On Mon, 2 Apr 2007 14:07:26 -0400, "Glen M. Sizemore"
<gmsizemore2 from yahoo.com> wrote:
>>"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."
I was wondering where you were coming from about that. In straight
neurobiology (an actual science, not the "cognitive" type), Kandel's
habituation is a specific phenomenon with a specific and justly
Nobelish level mechanism behind it.