brain antedation (Libet) implications

KP-PC k.p.collins at worldnet.att.net%remove%
Sun Mar 16 22:38:16 EST 2003


Hi Peter.

"Peter F" <fell_spamtrap_in at ozemail.com.au> wrote in message
news:Ixada.114$kf.4246 at nnrp1.ozemail.com.au...
| Hi both,
|
| Just a short comment:
|
| The discrepancies mentioned by Kyle might perhaps also just be put
down to
| that there are two principal components (or 'bulk
neurophysiological'
| instrumentalities) of any consciousness (and of any content of
| consciousness). Namely, the characteristically inertly (slowly and
| tonically) responding and tardily nerve-signal transmitting
"energizing" (or
| "background tone" providing) component - one that I enjoy referring
to as
| "RAT (Reticular Activating Type) neurons" - and the rapidly and
phasically
| responding and quickly nerve-signal transporting "specific"
component.

AoK, Ap3 & 5, and every Neuroanatomy text since Cajal, I expect.

Convergence with respect to TD E/I(min) within the merged
"protopathic" and "specific" activation is what sorts it all out.

Cheers, ken

| It is approximately so (and rather apparent) that a particular
content of
| "consciousness" can not become neurophysiologically established
until the
| "RAT neuron" component has had enough time to get established as
part of a
| transiently dominant actention module.
|
| But once it has, the "specific" component "fools" us to perceive
| synchronized timings.
|
| By the way, both the specific and the nonspecific (or RAT;)
component can be
| tolerably (if roughly) defined/understood at least in part by
considering
| the phylogeny of adaptive sensory processing mechanisms.
|
| P
|
|





More information about the Neur-sci mailing list