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

DC lesion? - a lesson?

Peter F. effectivespamblock at ozemail.com.au
Wed Feb 18 11:52:07 EST 2004

Hi Ken,

This will be my last tussle with you about you religiousness!

"k p Collins" <kpaulc@[----------]earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:E4fYb.7550$W74.957 at newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net...
> > > 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
> > 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.

That was a very diluted didactic effort, I'm afraid. You'll remain an almost
toothless tiger if you keep up not seeing what opportunity to explain the
blindspot blocking "plank in our own eyes" [or however 'that' biblical
metaphor goes].

Our primary instinctive reaction to environmentally and sensorially
localized causes of pain and/or fear is to do just that - to "move away
from" them.

But in order to also cover cases where the environmental causes of pain
and/or fear are not physically inescapable and in some cases not even
sensorially and perceptually localisable whilst relatively continuously
impacting (example given below), "move away from" would have to be meant
both literally AND figuratively. I.e., "moving" as in distancing or
separating oneself by "gating/filtering away" neural signals that would,
would they not be blocked or filtered, be an endogenous cause and key
motivational fuel for a definitely maladaptive futile and self-defeating,
distressful, mental/emotional/locomotor state of reactivity.

My point can also be made to start with official definitions of Habituation

One of the best I have seen is "being abnormally tolerant to and dependent
on something that is psychologically or physically habit-forming (especially
alcohol or narcotic drugs)", but unfortunately the the even hera slightly
head-in-the-sand or "unnecessecarily septal" style of thinking about it set
in with the "(especially alcohol or narcotiic drugs)" part.

Some of the worst and most didactically damaging I have seen has been in
books written by neurologists.
The most sophisticated and deceptively insightful of these can be found in
the book Vigilance and Habituation by Jane F. Mackworth. [Paperback
published 1969 by "Penguin Education" 14 080095 6. ]

She starts-off the book (after the introduction) as follows:

"One of the guiding factors in the evolution of animals has
been the principle that change is dangerous. The organism
is bombarded with a continuous stream of stimuli, and by
neglecting those which are predictable and readily recognizable
as unimportant, all the mechanisms of detection and response
are left free to react at maximum efficiency to the new and
potentially dangerous event. As we become used to them,
stimuli disappear from our consciousness. The ticking clock
is no longer noticed, even the roaring subway train outside the
window becomes a shadowy background in life....."

What I am pushing for is a more seamless (workably unified) fuzzy logical
(not necessarily also silly as in "fuzzsilly" %-| ) and Tolerance Principled
(not tepid but poignant) view and understanding of (the brain mechanisms
behind/functions of) "Habituation/Repression".

I have thought about Repression and Habituation as being a (even already
onomatopoetically reflected) "big-brother/little brother relationship"
(metaphorically put of course - I know little else).

Repression takes care of the rough and heavy stuff and "little brother"
(Habituation) of the mild and light stuff.

It is equally easy to consider the two words to represent a sliding scale of
from a prevention of the least significant potentially self-defeating focuse
of actention being actually wastefully paid actention to, to the most
significant and potentially most painful/distressing focuse of drastically
self-defeating actention being actually paid actention to.

The "stuff" being the instinctive (and soon enough also learnt) sensory
detection and weighting of "life-situational significances" (on the
adversity-side of significance, so to speak).

Or, still more EPTly expressed:

Without a capacity for highly specific "synaptic [or selective] Hibernation"
of "synaptic Hibernation imploring type stressors" [still SHITS for short]
to moderate more primary instinctive self-regulatory reflexes (than synaptic
Hibernation 'itself'), a "fast and dramatic SHITS" (the most typically
conventionally envisioned meaning of the word trauma) could lead to an acute
and lethal stress-overload, and a "slow SHITS" (or slowly or only very
gradually traumatizing
circumstances) would lead to that a fiendishly futile (throughout phylogeny
also most likely to end up being lethal) actention modules within the
modular "actention selection system" becoming energized by limited resources
of vital energy.

