I'm not ignoring this. Am fighting many different battles currently, as well
as getting data ready for a lab meeting. I'll try to return to this.
"konstantin kouzovnikov" <myukhome at hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:mailman.248.1152986183.20007.neur-sci at net.bio.net...
> KK: Glen: I hope you do not mind me being interested in understanding
> your positions better.
>> I just would like to follow these two statements:
>>>that results from those changes, but the concepts of cognitive "science"
>>simply explanatory fictions.
>>(and bear in
>>mind that what I am criticizing the conceptual structure of cognitive
>> KK: Could you just give me a backgrounder or a couple of specific examples
> for each?
>>>>GS: Imaging is a feat of physics and engineering. It has nothing to do
>>cognitive "science." Thus when an area "lights up" it seems like
>>"Oh! That's where the executive is!" "Oh! That's where the little
>>spirit reads the 'cognitive map.'"
>> KK: I do like your analogy. There are too many "Christmas tree"-like
> approaches. However, don't you think that various quality of a job done is
> a ... normal distribution thing in any field of human activity? You asked
> me to give you some info re: the research I've mentioned before. I'll give
> you the links to a couple of my recent favorites. I do find them not
> fitting into your description:
>>http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=12880804&dopt=Abstract>> as I like this lab a lot, here is a link:
>http://www.brain-dynamics.net/braindynamics/publications/pubs_all.jsp>> essentially, any paper by either Williams or Liddle will do..
>>>but I don't intend right now to
>>launch a criticism of methodology. The conceptual problems with cognitive
>>"science" are so overwhelming that all other issues should take a back
>> KK: Glen, I hope you do realize that we would need to have something
> beyond your general statements, right? It is not just you doing a cope
> out, or is it?
>>>GS: Are you saying that we can, for example, say exactly what is going on
>>when we establish, say, a so-called conditioned emotional response in a
>>That is nonsense. We are not even close.
>> KK: don't you think you've changed the subject? I am saying that each
> "tribe" has ability to contribute, eventually, so, Yes, cog neuroscience
> has a lot to contribute, in addition to what was done in behaviorism. It
> is you who is saying "say exactly what is going on ", not me. No one is
> in position to provide a "final answer". Let's just recall that you and I
> are talking about cog neuroscience being a complete crap, in your view.
>> But you "rat" thing is a good one. I'd like to stay with this one for a
> while. It may surprise you, but, as Captain Spoke would say, it is
> illogical to assume that the knowledge of what "exactly" going on in a rat
> can be established before a similar event is understood in humans. Why?
> Because of the nature of the science which demands not an A or a B, but A
> and B together. Allow me to explain, To understand "exactly" what's going
> on in a system, would ALSO require the system speaking back to you, or
> being able to contribute some self-generated data which is impossible to a
> dog, or a rat, especially if one is dead. In other words, you can go a
> long way with rats, but only so far. Any scientific product which won't
> contain ALSO the type of data that they used to call "introspective" will
> be INVARIABLY short of having SUFFICIENT data to apply YOUR label
> "EXACTLY". Further explanation, it is shutting down "conscious" (or
> accessible to introspection) allowed factoring out non-conscious, in the
> recent translational and integrative research, also with the use of
> neuroimaging. One cannot do it in a rat, not really.
>> So, SOME progress has been taking place in the cognitive neuroscience of
> emotion . You can't deny it.
>>>GS: Freud was right about a couple of things but his mental models were
>> KK: Glen, again, could you give me a 2-3 liner regarding what is it
> exactly that you mean? What are "a couple of things"? What are Freud's
> mental models that you like and dislike? It seems impossible to get out of
> you anything palpable. Is there a reason for it?
>>>because most people do not know that radical behaviorism places a lot of
>>emphasis on self-talk, imagining, etc.
>> KK: "radical"? is there a definition to what exactly it is? Is there a
> link to read about?
>>>>>KK: Pavlovian behaviorism was largely physiological science rather than
>>>>GS: Nonsense. There was some manipulation of the brain, but Pavlov's work
>>involved manipulating the environment and measuring behavior. > He talked
>>about the brain a lot,
>>but the work is most famous for is purely behavioral.
