Also, BTW, my criticisms are mostly relevant to behavioral neuroscience (as
well as psychology and philosophy) not to in vitro types like yourself.
However, you contribute to the conceptual confusion a little by using the
term "computation." It is probably harmless enough at the level that you're
talking about, but at the behavioral level it implies an homunculous (Yes,
it does, Matt - the implication is carried by the term. "Computation," like
"representation," is not a physical property or set of properties. Something
is a "computation" if it can be used by a person. Hence, the little inner
man whose behavior explains the behavior of the outer person, but whose
behavior is not, in turn, explained.) and prevents people from seeing that
what we ultimately need to know is how stimuli come to "turn on" certain
"Matt Jones" <jonesmat at physiology.wisc.edu> wrote in message
news:b86268d4.0204191308.5e8aeb3a at posting.google.com...
> "Glen M. Sizemore" <gmsizemore2 at yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:<3cbf11cc$1_7 at news.nntpserver.com>...
>> > It is unfortunate that you chose to delete the last portion of my post
> > which is an example of a reasonably accurate, and relatively succinct
> > description of what we should be working on.
>> Please repost the deleted portion!
>> We're all desperate for you to remind us "what we should be working on".
>>> Matt Jones
> (who believes that the brain does in fact store things)