You tell em Bloxy's. How do you do it? This is what i'm trying to say so often...and just can't find
the words.
I truly feel more optimistic about the future of the world, yet i'm pessimistic that i'll grow smart
enough to make a real (BIG ) difference.
Keep up the good work. Someone has to keep them honest.
Oz
Bloxy's wrote:
> In article <932301399.223519 at server.australia.net.au>, "John" <johnhkm at netsprintXXXX.net.au> wrote:
>> >F. Frank LeFever wrote in message <7mq3vk$l6q at dfw-ixnews10.ix.netcom.com>...
>> >Since everyone is interested in this of late ...
>> Oh, great. We have some royal text to look at publicly here.
> Lets see.
>> >EMBARGOED FOR RELEASE: 14 JULY 1999 AT 14:00:00 ET US
> >Contact: John Beckman, Dir. of Public Affairs
> >john.beckman at nyu.edu> >212-998-6848
> >New York University
>> >NYU researchers uncover the neurobiology of decision-making
>> >Findings By Glimcher and Platt Challenge Paradigm First Proposed 300 Years
> >Ago by Descartes
>> >How do the brains of humans and animals make decisions - what direction to
> >move, what food to eat, where to sleep?
>> Ok, first we need to define decision, or don't we?
> The decisions is based on what?
> What are the roots of the decision?
>> Are they mechanical operation
> or inherent intents, connected to the depest roots
> of your being?
>> Isn't that the question here?
>> > Decision theory, a branch of the
> >social sciences developed by economists and psychologists
> > to explain behavior,
>> Ok, so economists, who are only interested in maximization
> of the rate of sucking, "developed" the "explanation" of
> decision. Good start.
> The most corrupt present the picture of some of the most
> significant aspects of life.
>> Now, the psychologists, who deny the very existance
> of the subject of their own study,
> by denying the existance of a psyche as such,
> also "contributed" in this "study".
> But psychologists themselves are talking about what?
> They are talking about machine aspect of human being
> and the same exploitation thereof.
>> Those cunning pathological liars, seemingly utterly incapable of
> comprehending that their entire "science" is a lie.
> It is based on a lie.
>> Either you remove the word psyche from your psycho-sucking-ology,
> or you accept
> that there is something beyond
> the purely mechanical level,
> on which you operate.
>> Psyche-ology is the science about psyche, and what do
> you have at the moment with it?
>> So, the economist, which is corrupt materialist, joined
> another conman, standing next to the priest, to "explain"
> "behavior", and what is "behavior" on the first place?
>> > has long proposed that humans and animals decide what to do in a
> >given situation by first assessing the relative value
>> Now they bring in the "value", and how are they going to measure it?
>> > of each possible option
>> Incorrect. It is IMPOSSIBLE to consider EACH possible option.
> What you have is a certain set of options, based on current
> set of beliefs. Those options, that are peddled by the system
> and associated peddlers are assumed to be sufficient and complete,
> else you would not even be able to begin that "study".
>> And they are IN-sufficient and IN-complete, you see.
> Or are they?
>> You know the meaning of life, by any humble chance?
> You know where we are all going?
>> Hey, tell ya a secret.
> According to the most famous physicist,
> you've got about 40 years to go.
>> At that time, the population will grow to the point,
> where it will become COMPLETELY and UTTERLY unsustainable.
>> And the problem you have
> is that the person that asserted that
> is one of your most brilliant brains indeed.
>> And even he himself does not see a solution,
> and yet he sees the problem in the most definite
> and specific terms.
>> You wanna go argue with him?
>> Good luck.
>> > and then selecting the option which is of greatest value.
>> To whom?
> From what standpoint?
> In what context?
> According to what intent?
> For what PURPOSE?
>> So, the argument sucks pretty bad already as there are more
> then enough delusions from the start to only get confused
> as a monkey ass at the end.
>> > In
> >contrast, biological studies of the mind have relied upon Descartes'
> >conception of the 'reflex', which, like the knee-jerk response to a
> >physician's hammer, simply connects a single sensation and a single action.
> >While this discrepancy between complex social scientific theories of
> >behavior and simple biological reflexes has troubled neurobiologists for
> >much of this century, until now no researchers have been able to identify
> >specific neurobiological mechanisms for decision-making.
>> And now?
>> Tadaaaa...
>> >In the July 15th issue of Nature, NYU neuroscientists Michael L. Platt and
> >Paul W. Glimcher have provided evidence of a true decision-making mechanism,
> >of the type advocated by social scientists, within the brains of macaque
> >monkeys.
>> Yep. Instead of drilling holes in their own heads,
> they do it to monkeys, then take that monkey logic
> and apply it to themselves.
>> What a royal science!
>> But you see, they don't even know what the monkey logic
> is on the first place, those cunning dudes, pretending
> to know what they are talking about.
>> What are the roots of monkey logic,
> you horseshit peddlers?
