DC lesion? - a lesson?

Peter F. effectivespamblock at ozemail.com.au
Mon Feb 16 09:47:25 EST 2004


"k p Collins" <kpaulc@[----------]earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:AZZXb.6601$hm4.4063 at newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net...
> "Peter F." <effectivespamblock at ozemail.com.au> wrote in message
> news:qrKXb.979$FI6.25363 at nnrp1.ozemail.com.au...
> > 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
> > situation").
> >
> >
> > 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
>
> Whew! [He says, taking it 'personally :-]

Pity you did. :-(
It was not at all meant as something against you!

>
> 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.

Please, tell me as briefly as you can (even with one or two words, if you
can) what is the most significant "thing" that you can think of, that is
being "habituated"? I just like to know how synced we are being each our
sem_antics? %-)

>
> 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
> Topology.]
>
> 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
> not understand.
>
> Damned if I do and damned if I don't :-|
>
> > definitions) "Habituation" $. (The other half of this "inhibition part",
> is
> > provided by learnt and instinctive behavioural habits or AEVASIVE
focuses
> of
> > actention.)
> >
> > ------
> > $ I am excempting "Habituation" (from) in the sense that some
> > environmentally
> > provided novelty may cease to evoke a most simple orienting reflex
> (because
> > the
> > 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
> > spent
> > 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
> > trivial.
> > ------
> >
> > 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.
>
> 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'.

I am sure there is still more light for you to soak up too.

To me, you seem to feel too much that you are preaching from a pedestal.

E.g., I think you have fallen short of being as appreciative towards Neil
as he deserves, considering his sincere efforts to relate what you write to
what he knows.

>
> > 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;
>
> 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.

You ought to thank the many authors and editors of the Bible for these words
that you
interpret a truisms.

Pity you don't you see that what you are doing is religious idol-worship.

Women has been known to throw themselves at the feet of drug-loaded
pop-artists as well.

If you believe that Jesus was the "Son of God" (etc.) - as he might have
believed he was - then you (like millions of others) are proving that you
are capable of very closely related kind of AEVASIVE delusion to the one in
Jesus's mind.

The religion instinct is a mix of things (e.g. other instincts) like
superstition hope and  specific unmet primal psychophysical needs. Perhaps
the religion instinct (not very developed in need fulfilled individuals) is
coordinated by specialized neurons for the first time ontogenetically
cell-differentiated into occupying a neuropsychological niche rather
recently -- ~500k-50k years ago might be as good a guess as any.

NMR scanning may already have mapped out the approximate location of such
neurons. (If I remember right there was rather recently a news report in New
Scientist or one of the other more prestigious magazines to saying
approximately that.)

Would you consider incorporate the "topology" of our evolved capacity to use
ideas as opiates against SHITS and their consequence CURSES, in you
explanatory scheme.?

You would of course be free NOT to use my "provokative oozing onerously up
the olfactories"
vocabulary. I promise! ;-)

In my view this aspect of how we are is (for my EPTly trained taste) far too
tepidly treated within your theoretical tapestry.

>
> > 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.
>
> That's not True, Peter.

I suggested who would be the best and most likely the most available
physicist on the planet to quickly assess the value and physical
mathematical strengths or weaknesses of the physics-part of you theorizing!
Lubos Motl is the name of this great guy. I won't of course guarantee he
would take time to peruse what you have proposed, but if anyone would he
seems to me to be the one to do it most efficiently.

Have you looked at the almost only newsgroup where he answers peoples'
questions or comments on their theoretical physics related and/or
mathematical ideas.?

It really would be rather arrogant if you don't even have a look.

The hight of an arrogance is usually proportionate to what that hight serves
to hide! %-|
[Just to throw in a few words of EPT wisdom. ;->]

Put your Tapered Harmony to the test - I suggest!

And that you keep refusing to copy and paste your AoK into a free web-page
space is a very suss behaviour of yours.
For you to stand on what you post is pointless if you don't give people
every easily and freely available chance to understand  - or pick faults if
there are any -  with the picture you are always referring to and have
plotted^.
[^ Meant as in making a schematic or technical drawing that shows how things
work or how they are constructed.]

>
> 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.

Have I not tried to pointed out what I think are some weaknesses!?
Have not others tried to help you!?

Forget about shallow-minded criticism from belligerent and nastily
self-gratifying CURSES-crammed critters like -- you know who they are.

>
> 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
> Neuroscience.
>
All that is fine - it is the "easy" stuff that people have suggested you do
but that you have not done that *ought* to be gnawing on you.

> These are =numerous=, and some of them have
> been 'earth-shaking'.

N.B. So far mostly to you!

>snip<
Enough of you comforting yourself and defending your own self-worth by
defending your own theoretical scriptures. Remember the truism: "IDEAS can
impact and feel important because they work as AS OPIATES - REGARDLESS of
how factually false OR TRUE the ideas might be ".



> > 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.
>
> Yes, and that it's so has been a Sorrow
> [that we both(?) feel deeply in our 'hearts'].

You are a lot more soft-hearted more of the time than I - it seems.

This form of AEVASIVE stupidity mostly makes me angry - when I get reminded
of it.

For most of the time I try not to remember it. %-|


> > 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
> > constitution.
> >
> > P
>
> As I see it, it's not an evolutionarily-dictated
> circumstance, but a learned-acquiesence to
> absence-of-understanding.
>
> 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 :-]
>

How you see it does not matter to Nature in the least.

The scope of Nature's (or even just our biosphere's) variability is greater
than it appears that you feel COMFORTABLE recognizing. In fact, it is 'even'
great enough to produce a "Ken style" AEVASIVE preoccupation - or an even
further out-on-the-fringe "Peter style" one, for that matter.  ;-)

Cheers Mate,

P





More information about the Neur-sci mailing list