<nIRxd.1133850$Gx4.123946 at bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>, kenneth
collins <kenneth.p.collins at worldnet.att.net> writes
>"kenneth collins" <kenneth.p.collins at worldnet.att.net> wrote in
>news:xJNxd.15273$uM5.8712 at bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...>| "[...]
>|>| If you're "hungry", 'move toward' it
>| by 'moving' your legs and torso, 'move'
>| your arms, hands and fingers to 'move'
>| it to your mouth. 'move' the muscules
>| that animate your jaw. "Taste and eat."
>|>| Anything you can consider is Same-Old,
>| Same-Old stuff -- all Knowledge with
>| respect to 'movememt', and such "Know-
>| ledge" exists, as above, within the neur-
>| al Topology of your nervous aystem
>| =AND= TD E/I-minimization.
>>What about "humger"?
>>It's the internal experience of 'moving
>away from' energy-sufficiency.
>>All "hunger"-correlated behavioral
>dynamics, and all of the =myriad=
>sub-dynamics that comprise it are
>'just' so much 'moving toward' en-
>>'moving away from' that 'moving
>away from' Being-Alive.
>>Which is 'just' more "climbing" of
>>Why I'm getting into all of this is
>to give folks a handle on the way
>that all of the =myriad= sub-dyn-
>amics that comprise "hunger" are
>=all= rigorously-correlated to the
>=one= overall =Directionality=
>that is WDB2T.
Yes Ken, many of us do get it - but do you know where *you* got it from?
It appears to me that sometime in your past you have, perhaps unknown to
yourself, just "discovered" some of the basics of behavioural science
(you are talking about the reinforcement of rates of emitted classes of
behaviours), but you still haven't grasped that there's over seven
decades of empirical research work on what the contingencies are which
shape "approach" and "withdrawal" behaviours (i.e. both phylogenetically
selected operant behaviours and ontogenetically shaped/conditioned
operant behaviours) not to mention he extensive work which continues to
be done to explicate its molecular and quantitative genetics/physiology.
This spans nearly all of the life sciences and believe it or not, you
are skating over all of that with vague generalities.
You're not entirely* on the wrong track (which is the problem), but you
are missing the perspective which you need to say anything that's useful
or tangible. The devil is, as usual, in the fine *details*, so my best
advice to you (again) is to urge you to look into some of the work on
the monoamines and the direction of behaviour and how, over the past 30
years or so, this is beginning to pay dividends.
As it is, you're not saying anything new or useful. You're expressing
the basics (which go back decades before even I was born) in a rather
"florid" manner, and the risk there is that you will, despite your good
intentions, just deter others who don't know much about any of this,
from looking more carefully into the work which *does* go into details
and which *is* useful (e.g. dopamine receptors, ADHD, expanded triplet
There is considerable variation within behaviour.....and what matters is