A Theory of Neuropeptides?
k p Collins
kpaulc at [----------]earthlink.net
Fri Jan 9 00:48:39 EST 2004
"Peter F." <effectivespamblock at ozemail.com.au> wrote in message
news:pHnLb.69$Gf3.1853 at nnrp1.ozemail.com.au...
> "k p Collins" <kpaulc@[----------]earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:jK8Lb.16101$6B.13829 at newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net...
> > Hi Peter.
> > "Peter F." <effectivespamblock at ozemail.com.au> wrote in message
> > news:tjVKb.414$Tl1.9573 at nnrp1.ozemail.com.au...
> > I assume you're replying to my post. [Please leave the
> > headers when you reply to my posts.]
> > > You are not wrong!
> > >
> > > It is in *every way* plausible (i.e., not just
> > > because it has been experimentally evidenced)
> > > that some *key* type glutaminergic neurons
> > > ("key" in respect of what I am about to suggest -
> > > or perhaps rather assert and conclude), *can*
> > > start to release substance-P at a 'certain' treshold
> > > of excitatory (at least potentially directly distress,
> > > or flight, motivating) firing, AND at some still
> > > higher frequency (or same frequency but longer
> > > duration?) some opioid type neuromodulator.
> > > [...]
> > If you check, you'll find all of this is in what I posted.
> > And it's all discussed, further, in AoK.
> > "Pain" is a form of "information overload", and "biological
> > reward" is a servo-mechanism with respect to attentional
> > "supersystem configurations".
> > The amygdala plays a role in both, along with the other
> > TD E/I-minimization mechanisms that are discussed in
> > AoK, but the amygdala is expressly involved in nervous
> > systems' handling of "information overload" [in NDT,
> > "TD E/I(up, up)", or "acelerating TD E/I"].
> > In my previous post, I was addressing the full specturm
> > of "information overload", not the "functional multiplexing"
> > [AoK, Ap9] involved in "pain" and "reward".
> > Seeing the Neurochemistry without seeing the globally-
> > integrated TD E/I-minimization dynamics just doesn't
> > work, Peter.
> > Take any of the listed pharmacologically-delineated
> > partial subsystems that you listed in your post, and treat
> > it as a 'stand-alone' 'information-processing sys-
> > tem', and all one comes up with is 'alchemy'.
> I did not address you, but so far I agree with you! :-)
> > None of them function in the ways that are described
> > in your list. Everything that's attributed to them occurs
> > as functions of =globally-integrated= nervous system
> > dynamics. The studies that attribute such 'functionality'
> > to pharmacologically-delineated 'subsystems' 'just'
> > ignore the global-integration, Falsely attributing this or
> > that to that or this pharmacologically-delineated
> > 'system'.
> > These studies would have it that, anywhere one looks
> > within a nervous system, 'there is' whatever they're
> > looking for - =because= everything that occurs with-
> > in nervous systems occurs as a function of globally-
> > integrated dynamics [so some of it is, literally, every-
> > where within nervous systems [within the brain]].
> > But what good does Falsely attributing whole inform-
> > ation-processing dynamics to pharmacologically-
> > delineated 'systems' do?
> It is fun and not necessarily (entirely) false. In fact, or at least to
> the 'filtering/focusing/fixing' functions performed by certain
> neuromodulators correspond to contents qualities/levels and intensities of
> Consciousness in a *roughly* (or only very approximate - even very vague -
> *but fun to recognize*) neuromodulator-specific way.
> But you (people) are of course free to disagree. :-)
It's just that no pharmacological substance does anything,
in its entirety - in a way that acts like a 'stand-alone arbi-
Everything's functionality is =integrated= within whole
nervous system function.
So, even though there are, in fact, detectable pharmaco-
logical correlates ["of course"] they are like the characters
comprising a sentence, not having 'meaning' in and of
'Meaning' occurs as a function of the overall 'context'
that's established when a collection of characters are
brought together, in an 'appropriate' sequence to yield
a group-organized "sentence".
It's like this within nervous systems. Any pharmacological
'event's significance derives in everything that's going-on
all around it.
Since the latter stuff varies tremendously, and since the
parmacological 'event' does, in fact, acquire its functional
significance in accord with all that's going-on all around
it, the functionality inherent in the pharmacological 'event'
is, necessarily, as variable as everything that's going-on
all around it.
Yet, it's commonplace to hear of 'studies' that 'point' to
this or that pharmacological manipulation as 'being' a sort
of 'magic bullet' with respect to profoundly-altering nervous
Truth is, that those who produce such 'studies' just don't
comprehend how nervous systems process information in
always-globally-integrated ways, and the pharmacological
'interventions' that they champion do produce modified
nervous system function, but never in any way that is actually
constructive with respect to global-integration.
