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 less metaphysical (and fictitious) and
*more* physical (and presumably true) as a function of doing so. Most
readers can't tell what's going on. It really is, in the main, naive
commercial nonsense, as most people with a sound grounding in anatomy,
physiology and biochemistry would privately tell you.
On the rare occasions that I draw on my neuroscience background (most
folk here wouldn't know what the NIMR is, or know/care 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 and behaviour, the *basic* structure of the paleo and neo
striatum and cortex and elaborated behaviour, the supposed role of
monoamines and peptides in "regulating" behaviour etc). What I've said
has been simple because that's all 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 sleight-of-hand and wouldn't really contribute much
anyway (even if the details could be reliably and usefully spelled out).
Don't you think sleight-of-hand and metaphysics deserves derision?
David Longley
http://www.longley.demon.co.uk
