DC lesion? - a lesson?

k p Collins kpaulc at [----------]earthlink.net
Mon Feb 16 21:34:12 EST 2004


Hi Peter,

"Peter F." <effectivespamblock at ozemail.com.au> wrote in message
news:4K4Yb.324$682.9061 at nnrp1.ozemail.com.au...
> "k p Collins" <kpaulc@[----------]earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:AZZXb.6601$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!

Thank you for clarifying that. I saw the possibility
that you were 'buzzing' me because of comments,
with respect to "habituation", that are in AoK.

> > 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? %-)

It's easy [of course] - 'blindly'-automated
TD E/I-minimization =and= the way folks
'blindly'-and-automatically 'move away from'
comprehending the way it =unnecessarily=
'Dictates' behavior.

> > 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.

Jesus Thanked and Acknowledged them,
while Praying for them. See John 17. ~"I pray
not only for these, but for those who will believe
through them."

Jesus Honored what folks do.

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

Explain how it's so, Peter.

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

Are you saying that Jesus was a 'drug addict'?

Are you saying that I Acknowledge Jesus'
Priority for 'reasons' other than the Reasons
I've clearly-stated all along?

What are you saying, Peter?

Please be Explicit.

> If you believe that Jesus was the "Son of God" (etc.) -

I do.

And I've explained why I do.

My Faith came in a 'secondary' way.

After working long and hard, with the
best experimental data that Science
has produced, my jaw hung down
be-cause, when I looked, I saw that
Jesus Knew! how Human nervous
systems process information.

How could it be, Peter?

~2000 'years' ago, long before
the Scientific Method was con-
ceived?

How could Jesus Know?

I can't 'explain' it.

All I can see is that Jesus Knew!

Truth, inherent, must be Honored.

Period.

I'll listen, with interest, to anyone's
attempts to 'explain' how it could
be that Jesus Knew!

Meanwhile, I Believe, as you assert,
above.

> 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.

:-]

It's flat-out Obvious that Jesus Knew!
how Human nervous systems process
information, Peter.

Did you follow my discussion during my
last-'year's Lenten devotion?

I laid-it-all-out.

So who is is who is being, as you
say 'evasive'?

I'm =not= saying that it's 'easy', Peter.

It's 'hard'.

But it's 'just' Truth.

And, to the degree that Truth is 'moved
away from', all is Lost, isn't it?

Yup - be-cause Truth does what it does
regardless of what anyone does.

> 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.

I've read of 'attempts' to 'explain' such
through 'neuroscience'.

But, please get, and keep, straight what
it is that I've said, Peter.

NDT discloses, "x, y, z, etc." with respect to
the way that nervous systems process-
information.

All of this is Verified by the Proven
Neuroscience Experimental results.

When =anyone= looks, they'll see
that Jesus said "a, b, c, etc." about Human
behavior, which, when one looks, one
sees is =exactly= what "x, y, z, etc." mean
with respect to Human behavior.

There's no 'wishful thinking' involved, Peter.

There's 'just' this Verified correlation between
what the Neuroscience Experiment results
say and what Jesus said.

So, as far as I'm concerned, it's folks who
'refuse' to see what's in-there who are being
'evasive'.

> 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.)

Ho, ho, ho.

The 'blind', supposedly, leading the 'blind' :-]

> 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.?

I already have, Peter. It's all 'just' 'blindly'-
automated TD E/I-minimization, left un-
comprehended.

And I've explained how all of this happens
within nervous systems, all in a way that
reduces to the Proven Neuroscience
Experimental results.

>
> 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.

Ho, ho, ho :-]

It's in-there, but, yes, it's never been
my purpose to use NDT's understanding
as a 'prying-instrument' - as a means to
'coerse' folks' behavior.

My Puropse has been 'just'-the-opposite
stuff.

Give folks the facts, and let folks decide.

You know - Honor Free Will.

Hence, the result that you feel is "far
too tepid".

But Truth is in-there, Peter, as is my
awareness of the way nervous systems
'move away from' Truth.

> > > 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.?

As I said in former reply to you,
I'm 'locked-out' of sci.physics.research.

> 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. ;->]

Or, it can just mean that one is 'locked-out'.

> Put your Tapered Harmony to the test - I suggest!

I already have, Peter.

That I already have is part of why
I've been 'locked-out' :-]

> And that you keep refusing to copy and paste your AoK into a free web-page
> space is a very suss behaviour of yours.

The 'time' for such is decades-passed,
Peter.

> 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.]

It's Funny. I've seen one diagram that
was in my 1982 NRL Paper Published
in other folks names.

My 1982 NRL Paper was diagrammatic
in it's entirety [with captions].

> > 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!?

=Yes=!!!

It's just that NDT's stuff has been
withheld from those on whose be-
halves it was done.

Censored before it was Published.

So I came here, to b.n, to 'work-
through' what needed to be 'worked-
through', with respect to getting NDT's
stuff to those on whose behalves it
was done.

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

Unfortunately, it cannot just be 'moved
away from', because that'd enable it to
become a 'determining' thing.

> > 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.

Peter, my Survival is Precarious.

How can I do anything 'Fancy',
when my Survival is Precarious?

> > These are =numerous=, and some of them have
> > been 'earth-shaking'.
>
> N.B. So far mostly to you!

My Read is that folks've been
getting-it.

> >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 ".

Why it's so is Reified, sufficiently, in
AoK.

But, sometimes, one just finds one's
self in-Obligation to Truth that's merely-
'unfamiliar' to others, Peter.

There's no way around the 'Difficulty'
inherent, is there?

Nope.

> > > 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.

I do hold folks in my 'heart'. Doing
so is some of what makes what's
fallen to me to do, endurable.

I can see what folks cannot [yet]
see, so I can also see that I must
hold folks in my 'heart', and, so,
when I do so, I can see that I'm
doing what needs to be done, and
so seeing, helps me continue, see? :-]

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

If one acts in ways that elevate TD E/I
above the amygdalar-priming threshold
[AoK, Ap5], one's actions become self-
defeating.

Why do such?

> 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.

It does not matter with respect to Truth,
but, Truth is, that what folks've deemed
to be 'human nature' is =just= as I said,
above - learned-acquiesence toabsence-
of-understanding.

> The scope of Nature's (or even just our biosphere's) variability is
greater
> than it appears that you feel COMFORTABLE recognizing.

It's all 'just' WDB2T, and, through ranging-
widely, WDB2T can be safely-followed,
in an ever-'climbing' way that 'moves
toward' Truth.

> 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

It's 'just' 'Hard', Peter, not 'impossible'.

And it's 'Hard' only be-cause it's rel-
atively 'unfamiliar' [through experiential
happenstance, TD E/I(up)-generating.

Cheers, 'Might', ken [k. p. collins]





More information about the Neur-sci mailing list