"r norman" <rsnorman_ at _comcast.net> wrote in message
news:bff3avg9oqlmsgoblf4s4duop7fjl8tou2 at 4ax.com...
| 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
| >for folks who work in Neuroscience labs derives in the fact that
| >work in artificially-spearated preparations - cultured neurons,
| >slices, etc.
| >All such in vitro preparations are relatively-free of practically
| >of the 3-D neruo-topological constraints which exist in vivo.
| >Remove practically all constraints, and all that one sees is
| >practically nothing.
| >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 doesn't.
| >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
| >K. P. Collins
| There do exist many neuroscientists who are cellular or molecular
| physiologists concerned only with the function of cells. For them,
| [vitro] is more than good enough.
We disagree, here, because it's verifiable the functioning of any
'element' [ion, molecule, neuron. nucleus, etc.] occurs as a function
of everything else within the global system [of course, in a
| 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
| invertebrates or lower vertebrates.
I understand the rationale inherent - "walk before running".
| Although we often work with
| isolated ganglia or other highly reduced experiimental
| we are vitally concerned with always demonstrating the connection
| between cellular activity and animal behavior.
Isolated preparations are worthwhile, but their use does tend to lead
to observations that are inherently artificial, incomplete, and,
This stuff has been one of my major research endeavors. I've a great
deal to say about it, but no place to say it. I've discussed it every
now and then here in b.n, but my doing so seems to only 'raise folks'
But all I'm doing is addressing what's verifiably True, so the
'negative' reaction is 'disappointing' to me - I mean the stuff I've
resolved with respect to global functionality is prerequisite to
systems resolution especially within labs that routinely use
artificially-separated preparations because the data these yield
actually 'disguise' Truth with respect to intact functionality.
| More important, even pure animal behavior specialists who are
| 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
I agree, but the other way around is True, too. What a theorist can
substantively predict can, and should, serve as a guide to
Digression into 'personal' stuff:
Right now, I'm living in a 'nightmare' that's coming True. I've
worked devotedly for more than 31 years, and it looks like folks in
Neuroscience are just going to 'flip me off'.
I'm 'desperate' to find a home for my work - hopefully a place where
I can continue it.
I have stuff that has generalized usefulness to any place where
Neuroscience is done.
It's like everyone's 'mad' at me just because I've done this work.
I've been hoping that the discussions I've been posting would lead
someone to call a colleague whose interests are correlated. The
result being an opportunity to continue the work I do on the basis of
it's usefulness to the folks at that hoped-for place.
It's all quite 'strange' to me that such has not happened, because
I've understood all along that, as I say above, I've some stuff
that'd be useful to folks.
It's probably too late for me, but I'm still hoping for a call.
Thanks for your discussion, Richard.