Richard, > The main problem is that if you interpret spike timing to be playing the > role that you (and they) imply above, then you are commiting yourself to a > whole raft of assumptions about how knowledge is generally represented and > processed. However, there are *huge* problems with that set of implicit > assumptions .... not to put too fine a point on it, those implicit > assumptions are equivalent to the worst, most backward kind of cognitive > theory imaginable. A theory that is 30 or 40 years out of date. > > The gung-ho neuroscientists seem blissfully unaware of this fact because > they do not know enough cognitive science. > > Richard Loosemore
I don't think this is the reason. There are plenty of neuroscientists out there who know plenty of cognitive science. I think many neuroscientists just hold different theoretical presuppositions than you, for reasons other than ignorance of cog sci data. Interdisciplinary cog sci has been around a long time now as you know ... it's not as though cognitive neuroscientists are unaware of its data and ideas... -- Ben G ------------------------------------------- agi Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244&id_secret=120640061-aded06 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
