[Neuroscience] Re: Looking for online orebookneurosciencedictionaries or encyclopedias

konstantin kouzovnikov myukhome at hotmail.com
Fri Jul 14 13:18:42 EST 2006

I am sorry, Glen. We would simply need to disagree on cognitive 
neuroscience. It is the recent shift to "cognitive neuroscience of emotion" 
that, a logical one, has produced especially great amount of understanding 
how the brain works (or how even more complex it is) adding to the 
understanding of the "central" element, the one between overt behaviors.

On another hand, the recent advances in neuroimaging, an important 
augmentation of a "pure" cognitive neuroscience, produced what I personally 
see as a rare occasion when true translational and integrative research has 
become actually possible. How else, just to give a good example, Williams et 
al would come up with such a neat research on subliminal processing? Or how 
would it possible to expect the outcomes of, say, Chris Frith's research on 
delusion (passivity phenomena) without the cognitive neuroscience paradigms 
and methods and experimental design? I am just at loss when reading your 
confirmation that, indeed, you see no value in cognitive neuroscience, 
although I agree that a non-discriminate use of the "null hypothesis" and 
statistics in general is a problem. But aren't the peer-reviewed publication 
process is there to watch any trespassing of the methodological principles?

What I can see is the fact that we are actually very close to integrating 
the old and the new schools as some now obscure notions, of a reflex, as in 
Pavlov, for instance, can be explained in great detail, mainly because of 
the input from cognitive neuroscience. This is what I find a bit exciting 
lately, in neuroscience. A bit neurvous, but I would add that I am very 
happy that some recent research in cognitie neuroscience of emotion (what a 
weird way to say things!) provide very neat evidence that the old guy Freud 
was right.

May be my position would be more clear if I'd say that I'd rather see 
convergence of paradigms into a lesser number of conceptualizations. I'd add 
though that we must include if not re-imbrace classic behaviorism concepts. 
If a very profoud clinical impact of cognitive behavioral therapy is not an 
evidence it is happening then I am really missing here something, although, 
in my view the CBT is re-packaging of  behaviorism.

As to Russian behaviorism. You are right in one sense, but wrong in the 
other. Pavlovian behaviorism was largely physiological science rather than 
behavioral. The consequent to Stalin's death psychology development, the 
Soviet psychology was a completely different pot of soup, some of which was 
actually very good.

Cheers, KK

Be the first to hear what's new at MSN - sign up to our free newsletters! 

More information about the Neur-sci mailing list

Send comments to us at biosci-help [At] net.bio.net