Circadian cycles and the pineal gland:

Kenneth Collins k.p.collins at worldnet.att.net%remove%
Tue Mar 4 11:04:05 EST 2003


TODAY/PC  V1.0 (c) 1986 by Patrick Kincaid

On this day...
   In 1789 Congress declares the Constitution to be in effect.
   In 1933 Roosevelt inaugurated, said "We have nothing to fear but
fear itself"

The prior post still didn't say what I meant.

What I meant was that folks kind of "turn a blind eye" on the stuff
of 'human nature'.

For instance, it's flat-out obvious, in the way an Infant, adopted at
birth, acquires the language, etc. of her/his adoptive culture, that
there's a least potential energy dynamic operating.

It's flat-out obvious.

Yet, folks in Neuroscience don't theorize with respect to such?

And there're a g'zillion analogous considerations. They all 'point'
directly to the same-stuff.

Yet, folks in Neuroscience don't theorize with respect to such?

And, when one does so theorize, because his work 'runs contrary' to
'the way things are supposed to be done in neuroscience', "it's not
permissible" for anyone in Neuroscience to acknowledge the existence
of his work?

It's flat-out obvious that the same-stuff, least potential energy
dynamic, is at the 'heart' of Neuroscience's 'rejection' of his work,
but, still, no one in Neuroscience will theorize with respect to
such?

And so it  goes.

Why?

It's the one least potential energy dynamic wreaking havoc within
Human interactive dynamics, and folks in Neuroscience 'move away
from' theorizing with respect to such.

To be fair, everyone else 'moves away from' understanding this
same-stuff - Neuroscientists share this Human-Tragedy stuff with
=everyone= else [except the one who sees the least potential energy
dynamic, and theorizes with respect to it - and "woe" to him, 'cause,
because he sees that something can be done that'll eliminate the
least potential energy dynamic's 'dictatorial' tyranny from Human
interactive dynamics, no matter what he does to lift folks up out of
that 'blindly'-automated dictatorial tyranny, folks'll 'perceive' him
as 'being the enemy' and 'move away from' him :-]

Do you see what I'm getting at?

The least potential energy dynamic is at the 'heart' of
'blindly'-atomated nervous system information-processing dynamics, in
such a fundamental way, that, when one theorizes with respect to it,
one becomes the 'target'-for-action with respect to the least
potential energy dynamic that operates everywhere within others'
nervous systems. Those other nervous systems tend strongly not to see
'the big picture', they tend not to see that the one who theorizes
with respect to this, obviously all-permeating, least potential
energy dynamic is doing so because he agonizes with respect to what
the least potential energy dynamic dictates "will be" within Human
interactive dynamics.

The ubiquitous behavioral by-product of the flat-out obvious least
potential energy dynamic is 'moving away from' 'moving toward'
understanding with respect to the least potential energy dynamic.

It's all "inverted" [AoK, Ap4].

Yet, it's all =just= a least potential energy dynamic - clearly, the
stuff that Science just studies and with respect to which Science
theorizes.

Yet, Science 'moves away from' doing Science with respect to this
flat-out obvious least potential energy dynamic?

It's 'hilarious', no?

Tragically 'hilarious'.

The least potential energy dynamic is embodied in our nervous systems
in the way that, no matter where one looks within nervous systems,
one sees neural topolgy that's physically ordered to do only one
thing: minimize the topologically-distributed ratios of excitation to
inhibition that are occurring within the nervous system in question.

This is such a 'dangerous' realization that everyone 'moves away
from' comprehending it?

Nope.

It's comprehension is not 'dangerous'.

It's comprehension is 'just' the single most-unfamiliar thing within
Human experience.

It's comprehension is 'just' the single most-'foreign' thing within
Human experience.

And, yet, this least potential energy dynamic determines everything
within Human experience - all of "man's inhumanity to man" - even
that Science "will not" theorize with respect to it?

My question is, "Why?"

It's obviously not "too big" for scientific minds to grapple with.

It's flat-out easy to deal with, relative to the
information-processing demands of just about any other question to
which Science sets itself, in consideration.

Then, if it's so easy [and it is], why, then, will Science not
consider this all-permeating stuff?

It's be-cause the least potential energy dynamics is fundamental
within "thought" itself.

So, when folks take up consideration of it, they run, head-on, all at
once, into =every= 'notion' of both 'good' and 'evil' - and, in the
immensity of that simultaneity, become 'overwhelmed', and
'diverted' - 'thwarted' in their 'will' to do Science [see the
discussion of the "zone of randomness" in AoK, Ap4. This is the
Fundamental instance of dynamics within the "ZoR".]

So that's why Science 'moves away from' theorizing with respect to
this flat-out obvious, flat-out =easy= to theorize with respect to,
least potential energy dynamic.

With respect to it, I call my Colleagues in Neuroscience to the task
of doing Science.

Need Encouragement?

