[Neuroscience] Re: Wherefore art thou Neuron Code?

Glen M. Sizemore via neur-sci%40net.bio.net (by gmsizemore2 from yahoo.com)
Mon Apr 2 13:07:26 EST 2007

"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."


More information about the Neur-sci mailing list

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