NDT 'Checkpoint' 2002-08-23

Kenneth Collins k.p.collins at worldnet.att.net
Sun Aug 25 22:53:40 EST 2002


Hi Peter.

With respect to 'selective unconsciousness', I pretty-much stand on what I've posted.

I can't see anything that's not clear.

Remember, everything happens within the neural topology, and that which happens is 'coerced' into conformance with one's experiential-environment.

That is, the tacit 'rule' stuff that exists within one's experiential-environment forms as a consequence of TD E/I(up)-generating stimuli that induce behavioral by-products that 'move away from' this or that being in 'conscious-awareness'.

This's the stuff discussed in AoK Ap7 & 8.

Basically, it's all 'meta' information-processing 'phase' stuff, and if eliminating the neural activation that would, otherwise, gate this or that to 'consciousness' results in TD E/I-minimization, that's exactly what happens.

This's all in the stuff of "prefrontal constellations", AoK, Ap7.

Or are you asking, "How does consciousness happen?" "How does this or that gain it's effect of being-in-there?"

This, too, is all 'just' TD E/I-minimization [remember: the neural topology is not a 'pile of spaghetti'. It's all Beautifully-implemented Biological-Maths.]

See all the [numerous] references to "affective alignment" in AoK. TD E/I-minimization [ideally] includes 'appropriately'-aligned affect, which is 'just' topologically-distributed activation of this or that affective-'mechanism' that's correlated with the 'momentary' acceleration of global TD E/I.

As I discussed in a prior post, the 'reward' mechanisms 'amplify' and 'empower' further TD E/I(up\down). See AoK, Ap5 & 7.] 

These 'conscious' phenomena are in-there 'just' to imbue TD T/I-minimization with a 'sense' of 'Being', and they, too, derive their 'normal' alignment as a result of experience - which is why a Child, raised in a relatively-deprived experiemtial-environment experiences 'aversion' when she/he encounters unfamiliar relatively-non-deprived environments [there was another article in the same issue of the Reader's Digest to which I referred in the prior post, that sensitively discussed this 'aversiveness' of migration into unfamiliar relatively-non-deprived environments [African Youths immigrating into the midst of a cold Midwestern winter. I'll try to remember to try to find the issue, and post the ref, if I do find it].

I don't see what's not clear, Peter.

ken [k. p. collins]
    Peter F. wrote in message ...
    "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.
         
        ---------------
        PF comments:-
         
        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.
         
        Peter
         

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://iubio.bio.indiana.edu/bionet/mm/neur-sci/attachments/20020826/bf81159b/attachment.html


More information about the Neur-sci mailing list