>> > These findings raise the possibility that biological mechanisms
> >which can account for the complex and often upredictable behavior of living
> >animals have been identified.
>> Zo...
> The biology can explain "complex and often upredictable behavior"
> of living organisms?
>> You know what you got already?
> You've got a materialistic neo-fatalism.
>> > Platt and Glimcher have found neurons in the
> >parietal cortex of monkeys that, although previously thought to transform
> >visual signals into eye movements in a reflexive way, actually carry
> >information about the amount of reward a monkey expects to receive for
> >making the movement. They found that the activity of these neurons was, like
> >the behavior of the monkey, not predictable simply from the appearance of
> >the visual world, but reflected the value the monkey placed on the movement.
>> In that case, the monkeys WOULD have developed to become like you,
> as you seem to provide the theory of how "value" stimulates growth.
>> The question 1 is how come those monkeys remained monkeys in that case?
>> You see, either your "value" is not a value at all,
> or you are simply looking at the wrong hole.
>> >Glimcher said, "For over three hundred years, the Cartesian reflex, which
> >proposed a direct connection between sensation and movement, has served as
> >the fundamental paradigm for understanding the nervous system. Contemporary
> >neurobiologists, for example, still parcel the brain into 'sensory' and
> >'motor' areas but overlook the possibility that much of the brain must be
> >devoted to subjective evaluation and decision-making.
>> Not only brain, but entire body and beyond.
> You can find that even cells that have "nothing to do with brain"
> are also involved in the most profound way as they make decisions
> that are vital to your very survival.
>> When you cut your finger, how does it heal?
>> > Over the last 5 years
> >our laboratory has identified signals that seem to participate in this
> >decision-making, and in a way not predicted by the reflexological paradigm."
>> Well, dig deeper. You have not found anything REALLY interesting yet.
>> >"Our research has now demonstrated that the theories of decision-making
> >developed by social scientists present a viable biological alternative to
> >the Cartesian reflex. It has revealed that neurons in parietal cortex carry
> >signals correlated with both the probability that a particular eye movement
> >response will yield a fruit juice reward and the amount of reward that can
> >be expected.
>> Huh?
> How more corrupt you can get?
> A particular eye movement assuring the fruit juice?
>> What are you studying here?
> Your own corruption, by any humble chance?
>> > More importantly, when we permit animals to choose freely
> >amongst two alternative responses, both the choices they make, at a
> >behavioral level, and the brain activity we record at the neuronal level,
> >are correlated with the probability and size of an upcoming fruit juice
> >reward.
>> Again, it depends on how corrupt YOU are.
> You may find all sorts of jazz, but you can not reduce intelligence
> to the level you are trying to.
> The level you are on right now is the level of a machine.
>> Dead indeed.
>> > Thus, the activation of parietal cortex really does appear to
> >reflect the decision processes that behavioral scientists suggest humans and
> >animals use to guide their behavior.
>> Yep, keep convincing yourself. Who knows, may be one day
> EVERYBODY will start believing you and from then on,
> it will become a "scientific truth". You never know.
> Get in touch with pentagon. This royal research most definetely
> has "value" for them. Shouldn't be that difficult to get some money.
>> First of all, you have not proven anything so far.
> You inappropriately attributed the things of YOUR corrupt views
> to a monkey, then set up some "experiments", fabricated some
> "results" and now you claim you have discovered something.
>> That is just a lie.
>> You are talking about general mechanisms of intelligence.
> The very notion that there is an "optimized" behavior,
> meant to do NOTHING, but seek the most efficient eye movement,
> of whatever else you may find, in order to prolong the life
> is just obscene.
>> Either life is just an eternal chase for food,
> in which case it is logically absurd,
> or what you found is not exactly what you think it is.
>> First you have to assure the impetus to be,
> else no species is possible,
> no matter what is the correlation of an eye movement
> to what. Either that eye movement correlates to something
> you have not even begun to comrehend,
> or you have irreconcilable conclusion.
>> You see, all you got yourself is a model of a robot.
>> You have not even begun to consider the issues of joy of life,
> fun of exploration and things of that nature, that lay at the
> core of existance as such, and reduced everything to perfectly
> logical and mechanical level.
>> Well, do you have the "explanations" on why the monkeys enjoy
> sitting with their ass upside down?
> What could be the "reason"?
> What do they "gain" from it?
>> Why does the dog chase its own tail?
>> Why do people throw seemingly "inappropriate" arguments
> into the pot, just to stir it up a bit?
>> What is the purpose of it?
>> Why don't you first find these mechanisms within yourself?
> How can you even begin to interpret the "value" system of
> a monkey?
> How can you even begin to interpret the intent of a monkey
> if you have no clue WHATSOEVER as of your own?
>> And this is what you call science?
>> Again, corrupt you are,
> and corrupt to the bone.
