From [ Marc Abrams (2003.07.04.2228) ]
From Topobiology: An Introduction to Molecular Embryology by Dr. Gerald M. Edelman. 1988 BasicBooks. He received the Nobel prize for Physiology or Medicine in 1972. He was ( might still be ) the Chairman of the Department of Neurobiology at the Scripps Research Institute.
Preface, pg xiv
“… A case will be made here that the models and mechanisms of cell differentiation studied by current molecular biology are insufficient to explain such epigenetic events. My thesis is that surface interactions mediated by molecules of a very specific type that I call morphoregulatory molecules provide a sufficient basis for epigenisis. Expression of such molecules leads to changes in cell shape and movement, to cell associations with other cells, and to new forms of regulation of gene expression. One of the chief tasks of molecular embryology is to describe how various chemical signals alter the expression and function of morphoregulatory molecules…”
Edelman developed a theory of CONTROL ( i.e regulation in biospeak ) for ALL LIVING CELLS. He subsequently wrote 4 more books on the biological basis for mind. Edelman’s work is the foundation for much work being done in neuroscience today. Yes Rick, people in Neuroscience actually know about control. Ain’t that something, and here you thought you were alone in the woods. You’ve got plenty of company. It’s just not in the field of psychology. But psychology, as it is taught today is a bogus science anyway. In psychology, without a background in neuroscience is like a chemist without a background or understanding of physics. It’s almost as bad as having a model of behavior that does not include consciousness ( btw, have you ever seen anyone behave who was not conscious ) memory, and emotion INTEGRATED into the model. But don’t worry, your not alone. The Cog sci people are of computing and the behaviorists are off denying anything like consciousness can be ‘scientifically’ looked at. You’re in good company.
Of course Rick, Your 25 years of modeling completely negates anything this Nobel Prize winner might have come up with. PCT is flawless, not a blemish. Revising it? Poppycock. Even the old sage Isaac K. says it doesn’t need it. You just need more models of control systems. To bad people do other things besides tracking tasks. So my advice to you Rick is do more models, don’t read anything outside of psychology, and most important, don’t dare expose yourself to someone else’s work, writing or thinking, I don’t think your heart could take it.
btw, the list is down to 96. Who might that have been? By the end of the evening it will be down to 95. We seem to be dropping like flies.
(Attachment Blank Bkgrd37.gif is missing)