Oh, one last thing - the legacy of mainstream psychology for neuroscience
has been the mereological fallacy in which brain activities are described in
the same terms as the phenomena that it is supposed to explain. The brain is
said to see, to believe, to think, to decide, to feel, to be conscious, etc.
etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. Talk about a retarded conceptualization. A
better question than the one you asked is "Does the metaphorical world of
cognitive "science" have anything to offer neuroscience? I mean a
neuroscience that might actually one day be able to say how physiology
mediates behavioral function?"
<borg at swirve.com> wrote in message
news:1152530560.394487.164970 at p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com...
>> Glen M. Sizemore wrote:
>>>> Every cognitive "scientist" should read this. Sorry. Couldn't resist.
>>>>http://skeptically.org/skinner/id9.html>> Uh, thanks. But seriously, does Skinner and his archaic babblings have
> anything to do with modern neuroscience?
>
