[Neuroscience] Re: Wherefore art thou Neuron Code?

[r norman]

On Mon, 2 Apr 2007 14:07:26 -0400, "Glen M. Sizemore"
<gmsizemore2 from yahoo.com> wrote:

>
>"Entertained by my own EIMC" <write_to_eimc from ozemail.com.au> wrote in message 
>news:461109ff$0$15007$5a62ac22 from per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...
>>
>> "Glen M. Sizemore" <gmsizemore2 from yahoo.com> wrote in message 
>> news:4610ed18$0$24160$ed362ca5 from nr2.newsreader.com...
>> <snip>
>>> The general point to be made is that, in many, many cases in 
>>> neuroscience, behavior hasn't been broken down into the right analytical 
>>> units - that is, the conceptual structure inherited from mainstream 
>>> psychology is, literally, nonsense.
>>
>> You obvously both have a valid point AND get to feel good by making it.
>>
>>> Note that, despite Kandel's careless
>> > language, "habituation" is conceptually clean.
>>
>> IOW, it is a concept you can understand.
>
>No, I mean that when you take time to carefully analyze it, it isn't stupid 
>like the storage and retrieval metaphors and 99% of the other junk that 
>characterizes cognitve "science."
>

I was wondering where you were coming from about that.  In straight
neurobiology (an actual science, not the "cognitive" type),  Kandel's
habituation is a  specific phenomenon with a specific and justly
Nobelish level mechanism behind it.