The prior post still didn't say what I meant.
Folks in Neuroscience theorize, what they don't do enough of is
theorize with respect to 'big' behavioral questions. [The usual
theoretical approaches are with respect to molecular stuff ['genetic
bases' of behavior, or with pharmacological 'treatments'].
It's the province of our Science to theorize with respect to
Folks say, "It can't be done" ...?
But it can. The approach is just not being taught.
My question is, why not?
"Kenneth Collins" <k.p.collins at worldnet.att.net%remove%> wrote in
news:nhz8a.8081$Uy4.685619 at bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
| After posting this, I realized that folks'd probably think, "Geese,
| what a dork!" :-]
|| I wasn't trying to say, "Hey, look at me."
|| I was trying to convey how easy it is to theorize in Neuroscience.
| Really, all it takes is the will to do it. That, and the
| to do it.
|| The Neuroscience stacks are a Treasure trove. And theorization is
| inherently fun to do. But, since, doing it isn't in formal curicula
| in Neuroscience, theorization [cross-correlation and integration of
| experimental results] is being left undone.
|| In what seemed to be a 'self-agrandizing' msg, I was trying to
| encourage folks to get involved in Neuroscience theorization.
|| But the 'self-agrandizing' stuff is probably all that came-across,
|| "Damned if I do and damned if I don't."
|| "Oh well."
|| But Neuroscience theorization should have it's place with courses
| every Neuroscience curriculum. There are huge benefits to it, not
| least of which is that it facilitates cross-specialization
| 'fertilization' within Neuroscience - get's folks talking about
| that they'd not, otherwise know about - lets folks understand how
| their work dovedails with the work of others, and how they can both
| give and receive.
|| Neuroscience 'wins' when folks get together to see each others'
| throu one anothers' ongoing foci and understanding voids.
|| Formal courses in Neuroscience Theory can bring all of this about.
|| If there's any interest in setting up a course series in
| Theory - anywhere - I'd like to consult - offer what I've learned
|| Too much to hope for?
|| "Kenneth Collins" <k.p.collins at worldnet.att.net%remove%> wrote in
| news:9L48a.5914$Uy4.494754 at bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...| | If I could afford to, I'd pursue my hypothesis, stated in my
| | two posts in this thread, by looking up, and reading:
| | Neuroendocrinol Lett 2002 Oct-Dec;23(5-6):442 Related Articles,
| | BOOK REVIEW: Csilla Ruzsas and Bela Mess "Maturation and Aging of
| | Neuroendocrine Functions. The role of monoaminergic neurons and
| | the pineal gland".
| | Dorner G.
| | Institute of Experimental Endocrinology, Humboldt University
| | School (Charite), Berlin, Germany.
| | Publication Types:
| | News
| | PMID: 12500168 [PubMed - in process]
| | I found, on PubMed, a lot of other "good-starting-olace" refs
| | respect to the hypothesis.
| | My old method was to look-up, read them, read selected refs in
| | bibliographies, continuously 'whittling'.
| | Guess, these days, I'm either 'too old' or too poor for my old
| | :-]
| | ken
| | "Kenneth Collins" <k.p.collins at worldnet.att.net_NOSPAM> wrote in
| | message
| | news:OH47a.1356$Uy4.124938 at bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...| | | Hi John.
| | |
| | | "John H." <johnh at faraway.xxx> wrote in message
| | | news:lm47a.416$0k1.13060 at nnrp1.ozemail.com.au...| | | | Thanks Ken, but I found what I needed. Apparently no direct
| | | connection to
| | | | pineal but rather via SCN then to cervical ganglia then to
| | pineal.
| | | Talk
| | | | about roundabout way!
| | |
| | | Yeah. 'Tortured' routes are one of the hallmarks I look for
| | | hypothesizing about the sort of functional switch-over
| | [redirection]
| | | that I discussed in my prior reply. There's an 'incompleteness'
| | | their relative mapping-elegance that correlates with
| | | 'work-in-progress' - 'sticks out' like a 'sore thumb'.
| | |
| | | Cheers, John, ken
| | |
| | |