related texts

This one is interesting because it does not contain any discussion of the contents of the paper it "discusses" (the brain-symbols paper), or any other idea from my site, even though he claims to have read "the material on your website", and several versions of the paper. It gives the impression that the ideas that I write are completely out of his intellectual range.

An intriguing question is, if he thinks my ideas do not deserve any discussion, why did he bother to write this message. The paternalistic tone of his suggestion suggests that he simply enjoys writing paternalistic messages, but it is also possible that something on my site hit a nerve.

The message exactly as I got it:


From: "Lozo, Peter" <>
To: <>
Sent: Friday, July 13, 2001 6:11 AM
Subject: Comments for you to think about

Hi Yehouda,

One of my postgraduate students pointed me to your website about 18 months
ago (he was at the time completing his masters thesis on a neural network
model for object recognition and was doing some reading on Marr's theory of
vision). At the time I briefly scanned your website but did not have much
time to devote to reading your text in detail. Recently I found some time
and decided to make some comments about the contents of your website.

First, I would like to note that I am a Physicist with a PhD in neural
networks( modelling selective visual attention, object recognition, etc). I
have been studying the field of real-time self-organising
competitive-cooperative neural networks for some 10 years now and have also
extensively studied the neurobiological and the psychophysical literature on
vision. Couple of years ago I took an interest in modelling visual
perception. My approach is very well aligned with that of Prof Stephen
Grossberg (as a matter of fact I have adopted many of his mathematical
tools, theories and network architectures, particularly his Adaptive
Resonance Theory (ART) and Form And Color And DEpth (FACADE) theory.
Grossberg has previously provided a critique on Marr's theory of vision
(particularly the 2.5D sketch which does not exist!) so I will not go into
details here. Thus I feel that I am reasonably well informed about the state
of neuroscience, brain research and the modelling of vision.

Anyway, having read the material on your website I am somewhat perplexed at
the extent to which you are willing to go to rebuke virtually everything
that some of the leading scientists in the field of brain research have
written. I guess that you have been burnt by the continuous rejection of
your paper (The Neurons In The Brain Cannot Implement Symbolic Systems). I
have read the various version of the paper and admit that you do not provide
a convincing argument nor do you provide experimental evidence for your
claims. You seem to get rather pissed-off at the reviewers comments and use
a very offensive language. Here are some examples:

(i) "It is also worth noting what kind of garbage the reviewers have allowed
themselves in the reviews, and that this did not seem to bother the
editors too much."

(ii) "It is difficult to expect that a paper that shows that most of the
current theories in cognitive psychology are wrong will have an easy ride".

(iii) "I didn't expect the response to brain symbols to be as stupid as it
turned out." 

Did you really provide a sensible argument in your paper? 

You comment : 

" This text chronicles my attempts to publish the Brain-symbols papers. The
main point of this is that is shows that while all the reviewers and the
editors have rejected my paper, none of them could come with any sensible
criticism of the argument I present. This proves that there isn't
such criticism, because otherwise at least some of the reviewers or editors
would have pointed it out."

 suggests to me that you expect reviewers to come up with a sensible
criticism of your argument. But do really believe that you have provided a
sensible scientific argument in your paper that warrants a sensible

Seems to me that you are testing whether a nonsensical paper (like the ones
that you are submitting) will get through the peer review process. The peer
review process has definitely worked in this case since most reviewers do
not think that you paper has much merit. 

Here is my suggestion:

Why not write another paper titled: "Brain Implements Symbolic Systems via
Neural Interconnections". A serious attempt by you to rebuke your own
original paper may actually help you in achieving a sound level of
scientific critique. I am also of the opinion that the background research
for this new paper may actually help you to better understand the current
knowledge of neuroscience and the mathematical modelling of the brain
mechanisms. Do it just for fun and see how you go! I would love to read it
when it is ready.

I hope that also you realise that it does not help you to get a paper
published if you are openly going to expose the reviewers comments on your


Peter  Lozo, PhD
Research Scientist