Re: Neural representation of concepts

> The point is, you simpleton, that the optimism of "thinkers" like you is
way

Zero: 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.

GS: Everything you say smacks of unbridled optimism - like your 800 demands
to be shown "how neuroscience is nonsense," as if it was utterly
inconceivable that this could be remotely true. What is worse, this comes
from the seductive notion that the metaphors of cognitive "science" are some
sort of explanation, as well as being describable by the dimensional
quantities that are relevant to properties of the nervous system.


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

Zero: 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.

GS: The fact that you can alter behavior profoundly by direct manipulation
of nervous tissue, pharmacologically or otherwise, has no bearing on my
argument. None whatsoever. There is no question that the brain, in some
sense, mediates behavior. What is at issue is whether or not the metaphors
of cognitive "science" are the best concepts to use, and whether or not
there is any way to inquire about the utility of concepts. Experiment does
not do it, because the concepts are NOT theories or hypotheses; they are
what underlies theories and hypotheses. They are what we are talking about
when we say that scientists have "underlying philosophies." But this issue
is far too subtle for the likes of you.


>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.

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

GS: Yes, this is the optimism that I was talking about. Were I to wax
mentalistic, I would say that this naive optimism, more than anything else,
reveals the Zeitgeist of most of neurobiology.

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

GS: You mean like a change from "compressed ether" to "spacetime?" Think,
for a change.

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

Zero: In your opinion it is a muddle; the "thinkers' that have developed
lots-o-scenarios so far have a lot to offer.

GS: In your opinion - and clearly an opinion based on nothing other,
apparently, than the sheer number of publications that could be called
relevant to "cognitive neurobiology."

Zero: 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!!

GS: Yes....that is the naive optimism I was talking about. Isn't it grand!

> 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.

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

GS: I recognize the role of metaphor in the evolution of natural languages
and in science. But the metaphors must have some chance of being literal in
science. And this is exactly the nature of inquiry that has to be pursued
more vigorously. If we can't even begin to give some reasonable literal
interpretation of the metaphors, IN THE DIMENSIONS RELEVANT TO THE
PROPERTIES OF THE NERVOUS SYSTEM, then we have to regard the metaphors as
suspect - not embrace them with abandon!

> It is about making
> behavioral neuroscience more effective.

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

GS: The term "arrogant fool" does not begin to characterize you. Here is
what is most ironic - the term "behavioral neuroscience" is a fairly common
term, but most that call themselves behavioral neuroscientists are actually
"cognitive neuroscientistists." That is the problem. In any event, to say
that you've never heard of "behavioral neuroscience," is somewhat like
saying you drool on yourself when you're not shitting in your pants, but you
're too stupid to do both at the same time.

"OmegaZero2003" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> "Glen M. Sizemore" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>