Fw: can someone answer my question?

kkollins at pop3.concentric.net kkollins at pop3.concentric.net
Sun Dec 6 19:45:09 EST 1998


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")

> 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.

> 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 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?

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?
...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.

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

K. P. Collins






More information about the Neur-sci mailing list