[long, off topic info] decussation problem

miandan at geocities.com miandan at geocities.com
Tue Nov 5 19:06:49 EST 1996


> Inversion, as I've been discussing it, is an absolute necessity with
> respect to pain.

Why is it an absolute necessity.  There is no inversion in spinal
reflexes which are, by the way, the absolute necessity with respect
to pain.

> A complete discussion of the inversion dynamics requires
> giving a full course in Neuroanatomy.

Let's suppose that we know neuroanatomy pretty well.

> But inversion is just one aspect
> of the neural dynamics that are reified and unified in Duality Theory.

Inversion, or better to say disinhibition, is a well-known fact.
You cannot take credit for it.

> Study the histories of subjects
> who lack pain sensibility, because their bodies cannot invert
> with respect to noxious stimulation.

OK.  Does any of them have a problem with the cerebellum?  Here
we come to some concrete data.

> Thus, the minimization of excitation and the maximization of inhibition
> is the fundamental essence inherent in the minimization of disorder
> (randomness) and the maximization of order within the neural dynamics
> which underpin all effector actaivations, and through the effector
> activations, all behavior.

No comment.
 
> What I've discussed of the cerebellum's functionality is only a small
> portion of the cerebellum's overall functionality, and my view with
> respect to the cerebellum does differ from the conventional view.

OK, good reply.
  
> The Neuroanatomy is the Neuroanatomy.

????
  
> =You= are talking about the "minimum length principle". I'm taliking
> about TD E/I(min) in the context of the proven functional Neuroanatomy.
> There's a difference, because, as was noted above, the Neuroanatomy has
> "areas" that are "engineered" to do nothing but =increase= TD E/I.

You were talking about pathways being shorter for the decussation
case.  I wanted you to give some proof of that.

> And it's your job to understand that I've already done this many times
> over. I've done it, once again, in this message.

I've read through your message.  I appreciate you interest in
neuroscience
and your active position.  You can be also commended for developing a so
to say unified, general view at the problems of nervous system.

However, that's not we are trying to figure out right now.  We are
trying
to understand a small problem - decussation.  You said that decussation
saves pathway length.  I just want you to give more proof of that, and
to develop and discuss that and only that question.



More information about the Neur-sci mailing list