For Glen: 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
>
> 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

That has nothing to do with optimism that everything is setled and
everything is done; of course it seems to me that a LOT has still to be
learned.  Lots-o-proteins, genetic transcription issues, how brain coalesces
disparate brain processes into cohesive conscious wholes etc etc.

But there has been trmendous progress.  You are too blinded by your agenda
to see that.

> to be shown "how neuroscience is nonsense," as if it was utterly
> inconceivable that this could be remotely true.

Please show that it is true.

Number 801 requests.  0 (Zero), Zip, Nada replies)

>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.

They are partially describable as properties and processes of the nervous
system, some as relationship with environment etc.

We have not seen *any* "behaviors" of interest from people without brains!

Explain that!!!


>
>
> > 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.

In *SOME* sense!

BWHAHAHAHAHA

>What is at issue is whether or not the metaphors
> of cognitive "science" are the best concepts to use,

Please list those metaphors and what about them (succinctly) are bedeviling
progress!!

> 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.

Nope - not at all; I am quite familiar with the built-in biases and
assumptions of science.

Since your hypothesis is that using such metaphor (or, rather, ways of
speaking about brain/mind) are detrimental to the pursuit of neuroscience,
please wshow how your version of the world will make it better.

I would like - oh...say..1,000 experiments run by you on brain (all aspects)
wherin you propose the experiment, carry it out, and offer conclusions and
predictions *USING YOUR BETTER LINGO* , such that those experiments and your
analysis *ARE* clearly better and more informative than what has occurred in
what must be millions of experiments using our good old metaphors.


>
>
> >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.

It would not be naive because I am in the middle of this discipline.

You have naive optimism that your lingo can transfor an established science.

Do you think you have the quantum verbal theory of brain or something.
Sheesh (in Balterian terms).

>
> 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.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA - I knew it; precognition I guess (I did not read ahead!!)


>
> >
> > 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,

Yeah - and yours is based on a dubious *AT BEST* analogy with erzatz
revolutions in physics.

You have NO evidence to bolster your change-in-lingo theory.  NONE.



> 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!

A lot of Longley's Narcissistic Pesonality Disorder has somehow gotten, via
osmosis, into your brain.

It is YOUR claim that is grand and extrodinary - not mine.

I have thousands and thousands of experiments to back my claims that
progress is being made - lots-o-progress.

OTOH, you have little to show for your "theories" (I used that term in a
gaurded sense because it is not clear that your presentations heretofore,
are even of the proper form of a theory.

One thing your position has - is that it is falseifiable;  I have done
that - provided ONE isntance (actually several) that showed that your theory
that cog. sci. metaphors are leading us all amok, is incorrect.

Kandel's work.



>
> > 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

WHY? As long as what they are pointing to is understood by the
practitioners.

We can call brain FUZZPOO from now on.  Will that change how neuroscience
proceeds?  NO!

What metaphors have no such chance, and tell us how that has led
neuroscience astray. Without 20 references to papers by narcissists that
think like you. Say it in your own words.

You critisize and critizise and do not say exactly what words are leading NS
astray and HOW!

By how, you should be able to point to thousands of discredited current
research (LIKE KANDEL's - that has those terms used.

But you cannot because you are a verbal charlatan.


> science. And this is exactly the nature of inquiry that has to be pursued
> more vigorously.

Then have at it.  Lets us know when you win the Nobel - LIKE KANDEL HAS!

BWHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

> 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!

Black Holes
Dark Energy
SuperStrings


Gee - are you gonna take on physics soon too?


>
> > 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

You are so caught up in your own NPD, that you cannot even *SEE* a sarcastic
jab when you *SEE* it.

BWHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

> 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]
> >
> >
>
>