[Neuroscience] Re: Wherefore art thou Neuron Code?
Entertained by my own EIMC
(by write_to_eimc from ozemail.com.au)
Wed Apr 11 07:15:25 EST 2007
"Glen M. Sizemore" <gmsizemore2 from yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:461c2e7d$0$2730$ed362ca5 from nr2.newsreader.com...
>> So I still can't see where we're in dis-
>> agreement, and will 'have to' leave the
>> analysis, from the Behaviorist perspect-
>> ive, to you, if you care to give it.
>> Because, as I said in an earlier reply, the
>> contingencies can be adjusted to elicit
>> continuously-varying behavior. But this
>> doesn't actually say anything about pig-
>> eon-behavior. It says only Experimenter-
>> pigeon-interactive-dynamics stuff.
>> Such interactive-dynamics are important,
>> especially because, as I've reiterated
>> above, interactive-dynamics can render
>> 'behavior' =anything=.
>> ken [k. p. collins]
> You know the procedure. Which keys do they peck? Is it a function of t?
> This is pigeons, Ken. In a simplified environment. Let's simplify it
> further though. Two keys come on at the beginning of a trial, one green,
> one red, and from trial to trial they are randomized by position. If red
> is pecked, 2.0 s access to food is delivered immediately, if green is
> pecked, 6.0 s access occurs but at a 6.0 s delay. When either red or green
> is pecked, the alternative goes off and the pecked key stays illuminated
> until food delivery (briefly, of course, for red). The ITI is 20.0 s if
> red was pecked, and 10.0 s if green was pecked so the trial times should
> be roughly equal. If you play with the durations of food access and delays
> what sorts of functions do you get? This is much simpler than the original
> experiment. By the way, it doesn't really matter if it is pigeons or rats
> or monkeys or whatever. What does your account-for-everything "theory"
Both of you are differently "AEVASIVE" [the implied meaning of calling you
AEVASIVE is far more balanced and in depth than is the 'conventional'
meaning of calling you "neurotically defensive"]. However you are similarly
AEVASIVE enough for the contingency contributed by CURSES (originally by
SHITS) to be doggedly 'discounted' by both.
Some of the to me glaring differences between the two of you notably include
that Ken's "style" is that of a "meek martyr and inventive integrationist"
whereas Glen's "style" is that of "a very average terrorist-minded analyst".
More information about the Neur-sci