death of the mind.
pattyNO at SPAMicyberspace.net
Tue Jul 20 11:11:53 EST 2004
John Hasenkam wrote:
> "patty" <pattyNO at SPAMicyberspace.net> wrote in message
> news:%FPKc.131488$Oq2.52197 at attbi_s52...
>>John Hasenkam wrote:
>>>I think we cannot penetrate brain function in relation to behavior
> unless we
>>>first determine how the brain maintains stable output under such widely
>>>varying conditions. