[Neuroscience] Re: why did humans grow a bigger neocortex?

Glen M. Sizemore via neur-sci%40net.bio.net (by gmsizemore2 from yahoo.com)
Tue Sep 4 13:14:34 EST 2007

"Matthew Kirkcaldie" <Matthew.Kirkcaldie from removethis.utas.andthis.edu.au> 
wrote in message 
news:Matthew.Kirkcaldie-898CAD.22344604092007 from free.teranews.com...
> In article <46dae339$0$17757$ed362ca5 from nr2.newsreader.com>,
> "Glen M. Sizemore" <gmsizemore2 from yahoo.com> wrote:
>> Your view, it seems to me, has points of contact with the behaviorist 
>> view.
>> This view holds that complex human behavior is a product of classical
>> conditioning, operant conditioning, as well as simpler processes that are
>> observed when stimuli are simply presented repeatedly. It eschews the 
>> notion
>> that behavior (human or otherwise) stems from a variety of more specific
>> modules. A bigger cortex might simply mean quantitative changes in a few
>> processes.
> That's almost the opposite of our view.

Well, I'm sure you know your view, but I'm not sure you know mine. Indeed, I 
still see points of contact, whether you do or not.

>Instead we argue that
> *qualitative* changes, "higher order" complexity in behaviour if you
> like, could come from quantitatively expanding the size of the cortex.
> I'd agree that there are specialised regions of the brain, I just don't
> think they need to be explicitly genetically specified to arise from an
> enlarged cortex.

This does not seem to me to be inconsistent with behaviorism. Perhaps you 
don't understand behaviorism?

>Behaviourism and conditioning aren't really related to
> the arguments of the paper.

Needless to say, I disagree.

>I'd be happy to send you a PDF if you're
> interested.

I'll let you know.


>      Cheers, MK.
> -- 
> Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

More information about the Neur-sci mailing list

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