>>>> KK: and what was the goal of manipulation? (A formal employee of the
> Pavlov's Institute, I'd like you to you to tell me this one). Let me tell
> you, though. The overall goal was to show that brain is the bearer of the
> mental faculties while "brain" was what these guys used to call as
> "physiology". What you threw in the garbage and called it "Pavlov used to
> talk about the brain a lot" was the entire point, So, an alternative
> interpretation of what they did is as this: they manipulated brain by a /
> manipulation of environment and b/ observing and measuring behavior to
> make what you are refusing to see in behaviorism - exactly the type of
> generalizations you so resent when they are done by cognitive
> neuroscience.' It is the same mythology, the same "conceptualizations",
>>>GS: Well, it is unlikely that we will agree upon what is "good."
>> KK: Not if you would continue being vague. What's you definition of good?
>> This is what I still remember about the Soviet psych (sorry, can't call
> Soviet and post-Soviet as Russian; the Russian is either dead or all in
> "their heads"):
>> Luria (a Georgian guy, by the way, like Schewarnadze) gave the world the
> Neuropsychology, no matter how much Nebraska-Luria folks continues to
> bastardize his models. Although, as I referred to before, the communists
> castrated the scientific community, there still were a few great
> developments. I am sure you don't know about them as the post-soviet
> science continues to be self-contained with the majority of the Russians
> taking the benefit from doing science on several languages while the
> majority of their science continues to belong to the "dark side" of the
> moon, inaccessible to you, for instance.
>> No matter how much they used Vygotsky's developmental stuff to raise up
> the young communist league members, no one in the filed can work without
> his still very much valid conceptualization as well as the
> assessment/experimental parts.
>> Had you known the works of Boris Vekker and Ananiev, you'd have no choice
> but take your hut off. Prof. Vekker's theory of invariant information
> processing is as recent as from 60s and 70s, but still is the only serious
> methodology in existence offering logical and methodologically correct
> opportunity for convergence of the so fractured multitude of psychological
> schools of thought. If Prof. Vekker were any good at spin-doctoring of his
> science as Chomskie is, his hugely important theory would not be one of
> the biggest losses in the field, at the time when objective,
> methodologically correct tool for conceptual convergence in psychology is
> need as never before.
>> A behaviorist , you would be interested to know that the big ideas as the
> Theory of Mind or the new wave called "mirror neurons" are just humble
> shadows of what has been done in the SU in the area of imitative behavior
> in animals and humans, by those who called themselves behaviorists and
> physiologists. You know when? Between 1932 and the end of the 70s. A
> massive body of knowledge. I have not a clue why this information is not
> here, in the West.
>> There are more curious things about the "Russian" neuroscience. Do you
> know that 95% of the staff from the Russian "physiological psychology"
> labs ended in Germany, between the early teens of the 20th century and the
> beginning of the 30th? So, a lot what we know now as German science had
> the benefit of the exodus of the old traditional neuroscience from the
> country taken by commies.
>> Have you ever heard about sensory deprivation method? Prof. Kuznetsov, the
> developer of the approach, eventually went to St.Pet's and I am happy to
> say that my practicum was at his department. Great guy he was.
>> Do you know who were the developers of the self-guided rockets? Guys and
> girls just like from the MIT, mostly neuropsychologists of cognitive
> neuroscience type. You see how the American product works in the Middle
> East, right?
>> Largely unknown psychosemantics tradition (Schmelyov and Petrenko) are now
> the granddaddies of this arm of research, still ahead of the pack.
>> I know that now there is a number of their folks are here, in the West,
> having very serious positions in behavioral science, especially in the
> areas of computational approaches as well as in neuroscience. However, the
> majority of them are snapped up by big pharma's , so one hears the name
> only infrequently.
>> Still,. the consequences of the red massacre are right there, not a lot of
> good stuff. But to say there is nothing important would be a mistake.
>> So, I am terminally interested in having the details about your
> "criticism" of the fundamentals of cognitive neuroscience and Freud's
> models. Any chance you can share it with us, so we know where the passion
> is coming from?
>>Neur-sci mailing list
>>Neur-sci at net.bio.net>>http://www.bio.net/biomail/listinfo/neur-sci>> _________________________________________________________________
> Windows LiveT Messenger has arrived. Click here to download it for free!