On Sat, 19 Apr 2003 20:28:36 GMT, "KP-PC"
<k.p.collins at worldnet.att.net%remove%> wrote:
>Most of why the position I'm discussing in this thread is 'difficult'
>for folks who work in Neuroscience labs derives in the fact that they
>work in artificially-spearated preparations - cultured neurons,
>>All such in vitro preparations are relatively-free of practically all
>of the 3-D neruo-topological constraints which exist in vivo.
>>Remove practically all constraints, and all that one sees is
>>It's long been a Sorrow of mine that such
>artificially-freed-of-constraint stuff is deemed to 'disclose
>everything' that occurs in vivo.
>>It 'discloses' only artificial stereotypical stuff that's not
>actually coupled to anything, never mind, with respect to physical
>reality as everything within in vivo nervous systems is via global TD
>>K. P. Collins
>There do exist many neuroscientists who are cellular or molecular
physiologists concerned only with the function of cells. For them, in
vivo is more than good enough.
There also exist many neuroscientists who are organismal biologists
and who are very concerned with the cellular basis of actual animal
behavior. Many of us in that category are particularly interested in
invertebrates or lower vertebrates. Although we often work with
isolated ganglia or other highly reduced experiimental preparations,
we are vitally concerned with always demonstrating the connection
between cellular activity and animal behavior.
More important, even pure animal behavior specialists who are intested
in the cellular mechanisms that underlie behavior must look to the
laboratory physiologists who demonstrate exactly what cellular
activites really occur and what phenomena don't seem to occur in
reality, no matter how attractive the underlying hypotheses may be to