NDT 'Checkpoint' 2002-08-23
fell_spamtrap_in at ozemail.com.au
Fri Aug 23 21:34:20 EST 2002
"Kenneth Collins" <k.p.collins at worldnet.att.net> wrote in message news:Lfn99.39$p%3.9460 at bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
I understand that the stuff I've been discussing is 'Difficult', and even a bit 'frightening'.
Understanding the manner in which nervous systems process-information via 'blindly'-automated TD E/I-minimization 'turns-off' the 'blind'-automation - allows one to recognize the information-processing functionality of this or that formerly-'scary' stuff inherent in nervous systems' innate functioning, with the result that, rather than being 'coerced', via 'blindly'-automated nervous system functioning, into this or that 'blindly'-automated behavioral manifestation - rather than Killing, for instance - one can understand the TD E/I-differential[s] inherent, and work things out on the basis of such understanding, seeking TD E/I-minimization routes that are not necessarily predetermined within experience, giving, as well as receiving, such, without Prejudice with respect to that which they constitute - without 'banning' them just because they are not, yet, within experience.
Your "NDT" view of the brain is not difficult. And, more importantly, it is NOT frightening enough!
Your encompassing explanation for how the brain works creates "*too comfortable* a cocoon" of cognitive comprehension.
It is too comfortable because of what it fails to directly address (or because of what it largely leaves out).
It has failed the test for "specifics" as far as our evolution is concerned; Similarly it falls-down on being far too feeble an explanatory force as far as "selective unconsciousness" is concerned, and what it is that "selective unconsciousness" hides, and how (by which cultural / psychobehavioural / neurophysiological means and mechanisms -- "AEVASIVE such") what we "hide" is being hidden.
All of *these aspects* of "what is going on" -- "what is hidden, and how, and central evolutionary (peripherally even down to ultimate cosmological reasons) why" -- are *generally* (but still with poignant philosophical precision) *specifiable* in a compactly 'concEPTualized' way which is, if not formal and conventional, so at least in essence *entirely aligned* with our best bet, by "Science" (holistically defined) securely confirmed and/or established, principles and theories.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Neur-sci