In what context?
According to what intent?
For what PURPOSE?
So, the argument sucks pretty bad already as there are more
then enough delusions from the start to only get confused
as a monkey ass at the end.
>contrast, biological studies of the mind have relied upon Descartes'
>conception of the 'reflex', which, like the knee-jerk response to a
>physician's hammer, simply connects a single sensation and a single action.
>While this discrepancy between complex social scientific theories of
>behavior and simple biological reflexes has troubled neurobiologists for
>much of this century, until now no researchers have been able to identify
>specific neurobiological mechanisms for decision-making.
>In the July 15th issue of Nature, NYU neuroscientists Michael L. Platt and
>Paul W. Glimcher have provided evidence of a true decision-making mechanism,
>of the type advocated by social scientists, within the brains of macaque
Yep. Instead of drilling holes in their own heads,
they do it to monkeys, then take that monkey logic
and apply it to themselves.
What a royal science!
But you see, they don't even know what the monkey logic
is on the first place, those cunning dudes, pretending
to know what they are talking about.
What are the roots of monkey logic,
you horseshit peddlers?
> These findings raise the possibility that biological mechanisms
>which can account for the complex and often upredictable behavior of living
>animals have been identified.
The biology can explain "complex and often upredictable behavior"
of living organisms?
You know what you got already?
You've got a materialistic neo-fatalism.
> Platt and Glimcher have found neurons in the
>parietal cortex of monkeys that, although previously thought to transform
>visual signals into eye movements in a reflexive way, actually carry
>information about the amount of reward a monkey expects to receive for
>making the movement. They found that the activity of these neurons was, like
>the behavior of the monkey, not predictable simply from the appearance of
>the visual world, but reflected the value the monkey placed on the movement.
In that case, the monkeys WOULD have developed to become like you,
as you seem to provide the theory of how "value" stimulates growth.
The question 1 is how come those monkeys remained monkeys in that case?
You see, either your "value" is not a value at all,
or you are simply looking at the wrong hole.
>Glimcher said, "For over three hundred years, the Cartesian reflex, which
>proposed a direct connection between sensation and movement, has served as
>the fundamental paradigm for understanding the nervous system. Contemporary
>neurobiologists, for example, still parcel the brain into 'sensory' and
>'motor' areas but overlook the possibility that much of the brain must be
>devoted to subjective evaluation and decision-making.
Not only brain, but entire body and beyond.
You can find that even cells that have "nothing to do with brain"
are also involved in the most profound way as they make decisions
that are vital to your very survival.
When you cut your finger, how does it heal?
> Over the last 5 years
>our laboratory has identified signals that seem to participate in this
>decision-making, and in a way not predicted by the reflexological paradigm."
Well, dig deeper. You have not found anything REALLY interesting yet.
>"Our research has now demonstrated that the theories of decision-making
>developed by social scientists present a viable biological alternative to
>the Cartesian reflex. It has revealed that neurons in parietal cortex carry
>signals correlated with both the probability that a particular eye movement
>response will yield a fruit juice reward and the amount of reward that can
How more corrupt you can get?
A particular eye movement assuring the fruit juice?
What are you studying here?
Your own corruption, by any humble chance?
> More importantly, when we permit animals to choose freely
>amongst two alternative responses, both the choices they make, at a
>behavioral level, and the brain activity we record at the neuronal level,
>are correlated with the probability and size of an upcoming fruit juice
Again, it depends on how corrupt YOU are.
You may find all sorts of jazz, but you can not reduce intelligence
to the level you are trying to.
The level you are on right now is the level of a machine.
> Thus, the activation of parietal cortex really does appear to
>reflect the decision processes that behavioral scientists suggest humans and
>animals use to guide their behavior.
Yep, keep convincing yourself. Who knows, may be one day
EVERYBODY will start believing you and from then on,
it will become a "scientific truth". You never know.
Get in touch with pentagon. This royal research most definetely
has "value" for them. Shouldn't be that difficult to get some money.
First of all, you have not proven anything so far.
You inappropriately attributed the things of YOUR corrupt views
to a monkey, then set up some "experiments", fabricated some
"results" and now you claim you have discovered something.
That is just a lie.
You are talking about general mechanisms of intelligence.
The very notion that there is an "optimized" behavior,
meant to do NOTHING, but seek the most efficient eye movement,
of whatever else you may find, in order to prolong the life
is just obscene.
Either life is just an eternal chase for food,
in which case it is logically absurd,
or what you found is not exactly what you think it is.
First you have to assure the impetus to be,
else no species is possible,
no matter what is the correlation of an eye movement
to what. Either that eye movement correlates to something
you have not even begun to comrehend,
or you have irreconcilable conclusion.
You see, all you got yourself is a model of a robot.
You have not even begun to consider the issues of joy of life,
fun of exploration and things of that nature, that lay at the
core of existance as such, and reduced everything to perfectly
logical and mechanical level.
Well, do you have the "explanations" on why the monkeys enjoy
sitting with their ass upside down?
What could be the "reason"?
