the liver and the brain

David Longley David at longley.demon.co.uk
Thu Sep 2 13:58:18 EST 2004


In article <j5oej0lbapom8t1kucncb927hbn2ivs4iq at 4ax.com>, Traveler 
<traveler at nospam.com> writes
>In article <zv63kZKYr1NBFwjh at longley.demon.co.uk>, David Longley
><David at longley.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>I'll say it again - you are neglecting what research in neuroscience is
>>and always has been dependent upon - the careful management and
>>measurement of *behaviour*.
>
>If, by behavior, you mean the observable external behavior of the
>organism whose nervous system is being examined, I have to disagree. A
>lot of research in neuroscience is not at all dependent on external
>behavior. Heck, a lot of it is conducted in vitro. But if you mean the
>internal behavior (input/output, action potentials) of single neurons
>or even cell assemblies, I agree that neuroscience is dependent on
>behavior in this general sense of the term. But then again, very few
>fields of science are exempt from this general rule.
>
>Louis Savain


>
>Artificial Intelligence From the Bible:
>http://users.adelphia.net/~lilavois/Seven/bible.html
>
>The Silver Bullet or How to Solve the Software Crisis:
>http://users.adelphia.net/~lilavois/Cosas/Reliability.htm

You clearly (and arrogantly) don't understand (it isn't a matter of you 
agreeing or not). The 'in vitro' work is just as much an application of 
the extensional stance as the 'in vivo' behavioural work. On the other 
hand, the nonsense that you provide links to clearly is not.

Try to grasp what's being said and learn from it rather than just 
idiotically presuming.
-- 
David Longley
http://www.longley.demon.co.uk



More information about the Neur-sci mailing list