Re: Neuro-modeling papers involving feedback processes

From: David Longley (David_at_longley.demon.co.uk)
Date: 11/10/04 

Date: Wed, 10 Nov 2004 23:35:45 +0000

In article <8d8494cf.0411101432.326174c9@posting.google.com>, dan
michaels <feedbackdroids@yahoo.com> writes
>>
>> Zeki etc use "the brain" as a canvas upon which to paint their
>> speculative modern phrenology, but note, as they're not behavioural
>> scientists they end up writing metaphysics whilst doing research in
>> physiology.
>
>
>Take the test ... Zeki has
>
>1. a phd.
>2. grants from funding agencies.
>3. many publications in real journals.
>4. authored books.
>5. job at a university.
>6. his own vision lab.
>7. monkeys coming out of his ears.
>8. students.
>
>Which do you have? ZERO. Who has neither hope nor prayer. Has Brooks
>shown up yet to tell us to listen to you? I thought not.

Ah, but perhaps you should go through your list and try a different take
on your assumptions. Why should you listen to what I am telling you?
What is it about the type of work that I've done which is *so*
fundamentally different?

Your failure to ask that question is also why so many people write books
which make money or celebrity out of people such as yourself. It
accounts for lots of good marketing elsewhere too, most of which is
premised on research into how folk such as yourself behave. There are
thousands flocking to supply you.

You proudly parade your assumptions just like other ignoramuses. The
problem is that none of you question your assumptions.

Have you ever paused to ask yourself what all your reverence for what
you don't understand has practically delivered for you? Have you ever
considered evaluating it in those terms?

I bet you haven't. You're a sucker for rhetoric. Where does Zeki's
metaphysics come from? It certainly doesn't come from his physiology. 

-- 
David Longley