As evidence, I offer the following:
In <7mthb8$mkq$1 at its.hooked.net> Bloxy's at hotmail.com (Bloxy's) writes:
>>In article <932301399.223519 at server.australia.net.au>, "John"
<johnhkm at netsprintXXXX.net.au> wrote:
>>>F. Frank LeFever wrote in message
<7mq3vk$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.