What do they "gain" from it?
Why does the dog chase its own tail?
Why do people throw seemingly "inappropriate" arguments
into the pot, just to stir it up a bit?
What is the purpose of it?
Why don't you first find these mechanisms within yourself?
How can you even begin to interpret the "value" system of
How can you even begin to interpret the intent of a monkey
if you have no clue WHATSOEVER as of your own?
And this is what you call science?
Again, corrupt you are,
and corrupt to the bone.
>"It is also important to point out that our research has implications for
>the treatment of neurological disorders like stroke and brain cancer. Our
>data suggests that the inability of a patient suffering from a parietal
>stroke to make a particular movement may be more closely related to an
>inability to decide to make a movement than to an inability to contract the
>muscles that produce a movement. If that turns out to be true, then we will
>have made an important advance in understanding just what goes wrong in
Well, when it turns out to be true,
THEN we'll talk about it more.
>Glimcher and Platt's Nature article is based on two experiments, both of
>which measured the activity of dozens of parietal neurons. In the first
>experiment, during a series of tests macaque monkeys were shown two lights
>illuminated against a dark backround. The animals were free to look at
>either light, but on each trial the experimenters indicated to the animals
>that if they looked at one of the lights they would receive a fruit juice
>reward and if they looked at the other light they would receive nothing.
So, you are trying to "prove" here that man is nothing but a machine,
by any humble chance?
Zo, what is NEW in YER royal experiment compared to Pavlov's?
Still digging the same hole, you bunch of copycats?
>Over groups of these tests, Platt and Glimcher varied the amount of juice
>reward the animals would receive for making the correct movement.
You see how corrupt you are?
Is there such a thing in nature as "correct" movement?
Then why do the animals wonder around, lay on the sun
or jump, chasing a feather?
Why would a cat jump after the fly?
Is that "correct"?
How much food is that fly?
How much of a chance the cat has to catch it?
And yet, the game goes on
again and again and again.
Is that correct?
Why doesn't the cat kill the mouse, once caught?
You see, the cat is playing with it for a while,
and, quite often, simply leaves it uneaten.
The question is: Why doesn't cat eat that mouse?
And if it does not, then why did it catch that mouse?
What is "correct" here?
You see how badly you suck with yer royal scientists?
The very notion of "correct" is a notion, laying at the
roots of your corruption.
You know what that is?
>researchers found that parietal neurons kept careful track of the amount of
>juice each movement was worth, encoding each change in juice reward imposed
>by the researchers.
Ok, next time, have some guts and prove that your intentions are
trully royal and drill the hole in your own head.
Then attach the electrodes to the groups of neurons,
and we shall provide the experiments to run.
Man, you'll be sucking in no time.
I mean LITERALLY.
We'll prove some thingies beyond any reasonable doubt.
Plus, the advantage of the experiment is that YOU,
and not the monkey can interpret better what you meant
to do, what was the fun of it, and what was a necessity of it.
How can you get inside a monkey being and interpret
what is going on there?
All you recorded is some neural responses,
but all you got on your hands so far
is dust, and nothing but the dust.
>In the second experiment, the monkeys were given the opportunity to freely
>choose to look at either light for their fruit-juice reward. Although the
>monkeys were rewarded
Oh, your corrupt "rewards".
You never know
what may lay at the roots of it all.
> for looking at either light, the juice reward obtained
>for choosing one of the points was always greater than the other. Under
>these conditions the researchers found that the monkeys behaved more
>unpredictably, most often choosing the movement that yielded more reward,
>but not always. Most importantly, the researchers found that there was a
>high correlation between the frequency with which monkeys looked at a
>particular target and the neuronal activity associated with that movement,
>exactly the correlation that would be expected if the monkey's unpredictable
>choice behavior was being produced by these neurons.
And this is what you do for living?
This sucks, doc.
When are you going to start looking inside yourself,
inside something you have at least a slight idea of?
>Paul Glimcher is an assistant professor of neural science and psychology at
>NYU's Center for Neural Science. He is the principal investigator for the
>Laboratory for Sensory-Oculomotor Research, which is funded by the National
>Eye Institute. Glimcher received his Ph.D. from the University of
>Pennsylvania and his B.A. from Princeton University.
Yeah, gimme the credits now.
Good you mentioned it.
>Michael Platt is a post-doctoral fellow in the Laboratory for
>Sensory-Oculomotor Research. He also received his Ph.D. from the University
>of Pennsylvania and received his B.A. from Yale University.
Royal breed indeed.
Ok, so what is the conclusion of this great study, doc?
Why did you publish it here
and what did you want to prove?
Do you think you have proven that,
which you sought to prove?
>The Center for Neural Science (CNS) is the focus for inquiry in the brain
>sciences at the Washington Square Campus of New York University. Formed in
>1987, CNS is regarded as an international center for research and teaching.
>The research interests of the faculty span a broad range of topics in neural
>science, and utilize techniques ranging from molecular and cellular analyses
>to fully integrated systems, computational, and cognitive studies.