brain diseases and neurotrophism

Walter Eric Johnson wej3715 at fox.tamu.edu
Tue Dec 1 01:52:17 EST 1998


kkollins at pop3.concentric.net wrote:
: Walter Eric Johnson wrote:
: 
: > kkollins at pop3.concentric.net wrote:
: > : Yeah, viral infection might result in "depression"-like symptoms, but
: > : "depression" is not the result of a viral infection because what's been
: > : referred to as "depression" is a fully-functional information-processing
: > : mechanism that's "engineered" right into "normal" nervous systems.
: > :
: > : And =everything= that happens in the nervous system has "genetic" correlates.
: >
: > Huh!  Are you claiming that the only people who suffer from depression
: > are genetically predisposed to suffer from depression as a consequence
: > of some specific structure in the brain?
: 
: No... I'm saying that the mechanism which underpins what's been referred to as
: "depression" is a fully-functional, necessary, information-processing mechanism
: that's innate within all "normal" nervous systems.

So you provide an assertion that this information-processing
mechanism exists but offer no evidence?
 
: >  What structure would that be?  Evidence, please.
: 
: It's in AoK.

Aaah.  The mysterious AoK.

: > : <snip, snip, snip>
: >
: > : "molecular neuroscience" is a Fraud that, for the sake of "funding", has
: > : Forsaken those who Suffer-Greatly.
: >
: > So you claim that it makes absolutely no difference what chemical
: > processes are going on inside of cells?
: 
: No... it's "just" that, to the degree that "chemical processes" which violate the
: nervous system's "special topological homeomorphism" (see AoK) occur within the
: nervous system, as when one abuses psychoactive substances (thereby,
: "re-engineering" the nervous system's "special topological homeomorphism"), the
: information-processing capacity of the nervous system is diminished.
: 
: All chemical and molecular stuff must be in-accord with this. My recent Challenge
: is with respect to this one thing.

You are weird.  Whenever you are asked a question, you just come up
with another private buzzward!  I'll bite.  What is this "special
topological homeomorphism"?

It almost seems to me that you are claiming that anything we do to
the nervous system inevitably makes things worse.  Have you been
drinking too much water?

: > I find this really amazing.  You talk about genetics and then turn
: > around and disparage molecular neuroscience.  Don't you realize that
: > genes encode proteins?  As far as I know, that's all that they do.
: 
: You just don't read what I post carefully-enough... the only thing I was crying-out
: against was the fact that folks in Neuroscience jumped on the "big-science" "band
: wagon", abandoning Scientific First-Principles for the sake of winning "funding"
: which was being handed out by folks who were prejudiced in favor of the "big
: science" "fashion"... instead of =thinking= about the Neural Topology (the Neural
: Geometry"), and doing the work necessary to See what's right in-there.

What "Scientific First-Principles"?

By neural topology, I assume you mean the patterns of interconnections
between neurons.  I think such patterns are important but not so much
as to sacrifice the other areas of neuroscience.  No one area of neuroscience
is going to be able to adequately deal with the brain by itself.  At
different points, different areas of the field shift in importance.
Why do you think that one small part of the field has all the
answers (including answers that are highly dependent on other parts
of the field)?

: > So why do you praise genetics and denigrate molecular neuroscience?
: 
: I did neither. If you look, you'll see that what I was doing was "chiding" my
: Colleagues because they've been "wandering around lost" for so long, when just
: about everything needed to bring things far-beyond where all the "molecular"
: efforts have gotten folks was in Truex and Carpenter decades ago.

Colleagues?

Do you mean to say that there has been no progress in neuroscience
in decades?  That is hilarious.

: > Could it be because your underderstanding of the molecular processes is
: > nonexistent?
: 
: Well, perhaps it would be is someone could successfully deal with my
: recently-posted Challenge... but no one can.

What challenge?
 
: And, you know, it makes a difference... because folks Suffer-Greatly in ways that
: can be Ameliorated by the one approach, but not by the other approach. And, to the
: degree that the "molecular" approach remains incommensurate with the "Special
: topological homeomorphism", it'll remain so.

There's that special topological homeomorphism again.
 
: But I'll tell you, Eric, if you make any more false Attributions with respect to
: what I post, I'm just going to Guard Free Will, and let you be a Jackass. K. P.

What false attributions?  If you wrote clearly, we might understand
what you write.  But since you don't, a certain amount of guessing
is necessary.  I really am trying to figure out what you mean, but
your meanings very frequently get lost in your writing.

Eric Johnson



More information about the Neur-sci mailing list