Theorization in Neuroscience

Kenneth Collins k.p.collins at worldnet.att.net%remove%
Tue Mar 4 11:40:10 EST 2003


One more thing.

Long ago, after studying everything that I'd experienced while
working to bring NDT's understanding forward, it became clear to me
that I 'had to' become "the pebble in folks' nervous systems'
'shoes'".

This is my own Tragedy, for, when I look back, I can, now, see that
there was another way. I could have =just= worked to achieve the
customary Rigor that Science expects - you know, work to just state
the Science in detail.

That didn't happen, though, because I'd exhausted my personal
resources in doing just what's described in AoK. Ever since, I've
been "holding-on for dear life". Presently, I'm dependent upon my
Brothers, even for the food I eat, and the roof over my head. So I've
not the wherewithal with which to go back to the Neuroscience stacks,
and do the work as it warrants being done.

So all these years, I've been doing shat I could with what's been
available to me - various internet accounts, telephones, pen and
paper, stamps, gas in my car's tank, the reference materials I
purchased long ago - but with the 'purpose' of being "the pebble in
folks' nervous systems' 'shoes'".

It's been a Sorrow for me, because, all along, I've understood that,
because I was a source of TD E/I(up) with respect to others' nervous
systems, even as I worked to 'boost' folks up 'over the crator's rim'
[the 'crator' is the least potential energy dynamic's local minimum],
folks would 'blindly' and automatically "take offense" at my having
caused them to experience TD E/I(up).

So, can there be no 'amnesty'?

Not necessarily with respect to me, but amongst all the folks who I
'pushed' so hard for all these years.

Can it not be that folks see, all things considered, what's
transpired is only that which had to transpire.

Can it not be that what is seen to actually matter is the Future, not
the Past?

Can it not be that folks Forgive, and move on into doing the work
upon which the Survival of Humanity depends, and in which it derives?

If 'blame' must be metered-out, then Blame me. It was me, after all
who 'violated' the 'norms' of standard Science. [I didn't do so
willingly, but did so because, other than 'time' [the energy-flow
capacity within me] my personal resourses have always been so scant.]

But I did so.

Blame me for all that's been 'untoward'.

But, geese Louise! Don't let this pile-of-nothing-that-has-dictated
"man's inhumanity to man" continue on its 'blindly'-automated way.

Forgive one another.

Roll up your sleeves.

Work.

Eliminate this stuff that dictates to 'hate' to Humanity.

Forgive one another.

"Recrimination" isn't the story.

The Science, itself, is the story.

That, and the end of "man's inhumanity to man".

ken

"Kenneth Collins" <k.p.collins at worldnet.att.net%remove%> wrote in
message news:V749a.285$1v.29572 at bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
| 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