Re: Neural representation of concepts

"Glen M. Sizemore" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> The point is, you simpleton, that the optimism of "thinkers" like you is
way

Where do yuou get that optimism crap.  Nothing in what I have posted says
anything about what I may or may not feel is imminent in the sciences.

Big ASSumption of you.


> out of proportion to our actual ability to control behavior by
> neurobiological manipulation,

Bullshit!  Take a half dozen Haldol, or perhaps 40mg of LExapro and see how
your behaviuor changes.

Not to mention pot, LSD and a myriad of other drugs.


>or even way out of proportion to our ability
> to interpret behavior in real physiological terms (rather than the
obviously
> metaphorical language of cognitive "science"), or our ability to model
> behavior in the sense of AI.

Bulshit; lots-o-progress.  More to come.  Stick around and listen and learn

Changing a couple of words here and there that refere to phenomena will not
impact the big picture AT ALL you imbecile.

>
> It is not a matter of "neurobiology being worthless" it is a matter of
> facing the conceptual muddle that comprises cognitive "science,"

In your opinion it is a muddle; the "thinkers' that have developed
lots-o-scenarios so far have a lot to offer.  It is grand that there are
lots of scenarios talking about lots of different aspects of brain/mind.,
Because there ARE lots of different aspects of brain/mind!!

> recognizing
> its already pervasive influence on what behavioral neurobiologists say,
and
> realizing that no science can be healthy with such blatant disregard for
> whether or not its concepts are anything but metaphor.

Metaphor is the way of language.  Get used to it.

> It is about making
> behavioral neuroscience more effective.

Never heard of behavioral neuroscience.  Cognitive neuroscience,
computational neuroscience and cognitive neurosciences, and neuroscienece
proper yes.  Behavioral - nope.


>
> "OmegaZero2003" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Yes  you are right; neurobiology has gotten nowhere in the last 100
years.
> >
> > Please increase the dosage of anti-delusional drugs you are taking; the
> > current amount is not working.
> >
> > BWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
> >
> >
> >
> > "Glen M. Sizemore" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > Now, if only they would see the foolishness of talking about
> > > "representations" and "processing" and see that what is going on is
> > operant
> > > conditioning, and what they are getting at is the physiology of
stimulus
> > > control, behavioral neurobiology might actually get somewhere.
> > >
> > > "OmegaZero2003" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
http://www.nature.com/cgi-taf/DynaPage.taf?file=/nrn/journal/v4/n12/full/nrn1280_fs.html
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>