With sources of mild irritation we are less compelled (by the lesser weight
phylogenetically given to such mild forms of adversity) to immediately try
to physically move
away from them; but if they keep on coming and no physical flight or fending
off is
possible, then even a for a short period very mildly irritating (or perhaps
initially just novel and responded to by an orienting reflex) stimulation
will summate into SHITS type (slowly traumatizing - preconsciously
filter-out/prevented from being fully or at all felt, or from being "paid
futile and self-defeating actention to").

Such life-situations [that as if "contain" (in difference to the very worst
cases of SHITS which can be said to "consist" - almost exclusively - of)
physically inescapable causes of adverse 'conditioning' being simultaneously
instinctively self-regulated to by Habituation/Repression] can be what an
individual has to live in for years on end.
E.G., a parent's or parents' more or less consistently and severly twisted
and frozen facial
emotional tone - e.g. of blandness, anger, disgust, or a placating smile or
expression of fear or subserviant meakness; not unusually combined and a
chronic falling short of physically and comfortingly touching its - for all
such nourishing stimulation
needy - offspring-audience.

Such chronic and inescapable "absence type" adversity  can be very toxic;
and so, in order that toxic shock be prevented, selective freezing of
acutely allergic reaction are necessary for survivial. (Again metaphorically

IOW, "synaptic Hibernation imploring type situations" does not just by
definition lead to "synaptic Hibernation" but to the formation of all
relevant kinds of memories. However, the both most relevant AND insidious
type of
SHITS-specific memory, to form, is that which can be called CURSES.
"Conditioned-in, Unconsciously Reverberating stressors - SHITS-type such -
Effecting Symptoms.]

There is even a tissue-irritaion analog to this:
In many cases where individuals are culturally or by familial habits
exposed, from early
childhood, to foods they are not able to properly digest, then a long phase
of self-regulatory symptom-masqueing adaptation can prevent acute allergic
symptoms for years or decades -- until, as often happens, the cell-chemical
(somatic and neurological) components of this system of defense (of this
kind of "selective Hibernation") brakes down.

One result of such chronic but masqued (or life-situationally adapted-to)
irritation - not just in the case
of the very vast and obvious example of tobacco smoking (or snuffing) - is
cancer. (In this case cancer in the lungs, or gums/nose/stomach,
respectively - depending also on genetic predisposition for the disease.)

[BTW, cancers can in most cases be thought of as a legacy of a primordially
naturally selected propensity of single-cell individuals to take the
last-ditch option to reproduce when pressed by an easy to imagine
"Irritating Cloud Type Situation" (if extrapolated to much later in animal
evolution, ICTS type situations can - as an alternative to "selective
Hibernation imploring type situations" (SHITS for short) - also be thought
to stand for "Inducing CURSES Type Situation. This reasoning is more EPT
than so but for here that has to be all I say about it.]

> > Pity you don't you see that what you are doing is religious
> Explain how it's so, Peter.

Jesus is your idol and a neuro-topologically rerouted substitute for loving
parents - whether you know it, or can admit it to yourself, or not.

> > 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'?

He sure was AEVASIVEly addicted to his deluded belief that he was "the son
of God". (But there are of course many more crazy or irrational  aspects of
religion than that.)

Nobody knows what exogenous drugs of addiction he was, possibly in addition,
hooked on?

> 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.

Above, before the stroppily stopping "Period", you asked me to be explicit
explaining to you how you can be as religiously irrational as you are.
Remember? I don't please have look back!

BELOW, you are dropping your pants by telling me (people) that you will [by
clear implications ONLY] listen with interest to anyone's attempt to explain
NOT how you can be as religious (or one may equally well say "delusionally
believing") as I see you being but "...to explain how it could
be that Jesus Knew!" And, you even arrogantly announce your non-budgeable
(rigidly set) position (or prejudicial stand) on this matter with an
unmistakable pair of single quotation marks around the word

> 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.

Fully believing, or even thinking that it might be possible, that Jesus was
the son of God (and on top of that, that he knew how brains work) is a state
of mind that is totally mutually exclusive of an EPT position on
omniscientifcally oriented philosophical matters.


More information about the Neur-sci mailing list

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