behaviorism in biological clothing?

[Jordan B Pollack]

In a previous message, despite its catchy title, I didn't mean to
imply that specific brain details don't matter in understanding the
brain or building brain models; they just don't matter for resolving
the scientific difference between traditional AI and connectionism.

I have long felt that work on cognition should not pose as biology.
This applies both to some arguments for linguistics as a natural
science, and to psychological or computational work which gets
justified as "neurally plausible." On the other hand, work on biology
should not pose as cognition either. Jim B. concludes his recent message
by striking a Skinnerian pose on these two questions:

1) Is the mind different than the brain?  

Yes, although we might agree they are intimately related. One can
freeze and slice the brain. One can surgically remove parts of the
brain. One can even study dead brains.  But one cannot do ANY of these
things to the mind, unless one were a New Age NeuroGuru.

2) Is human intelligence above and beyond animal intelligence?

Only a little. There are only a few "relatively small" biological
differences between mammal, primate, and human BRAINS, but differences
between their respective INTELLIGENCES have been exacerbated by social
and cultural evolution, especially in species with any significant
postnatal development.

Animal neuroscience work has made profound discoveries of brain
mechanisms for memory and conditioning, for representations in sensory
and motor peripheral areas, and elsewhere. But many animals have more
independent behavior than can be described by memorizing an
input-output mapping. Which details of a monkey's brain are
responsible for its personality or its cooperative social behavior?
It is not reasonable to explain cognition in detailed neurobiological
terms for any mammal... not even a mouse!

Jordan Pollack