your position is the correct one.
John wrote in message <932963296.362989 at server.australia.net.au>...
>[...]
>"Dramatic new light apeared to be shed on some aspects of this disorder
when
>Brenda Milner and W. B. Scoville reported in 1957 that following surgical
>removal of an area of the brain called the hippocampus, a patient, H.M.,
>lost recent memories but retained long term ones. .... . this discovery led
>to a number of suggestions about how the hippocampus was crucial in the
>brain's converting short-term memories to long-term memories. By the
1970's,
>however, these ideas were abandoned and replaced with other models of long
>term memory. ...
>>And further down, the matter that has caught my interest of late ...
>>"What might be a more accurate assessment of the importance of the
>hippocampus in determining notions of self?"
>>>"The Strange, Familiar, and Forgotten: An Anatomy of Consciousness." Israel
>Rosenfield, Picador, pp70, 71.
>>The article by the researchers: W. B. Scoville and Brenda Milner, "Loss of
>Recent Memory After Bilateral Hippocampal Lesions," Journal of Neurology,
>Neurosurgery and Psychiatry 20 (1957): 11-21
>>See, toldya I read it twice.
>>It has occurred to me that in a science as young as neuroscience -
>realistically, we have learnt more since circa 1960 (1970,80!) than the
>entire time prior - it is relatively easy to point at "mistakes" but more
of
>ten than not this reflects a poor understanding of what science is about.
>Research is sometimes built on the errors of others. I hate this habit of
>pointing to the past to reveal the wrongs of others if only because I hope
>that some day people in the future won't be doing it to me because sure
>enough they'll have plenty of reason.
>>Respect best efforts!
i, of course, used the existing concepts, hard fought for, and hard won,
through the dedicated efforts of research done before my 'time'. it wasn't
in my 'heart' to 'demean' such, but i see, because of your post (which
reflects my own discussion posted in another thread a few nights back, with
respect to Aristotle and T. S. Kuhn), that it's easy to misinterpret the
gist of what i've said, in this thread, in such an "intent-to-'demean'" way.
the point i was actually addressing (which is the same point i'm always
trying to address) is that, given AoK's tightly-written introductory
discussion of NDT's stuff, which goes beyond what formerly existed, it's
nonsensical for folks in Neuroscience not to deal with such... as, at least
in communications involving me, has been the case... and since NDT does go
beyond what formerly existed, it makes no sense to discuss it without access
to context and clarification that i can easily and willingly supply,
in-person, so that no misconceptions will be left to distract anyone from
what's in NDT.
this one thing is at the heart of everything i've ever posted in any online
'place'.
K. P. Collins (ken)
>>>John
>Remove XXXX in reply address
>>>
