rickert at cs.niu.edu
Wed Oct 28 23:02:21 EST 1998
flefever at ix.netcom.com(F. Frank LeFever) writes:
>In <717h0c$a93 at ux.cs.niu.edu> rickert at cs.niu.edu (Neil Rickert) writes:
> It seems to me that it is Rickert who attacks strawmen: the
> interaction of genetic and environmental forces in development
> is a truism; I doubt any of the 20,000 members of the Society for
> Neuroscience would argue otherwise, and I see nothing in the reply
> he attacks that suggests otherwise.
I haven't said anything contrary to this.
>>>Again and again and again in the brain, topology is preserved.
>>Whatever that means. Without defining your terms, this is quite
> The term does not need definition for anyone familiar with the
> literature of developmental and functional neuroanatomy of the
> past half-century.
I'll take that as a way of your saying that you won't define
your terms either.
>>This is silly. That medication can get to the brain is already
>>enough evidence. Moreover, there it is well know that nutritional
>>disorders affect brain function.
> Where to begin? How to sort out the layers of confusion?
> Well...(starting at the top of the heap): it is useful to
> distinguish between things "reaching" the brain and things
> actually "signalling" the brain. One can "reach" the brain with
> an ice-pick, also with a spoken word; but the processes are quite
This is completely silly. The question was about things that could
affect the brain's development other than DNA and sensory signals.
If you don't think there is such a thing as foetal alcohol syndrome,
if you don't think nutrition can affect the brain, then say so
directly. Don't try to deliberately misconstrue what was being
> One wonders if Rickert knows anything at all about the vast
> literature on the blood-brain barrier, about active transport
> mechanisms, etc. Yes, some medications pass the blood-brain
> barrier, many do not. Pathology can sometimes cause "leaks" in
> the BBB, allowing things in which are otherwise excluded; one
> therapeutic strategy is to deliberately damage the barrier too
> allow temporary access by a medication otherwise excluded.
These are all quite irrelevant to the point.
More information about the Neur-sci