists accept this stricture. I may be
>wrong, of course. I am willing to listen and to learn.
No you're not. How many times have you been urged to listen to Kandel's
Nobel lecture (critically) and how many times have we told you what are
backgrounds are? You ignore this - why is that do you think?
>> Under vocalization are the phonemes-also
>> provided by the DNA.
>> GS: I doubt that the last can be backed up. References?
>I never, ever, provide references. I would never, ever, think of
>asking you to provide references.
>> RS: Some synapses in the nervous system can be altered by experience. This
>> allows us to string the phonemes together into language.
>> GS: This is a hopelessly sophomoric view of verbal operant behavior. But let
>'s talk about the simpler behavior - but still operant behavior.
>No! Let's not. The subject is the brain, not operant behavior. The
>subject is motor program generators. The DNA provides the generators;
>we hear them when the infant babbles.
How does Kandel measure LTP? How do any of the people you are referring
to measure what they do? What are you neglecting?
More information about the Neur-sci