IUBio Biosequences .. Software .. Molbio soft .. Network News .. FTP

DC lesion? - a lesson?

Peter F. effectivespamblock at ozemail.com.au
Sun Feb 15 08:25:40 EST 2004

"k p Collins" <kpaulc@[----------]earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:krHXb.5807> > Maybe this is a semantic issue with respect to using
> > the term, "habituate",
> Yeah, I avoid use of the term because it's
> used 'loosely', with respect to a lot of in-
> herently-different stuff.
> > but any time a system's response to some stimulation
> > steadily declines to a point of no responsiveness
> > then employing the label "habituation" is and
> > would be extremely valid.
> I disagree, here, because, as above, the term
> has been so loosely-used that it's of no particular
> use [as I see things].
> > What habituates is the neurons' response to the
> > current.
> The response of individual neurons isn't the whole
> story. The net effect is a function of the local network's
> TD E/I-minimization dynamics. Inputs are still coming-
> in from the 'normal' sources [or is this experiment in
> 'slices'? I strongly-delimit any data collected in 'slices',
> be-cause it's always inherently-artificial, be-cause it's
> always cut-off from 'normal' I/O].
> > Your term, "tuning-precision void", seems some
> > what analogous but in my opinion is extremely
> > ambiguous at the same time because of the
> > introduction of a term like "void".
> A "void" is just an "absence". A "tuning-precision
> void" is just an absence of precise tuning, which
> is an instance of imprecise tuning, which, when, as
> is always done in NDT, it's located within the neural
> Topology, becomes a specivically-localized instance
> of "TD E/I(up)", which is always important to recog-
> nize because the TD E/I-minimization mechanisms
> will always act strongly upon, and with respect to, it,
> which always results in external observables.

Hi again Ken (and Neil - if you would read this),

What you (and Neil) are discussing is directly relevant to the causes
mechanisms and symptoms of Neurosis.

Generally considered, there is "gating", "filtering", and *active*
habituation$ (or repression) occurring in relation to distress motivating
neurons' signal output, or their firing or signaling activity itself,
whenever an animal (eg. a human individual) has ended up in a traumatizing
situation (what I call a SHITS - for "selective Hibernation imploring type

It may be worth noting - in respect of our capability of retaining such
situations (through neurons undergoing LTP changes that form a kind of
partly or entirely unconscious - not consciously remembered or recallable -
states of SHITS-specific remembrance) - that (according to one laboratory
report that I can remeber having read) neurons can whilst being actively
habituated (prevented from firing) become progressively conditioned, by
afferent signals, into a state of being "LTP'ed".

Neurotic defences (a meaning more than covered by what I have concEPTualized
as AEVASIVE) are an assortment of self-regulatory capacities the inhibitory
part of which is itself partly (~half) covered both by what has been called
repression and by (despite its traditionally sloppy and/or hypocritical
definitions) "Habituation" $. (The other half of this "inhibition part", is
provided by learnt and instinctive behavioural habits or AEVASIVE focuses of

$ I am excempting "Habituation" (from) in the sense that some
provided novelty may cease to evoke a most simple orienting reflex (because
relatively simple sensory-detected pattern of stimulation ends up equally
simply instinctively
interpreted as insignificant), and (to) in the somewhat extrapolated sense
that an emotional and/or mental
paying of vital actentional [from attention+action] energy may keep on being
on some more or less elaborate or sophisticated preoccupying response, e.g.
to some intellectual
proposal, until this proposal (one that initially appeared both novel and
interesting) eventually is found-out to be wrong or basically boringly

Although I am well aware you, Ken, is more frequently than most are
analysing, commenting and openly lamenting all kinds of dis_eases in this
world, I have a distinct impression that you at the same time avoid being as
specific about the neurobiological causes of this state of human affairs as
it is theoretically (neurologically) possible to be.

Also, I am more likely to become contented (**personally, of course**) with
your interpretation of our neuropsychobiology if it would (i.e. if you
allowed it to) more explitly accommodate blindly-automated religiousity;
And, of relevance in this my concern, is that both AoK/NDT and Tapered
Harmony is being suspiciously shielded (symptomatic of a "blindly - whilst
by me, 'from the outside', perfectly understandable - automated" AEVASIVE
defensiveness) by your entirely naked and obvious tendency to refuse sincere
and thoughtful (including factually supported) advisory feedback.

One of the things many things I thoroughly agree with you about, is, that
for a far long time there has existed a far greater and more far-reaching
mass (or richness) of brain and behavioural scientific facts THAN the scant
number of important unifying relevant conclusions/schematically overviewing
pictures suggest do exist.

I can only assume the reason for the 'reluctance' (of allegedly
insight-seeking people) to rationally reach-into the roots of human
behaviour is our AEVASIVE evolutionary origin and "ditto" functional


More information about the Neur-sci mailing list

Send comments to us at biosci-help [At] net.bio.net