brain diseases and neurotrophism

kkollins at pop3.concentric.net kkollins at pop3.concentric.net
Tue Dec 1 20:15:53 EST 1998


I stand on what I've posted, which is not what you calim, quoted below, I've posted. K.
P. Collins

Walter Eric Johnson wrote:

> 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