>> >"It is also important to point out that our research has implications for
> >the treatment of neurological disorders like stroke and brain cancer. Our
> >data suggests that the inability of a patient suffering from a parietal
> >stroke to make a particular movement may be more closely related to an
> >inability to decide to make a movement than to an inability to contract the
> >muscles that produce a movement. If that turns out to be true, then we will
> >have made an important advance in understanding just what goes wrong in
> >these patients."
>> Well, when it turns out to be true,
> THEN we'll talk about it more.
>> >Glimcher and Platt's Nature article is based on two experiments, both of
> >which measured the activity of dozens of parietal neurons. In the first
> >experiment, during a series of tests macaque monkeys were shown two lights
> >illuminated against a dark backround. The animals were free to look at
> >either light, but on each trial the experimenters indicated to the animals
> >that if they looked at one of the lights they would receive a fruit juice
> >reward and if they looked at the other light they would receive nothing.
>> Pavlov again?
>> So, you are trying to "prove" here that man is nothing but a machine,
> by any humble chance?
>> Zo, what is NEW in YER royal experiment compared to Pavlov's?
>> Still digging the same hole, you bunch of copycats?
>> >Over groups of these tests, Platt and Glimcher varied the amount of juice
> >reward the animals would receive for making the correct movement.
>> You see how corrupt you are?
> "Correct" movement?
>> Is there such a thing in nature as "correct" movement?
> Then why do the animals wonder around, lay on the sun
> or jump, chasing a feather?
>> Why would a cat jump after the fly?
> Is that "correct"?
> How much food is that fly?
> How much of a chance the cat has to catch it?
> And yet, the game goes on
> again and again and again.
>> Is that correct?
>> Why doesn't the cat kill the mouse, once caught?
> You see, the cat is playing with it for a while,
> and, quite often, simply leaves it uneaten.
>> The question is: Why doesn't cat eat that mouse?
> And if it does not, then why did it catch that mouse?
>> What is "correct" here?
>> You see how badly you suck with yer royal scientists?
>> The very notion of "correct" is a notion, laying at the
> roots of your corruption.
>> You know what that is?
>> > The
> >researchers found that parietal neurons kept careful track of the amount of
> >juice each movement was worth, encoding each change in juice reward imposed
> >by the researchers.
>> Ok, next time, have some guts and prove that your intentions are
> trully royal and drill the hole in your own head.
> Then attach the electrodes to the groups of neurons,
> and we shall provide the experiments to run.
>> Man, you'll be sucking in no time.
> I mean LITERALLY.
>> We'll prove some thingies beyond any reasonable doubt.
>> Plus, the advantage of the experiment is that YOU,
> and not the monkey can interpret better what you meant
> to do, what was the fun of it, and what was a necessity of it.
>> Dig?
>> How can you get inside a monkey being and interpret
> what is going on there?
>> All you recorded is some neural responses,
> but all you got on your hands so far
> is dust, and nothing but the dust.
>> >In the second experiment, the monkeys were given the opportunity to freely
> >choose to look at either light for their fruit-juice reward. Although the
> >monkeys were rewarded
>> Oh, your corrupt "rewards".
> You never know
> what may lay at the roots of it all.
>> > for looking at either light, the juice reward obtained
> >for choosing one of the points was always greater than the other. Under
> >these conditions the researchers found that the monkeys behaved more
> >unpredictably, most often choosing the movement that yielded more reward,
> >but not always. Most importantly, the researchers found that there was a
> >high correlation between the frequency with which monkeys looked at a
> >particular target and the neuronal activity associated with that movement,
> >exactly the correlation that would be expected if the monkey's unpredictable
> >choice behavior was being produced by these neurons.
>> And this is what you do for living?
>> This sucks, doc.
>> When are you going to start looking inside yourself,
> inside something you have at least a slight idea of?
>> >Paul Glimcher is an assistant professor of neural science and psychology at
> >NYU's Center for Neural Science. He is the principal investigator for the
> >Laboratory for Sensory-Oculomotor Research, which is funded by the National
> >Eye Institute. Glimcher received his Ph.D. from the University of
> >Pennsylvania and his B.A. from Princeton University.
>> Yeah, gimme the credits now.
> Good you mentioned it.
>> >Michael Platt is a post-doctoral fellow in the Laboratory for
> >Sensory-Oculomotor Research. He also received his Ph.D. from the University
> >of Pennsylvania and received his B.A. from Yale University.
>> Royal breed indeed.
>> Ok, so what is the conclusion of this great study, doc?
>> Why did you publish it here
> and what did you want to prove?
>> Do you think you have proven that,
> which you sought to prove?
>> >###
> >The Center for Neural Science (CNS) is the focus for inquiry in the brain
> >sciences at the Washington Square Campus of New York University. Formed in
> >1987, CNS is regarded as an international center for research and teaching.
> >The research interests of the faculty span a broad range of topics in neural
> >science, and utilize techniques ranging from molecular and cellular analyses
> >to fully integrated systems, computational, and cognitive studies.
