IUBio

the liver and the brain

Traveler traveler at nospam.com
Tue Aug 31 10:09:53 EST 2004


In article <bszN0rD$fENBFw2K at longley.demon.co.uk>, David Longley
<David at longley.demon.co.uk> wrote:

>In article <363d693e.0408301514.1d155bb7 at posting.google.com>, ray 
>scanlon <rscanlon at nycap.rr.com> writes
>>I find it interesting that we can have a discussion of how the cells
>>in the liver work together without any bitter attacks on a persons
>>parentage. But when a similar discussion on how the interneurons are
>>connected and how they work is broached there is nothing but
>>invective.
>>
>>What is wrong?
>>
>>Ray
>A personal view (posted from comp.ai.philosophy and addressed to readers 
>of that group):
>
>Perhaps it's because when people talk about the liver they aren't (these 
>days) likely to use its structure and function as a foil (Cartesian 
>projection screen) upon which to project their pet folk psychological 
>metaphysical prejudices of "mind" or "self". Most people "talking about 
>the brain" aren't, in my experience, talking about the brain at all. 
>They don't actually know enough about it (despite decades of experience 
>in some cases!). If they knew more, paradoxically, they wouldn't dare 
>write the popular nonsense they do. What they're actually doing is 
>writing metaphysics or science fiction, using "the brain" as their 
>excuse for writing metaphysics and fiction, thinking the odd over 
>simplified reference to bits of the brain and their connections renders 
>what they're saying a less metaphysical and fictitious and a more 
>physical and presumably true as a function of doing so. Most readers 
>can't tell. It really is, in the main, naive commercial nonsense as most 
>people with a sound grounding in anatomy, physiology and biochemistry 
>would tell you.
>
>On the rare occasions that I draw on my neuroscience background (most 
>folk here wouldn't know what the NIMR is, or what I did anyway), I've 
>tried to ensure that what I've had to say about the CNS is consistent 
>with basic, sound anatomy and neurophysiology (the cranial nerves, the 
>*basic* structure of the paleo and neo striatum and cortex etc - the 
>supposed role of monoamines and peptides in "regulating" behaviour). 
>What I've said has been simple because that's I need refer to in order 
>to make the "simple" points about the priority of behaviour analysis 
>that I wish to make. I purposely don't elaborate (although my training 
>probably equips me to do so as well as some of the celebrity 
>neuroprattlers) as I think that it's largely be sleight-of-hand and 
>doesn't really contribute much anyway even if the details could be 
>reliably spelled out.
>
>Don't you think slight-of-hand and metaphysics deserves derision?

Longley, you are the one who should be ridiculed. You're just a
pompous ass, showing off your supposedly superior knowledge and acting
like a peacock on C.A.P. You have no worthwhile contribution to make
toward solving the artificial intelligence puzzle.

Do you know the mechanism of motor learning and coordination in the
basal ganglia and the cerebellum? Answer: No. Do you understand the
mechanism of STM and LTM? Answer: No. You understand doodley squat
about the underlying principles of the mechanisms responsible for
behavior. You are hogging the group's bandwidth. You are the worst
folk psychologist I have ever had the displeasure to know. :-D

And one more thing. Pack it up your ass. <g>

P.S. I'll change my mind about you when you contribute some concrete
idea that can be used to construct an artificial intelligence. Until
then, PIUYA!

Louis Savain

Artificial Intelligence From the Bible:
http://users.adelphia.net/~lilavois/Seven/bible.html

The Silver Bullet or How to Solve the Software Crisis:
http://users.adelphia.net/~lilavois/Cosas/Reliability.htm



More information about the Neur-sci mailing list

Send comments to us at biosci-help [At] net.bio.net