The various pharmacological substances are in-there, =not=
because they have particular stand-alone 'powers', but be-
cause they enable evolution's refinement of the overall 3-D
energydynamic that occurs as a function of the globally-
integrated =whole=. They actualize this refinement-enabling
in their existences as "switch-junction building-blocks" that
build-in this or that refinement of global functionality =with-
out= disrupting anything that's phylogenetically-older within
global nervous system function.
In this way, the various pharmacological substances constitute
a form of "chemical insulation" which, as is discussed in AoK,
Ap9, itself, reduces directly to TD E/I-minimization.
All of this is referred to in NDT as "functional multiplexing=.
There =is= great promise in pharmacological approaches to
intervention with respect to 'abnormal' nervous system func-
tion, but, until folks comprehend what's discussed here [and
the rest of what's discussed in AoK] folks'll 'only' muck-up
'abnormal' nervous system function, more, by trying to attribute
'discrete portions' to this or that within the globally-'integrated'
nervous system functionality to that or this pharmacological
substance, as if the functionality is 'embodied-in' the pharma-
cological substance itself. For the reasons discussed above,
this is =NEVER= the case, so it's Absolutely-Necessary to
get, and keep, what's discussed here =straight=.
> > None.
> > But it does 'push folks away from' understanding the
> > globally-integrated information-processing dynamics.
> > [In my prior post, I was replying to the previous post
> > with specific respect to the hypothesis that peptides
> > sort of 'store information-overload',
> I, in my post, tried to at least touch on the fact that
> *they do*; and that they do by pre and post synaptic
> "gating" of amygdala originating axons WHEN these signal
> alerts about some "selectiv Hibernation imploring type"
> adverse aspect of the individuals current, OR some such
> PAST (no longer environmentally caused) life-situation.
They are as 'characters' in a 'sentence'.
What's actually going-on is defined in the overall 'context'
of the 'sentence', which is =always= TD E/I-minimization
which is directionally-ordered with respect to nervous
systems' "internal frames of references" [IFRs] - "the
special topological homeomorphism of central nervous
systems", as it is discussed in AoK.
Noting that this or that is "gated" says nothing, unless
the global 3-D energydynamics which imbue it with
meaning with respect to TD E/I-minimization within the
IFR is simultaneously described.
A specific "gating" 'event' can be anything, depending
upon the rest of what's going-on all around it.
There's =always= "ramp architecture" [AoK, Ap3, 5,
6, & 7] involved. Opponent processes are =always=
activated relative to each other - like flexor and extensor
musculature - like the "sympathetic" and "parasympathetic"
autonomic 'nervous system' divisions, etc.
To discern functionality at pharmacologically-delineated
'levels', one has to see the the relative-activation stuff, and
doing that necessitates recourse to the globally-integrated
One cannot say =anything= about any pharmacologically-
delineated partial-'system' without recourse to the globally-
This's =WHY= NDT emphasizes "TD E/I-minimization".
TD E/I-minimization is the unifying-ever-present stuff
through which global-integration is actualized.
All of this stuff has been in AoK all along, but it's, apparently,
'not communicated' sufficiently - mostly because it was derived
in my unique(?) experience, back in the "Terrible Times", when
I required myself to work single-mindedly with respect to
'going into the jungle, finding it, and dragging it out, to Give to
my Brothers and Sisters in Humanity - because I just saw that
it had to be in-there, and that it had to be rendered Visible,
and comprehensible - if Humanity is to Survive.
You know, the stuff of my so-called 'delusions of grandeur' :-]
It's not anything of the kind. It's just that my early experience
allowed me to see that there was 'something' really-important
that was 'missing' within Human interactive dynamics, and my
early experience also imbued me with a 'fierceness' with re-
spect to doing what needs to be done - "no excuses".
So I did it.
The 'problem' is that folks' being able to comprehend this stuff
is dependent upon some semblance of experiencing what's in
So, I've 'rambled' for this decade, working to 'paint that picture'
so that folks could experience it's stuff, in a, hopefully, Gentle-
So, please Forgive me if I continue in that way :-]
While discussing the Neuroscience, I also have to give folks
that semblance of my experience - so that the need for doing
the work, inherent, can also be seen.
[This said, yes, I do understand, and have all along, that,
when individuals 'stumble-upon' this or that that I post,
in relative 'isolation' [sans the overall context], they'll tend
to be 'put-off'.
It's 'Hard', but there's nothing that I can do about it.
I write for folks who've been following the discussion all
along. It's them to whom I've been giving my experience.
And you are one of these folks, Peter.
I receive your 'cautions' with long-growing fondness.
ken [k. p. collins]
> Adversity detecting amygdala neurons certainly play
> a significant and central role but they are not the only
> actors in need of occasional (or chronic - whence a
> SHITS have been stored as CURSES) moderation by
> self-regulatory inhibitory feedback.
More information about the Neur-sci