<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
On 1/29/14, 6:52 PM, james bower wrote:
<blockquote
cite="mid:FFF71255-FB0B-4A06-8F0B-A86313C4D5C1@uthscsa.edu"
type="cite">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;
charset=ISO-8859-1">
Interesting
<div><br>
</div>
<div>With respect to the cortical column discussion we didn’t yet
have (whether they exist or not), there were actually two papers
published by Vernon Mountcastle in the late 1950s in which the
cortical column idea was introduced.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>The first included mostly the data, the second mostly the
idea.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>I once plotted literature citations for the two papers. For
the first 10 years, the data paper was cited much more than the
theory paper. However, 15 year out they crossed and now the
data paper is almost never sited.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>So, as mentioned earlier with Marr and Albus, perhaps it is a
kind of theory envy in neuroscience, but it is not at all
unusual in neuroscience to have exactly the opposite be the
case, that the data is forgotten and the theory persist.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Perhaps all this is leading to an interesting article (or
perhaps book with a series of essays) on how physics and biology
are similar and different. Anyone interested?</div>
<div><br>
</div>
</blockquote>
I mentioned earlier in the discussion that I myself *have*
explicitly considered this issue: trying to understand what it is
about cognitive systems that could make them not directable amenable
to the methods of physics. I published a paper about it in 2007 and
then a chapter expanding the same idea in 2012 (refs below).<br>
<br>
The conclusions I came to have been (and I am sure will continue to
be) completely ignored.<br>
<br>
Nobody wants to hear that this or that methodology is what they
*should* be adopting. Nobody will never give a hoot about such a
message. It is considered, in the psychological/cognitive sciences
to be almost rude (not to say gauche) to tell other people how they
should be doing science.<br>
<br>
So compile a book about the book about "physics and biology are
similar and different" if you feel inclined, but all it will do is
act as a bookcase-weight.<br>
<br>
Richard Loosemore<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
Refs:<br>
<br>
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html;
charset=ISO-8859-1">
Loosemore, R.P.W. (2007). Complex Systems, Artificial Intelligence
and Theoretical Psychology. In B. Goertzel & P. Wang (Eds.),
Proceedings of the 2006 AGI Workshop. IOS Press, Amsterdam.<br>
<br>
Loosemore, R.P.W. (2012b). The Complex Cognitive Systems
Manifesto. In: The Yearbook of Nanotechnology, Volume III:
Nanotechnology, the Brain, and the Future, S. Hays, J. S. Robert, C.
A. Miller, and I. Bennett (Eds). New York, NY: Springer, (2012)<br>
</body>
</html>