Are you referring to the diction, or stating there is no description of how associations are created?
The latter. You are using physical language to describe mental phenomena, but the physical language is not earning its keep. Using “brain” instead of “mind” does not make this neuroscience.
I created a footnote to address the latter.
It answers the question “Where are associations created & what do they look like?” with:
We haven’t really found the answer to that yet, to be honest.
You continue (I summarise, emphasis added): Hippocampal damage results in disturbance to memory function, leading to a “general theory that perhaps” … “recent findings...may indicate glia also have some role to play in cortical functioning” … “There have been some attempts to identify” … “fraught with controversy” … “no consensus” … “The more one indulges a behaviour or association, the theory then goes, the broader the pathway or the stronger the association becomes.”
It all looks terribly vague, and the last sentence describes runaway positive feedback. You can’t make a functioning machine on that basis, except by introducing hacks (e.g. “satiation”) to prevent it behaving the way the theory says.
The word “brain” or “brains” occurs three times in the article, yet does not seem to be doing any work.
Are you referring to the diction, or stating there is no description of how associations are created? I created a footnote to address the latter.
The latter. You are using physical language to describe mental phenomena, but the physical language is not earning its keep. Using “brain” instead of “mind” does not make this neuroscience.
It answers the question “Where are associations created & what do they look like?” with:
You continue (I summarise, emphasis added): Hippocampal damage results in disturbance to memory function, leading to a “general theory that perhaps” … “recent findings...may indicate glia also have some role to play in cortical functioning” … “There have been some attempts to identify” … “fraught with controversy” … “no consensus” … “The more one indulges a behaviour or association, the theory then goes, the broader the pathway or the stronger the association becomes.”
It all looks terribly vague, and the last sentence describes runaway positive feedback. You can’t make a functioning machine on that basis, except by introducing hacks (e.g. “satiation”) to prevent it behaving the way the theory says.
You’re right—in trying to demonstrate function I extrapolated from OCD findings too much. That much is fixed.
I think explaining how the HPA axis functions proves ample example. Vide.
Do let me know—your input has contributed to vast improvements in the quality of the article.