DC lesion? - a lesson?
k p Collins
kpaulc at [----------]earthlink.net
Mon Feb 16 02:06:08 EST 2004
"Peter F." <effectivespamblock at ozemail.com.au> wrote in message
news:qrKXb.979$FI6.25363 at nnrp1.ozemail.com.au...
> "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
> 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
> as AEVASIVE) are an assortment of self-regulatory capacities the
> part of which is itself partly (~half) covered both by what has been
> repression and by (despite its traditionally sloppy and/or hypocritical
Whew! [He says, taking it 'personally :-]
I wrote AoK decades ago, Peter. The view
on the 'looseness' of usage of "habituation"
that I expressed in my reply to Neil devel-
oped since then, in large part because of
discussions you and I have shared, BTW.
When I addressed the "looseness", I was
referring, explicitly, to the way that "hab-
ituation" has been virtually-always used
without, simulteneously, mapping that which
is "habituated" within the neural Topology.
To be Forthright, the 'same' "looseness" is
a 'criticism' that I have with respect to most
Neuroscience outside of NDT.
I'm emphasizing the need to map everything
within the neural Topology, these 'days', be-
cause doing so is absolutely-necessary if
Neuroscience is to go-forward [be-cause,
this's precisely how nervous systems pro-
ceed in their information-processing dyn-
amics. That is, nervous systems assert inform-
ation-content as relative directionality =within=
their neural Topologies. So the information-
content cannot be seen if the directionalities
are not mapped within the neural Topology -
if terminology is "loose" with respect to such
mapping of directionality within the neural
But, when I commented, in my reply to Neil,
I should've expressed all of this for the bene-
fit of folks who have read AoK.
It was in-mind, but I did not do so because
I'm already getting 'beat-up' for discussing
stuff that folks who've not read AoK do
Damned if I do and damned if I don't :-|
> definitions) "Habituation" $. (The other half of this "inhibition part",
> provided by learnt and instinctive behavioural habits or AEVASIVE focuses
> $ I am excempting "Habituation" (from) in the sense that some
> provided novelty may cease to evoke a most simple orienting reflex
> 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
> on some more or less elaborate or sophisticated preoccupying response,
> 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
> specific about the neurobiological causes of this state of human affairs
> it is theoretically (neurologically) possible to be.
Yeah, it's because, if I addressed everything
succinctly, the result would be that folks who
were just doing what they learned to do would
be subjected to useless 'embarassment'.
I've been trying to do what needs to be done -
to show folks a better way - without doing anything
that'd only 'close-doors' to folks' Careers - in the
hope that folks'd just 'see-the-light', and be able
to Embrace NDT's New synthesis.
It's a delacate 'tight-rope walk'. Any 'missteps', and
'blindly'-automated TD E/I-minimization will 'just'
'move away from' Truth inherent in NDT [in resistance
to "rendering useless", AoK, Ap8].
I don't want to 'embarass' anyone.
I just want folks to 'see-the-light'.
> Also, I am more likely to become contented (**personally, of course**)
> your interpretation of our neuropsychobiology if it would (i.e. if you
> allowed it to) more explitly accommodate blindly-automated religiousity;
It does, Peter. You should see the 'heat' that I've
received within that spectrum of things :-]
When I address Jesus, it's always as I've explained
repeatedly. I worked to reify NDT's position, and,
when I looked, I saw that Jesus has said all of the
important stuff ~2000 years ago. To me, it's a matter
of Priority with respect to which I've Unavoidable-
Obligation - a matter of Honor-in-Science.
> 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
> and thoughtful (including factually supported) advisory feedback.
That's not True, Peter.
See if you can find =anything= that anyone
has =ever= posted, in reply to anything that
I've posted, that actually Corrects Errors
in what I've posted.
What am I supposed to do, Lie about the
Absence of such?
[If your search is thorough, you'll find that
when there have been actual Corrections,
I've acknowledged them.]
Anyway, have a go at it, as above, and
you'll see what I mean.
And, while you're doing such, also keep
a tally of the numbers of times that folks've
raised 'objections' and I've sorted-out their
objections, always in ways that have Advanced
These are =numerous=, and some of them have
I just don't 'remind' folks with respect to such,
because I want not to 'embarass' folks.
But you're pressing me, so go and look.
[All - go ahead and look.]
> 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
> number of important unifying relevant conclusions/schematically
> pictures suggest do exist.
Yes, and that it's so has been a Sorrow
[that we both(?) feel deeply in our 'hearts'].
> 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
As I see it, it's not an evolutionarily-dictated
circumstance, but a learned-acquiesence to
If it were genetically-pre-determined, I'd not
have given-my-Life to working to lift folks up
above it - because, if it were genetically-pre-
determined, then no amount of work could
make any difference. [And my willingness-to-
work would've been directed in other ways :-]
Cheers, Peter, ken [k. p. collins]
More information about the Neur-sci