Fw: can someone answer my question?

Walter Eric Johnson wej3715 at fox.tamu.edu
Sun Dec 6 20:02:51 EST 1998

kkollins at pop3.concentric.net wrote:
: Walter Eric Johnson wrote:
: > kkollins at pop3.concentric.net wrote:
: > : This is, Verifiably, B. S. 100% of the nervous system is involved in 100% of all
: > : neural-activation "states"... if it were not so, "quiescent" neural "activation"
: > : would interfere with convergence, and, to the degree of such, "convergence" would
: > : have observable "holes" in it... which is what =all= lesion studies Verify.
: >
: > Please explain what you mean by the above.  What is this "convergence"
: > that you mention?
: "Convergence" is the opposite of "divergence"... invoke "common sense"... in Maths, a
: function's "convergence" refers to it's "solvability"... is there one answer, several,
: many, or none (including infinite "solutions")

In mathematics, you could have an infinite number of solutions and yet
converge to only one of them.  There is nothing about convergence that
demands there be only one answer.  However, that is immaterial.  In
your posting, your use of convergence is obviously not mathematical.  Or
if it is intended to be mathematical, your use is meaningless.

: > What kind of observable "holes" do you mean?
: Think of an image with "pieces" missing... then apply your image of this
: "thought-image" to the information-processing dynamics that occur in the brain... the
: two cases are exactly-analogous.

That seems like a rather meaningless explanation to me.
: > Also, please provide citations for the lesion studies to which you
: > are referring.
: I will not... lesion studies are fundamental... one who doesn't know them needs to know
: them =before= asking questions. (BTW, the refs cited in AoK are adequate with respect
: to such.)
: > I'd expect that if 100% of the nervous system was involved in anything,
: > the result would be a fatal seizure.  But then, I don't claim to be
: > an expert in neuroscience.
: It's just that, since, as is discussed in AoK, everything that occurs within nervous
: systems occurs in rigorous accord with the TD E/I-minimization principle (see AoK), the
: stuff that's relatively-inhibited is actually 100% involved in the convergence upon a
: neural activation "state" via TD E/I-minimization (see AoK)... to the degree that it's
: not so, dysfunctional conditions  would occur... as is briefly discussed in AoK,
: "catatonia" reflects such "disinhibition", for instance.

That's really pathetic when someone tries to answer a question by
using bs.  Can't you give a straight answer to anything?

: > That reminds me.  Why not tell us what qualifies you to be an
: > "expert" in physics, mathematics, and neuroscience?
: I did the Work that Produced the Results.
: That reminds me.  Why not tell us what qualifies you to be my Inquisitor?

There are few qualifications required to ask a question.  On the other
hand, one who claims to be an expert must be prepared to demonstrate
his expertise.

: Who are you to Twist things around so that it's "me" that is "the topic" under
: discussion, rather than the Neuroscience... can't you See how Truly-Offensive such is?

If anyone is to accept your proclamations about Neuroscience, they
must first be sure that you are what you claim to be -- an expert.

: ...not only to me, but to everyone who meets here...  as I've told you before, I
: long-ago Disclosed myself fully, at excruciating Cost... I "owe" no one, especially,
: not you, =anything= in this regard.

You claim to be an expert.  If you can't back up that claim, your
credibility is pretty much zero.  With no credibility, everything
you say is suspect.  Thus, if you want anyone to take you seriously,
you must first establish the fact that you are an expert.  (Of
course, if you have nothing useful to say, it doesn't matter whether
or not you establish anything first.)

: Kindly, "go away", "eric"... Mr. "Robot responder".

When are you going to answer my questions?

Eric Johnson 

More information about the Neur-sci mailing list