Seek out the Parents of Young Infants. Ask them to allow you to hold
their Infants. In that warm Innocence you'll have, right-there, in
your arms, exists all the Encouragement you need. For, if we do not
theorize with respect to this flat-out obvious least potential energy
dynamic, the Infants are 'abandoned' to Ignorance that will 'pounce'
upon their Innocence, and stuff them into "little boxes, filled with
ticky-tacky" [Beatles].

And how can anyone, holding an Infant in their arms, who only looks
and sees the Tragedy that =will= ensue, not find Encouragement,
over-flowing, with respect to theorizing with respect to this
flat-out obvious least potential energy dynamic that'll, otherwise,
Mercilessly transform the Infant into an unthinking 'automaton'?

Can 'unthinking autoatons' learn to Think?

That is my Question.

I =Know= its Answer.

"Yes."

The Answer is mapped in AoK. The way is given in AoK, Ap7 -
"Volition" - the "meta-" information-processing phases - "prefrontal
constellations".

It's flat-out obvious that our nervous systems are capable of
transcending the dictates of the 'blindly'-automated least potential
energy dynamic.

So, I call you, my Colleagues in Science, to action.

This flat-out obvious least potential energy dynamic is =just=
another thing with respect to which Science Theorizes.

It's stuff is =just= more stuff that we who stand upon Truth's
'battlefield, study and learn about.

But, Oh! The Benefit inherent in our studying this one thing!

Let us do so.

ken

"Kenneth Collins" <k.p.collins at worldnet.att.net%remove%> wrote in
message
news:ZXW8a.10129$Uy4.840966 at bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
| The prior post still didn't say what I meant.
|
| Folks in Neuroscience theorize, what they don't do enough of is
| theorize with respect to 'big' behavioral questions. [The usual
| theoretical approaches are with respect to molecular stuff
['genetic
| bases' of behavior, or with pharmacological 'treatments'].
|
| It's the province of our Science to theorize with respect to
| whole-nervous-system function.
|
| Folks say, "It can't be done" ...?
|
| But it can. The approach is just not being taught.
|
| My question is, why not?
|
| ken
|
| "Kenneth Collins" <k.p.collins at worldnet.att.net%remove%> wrote in
| message
| news:nhz8a.8081$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
| wherewithal
| | 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,
| | eh?
| |
| | "Damned if I do and damned if I don't."
| |
| | "Oh well."
| |
| | But Neuroscience theorization should have it's place with courses
| in
| | every Neuroscience curriculum. There are huge benefits to it, not
| the
| | least of which is that it facilitates cross-specialization
| | 'fertilization' within Neuroscience - get's folks talking about
| stuff
| | 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'
| work
| | 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
| Neuroscience
| | Theory - anywhere - I'd like to consult - offer what I've learned
| | 'epistomological'-wise.
| |
| | Too much to hope for?
| |
| | ken
| |
| | "Kenneth Collins" <k.p.collins at worldnet.att.net%remove%> wrote in
| | message
| | news:9L48a.5914$Uy4.494754 at bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
| | | If I could afford to, I'd pursue my hypothesis, stated in my
| prior
| | | two posts in this thread, by looking up, and reading:
| | |
| | |
| http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?CMD=Display&DB=PubMed
| | |
| | | Neuroendocrinol Lett 2002 Oct-Dec;23(5-6):442 Related Articles,
| | Links
| | |
| | | BOOK REVIEW: Csilla Ruzsas and Bela Mess "Maturation and Aging
of
| | | Neuroendocrine Functions. The role of monoaminergic neurons and
| of
| | | the pineal gland".
| | |
| | | Dorner G.
| | |
| | | Institute of Experimental Endocrinology, Humboldt University
| | Medical
| | | School (Charite), Berlin, Germany.
| | |
| | | Publication Types:
| | | News
| | |
| | | PMID: 12500168 [PubMed - in process]
| | |
| | | I found, on PubMed, a lot of other "good-starting-olace" refs
| with
| | | respect to the hypothesis.
| | |
| | | My old method was to look-up, read them, read selected refs in
| | their
| | | bibliographies, continuously 'whittling'.
| | |
| | | Guess, these days, I'm either 'too old' or too poor for my old
| | method
| | | :-]
| | |
| | | ken
| | |
| | | "Kenneth Collins" <k.p.collins at worldnet.att.net_NOSPAM> wrote
in
| | | message
| | |
news:OH47a.1356$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
| when
| | | | hypothesizing about the sort of functional switch-over
| | | [redirection]
| | | | that I discussed in my prior reply. There's an
'incompleteness'
| | in
| | | | their relative mapping-elegance that correlates with
| phylogenetic
| | | | 'work-in-progress' - 'sticks out' like a 'sore thumb'.
| | | |
| | | | Cheers, John, ken
| | | |
| | | |
| | |
| | |
| |
| |
|
|





More information about the Neur-sci mailing list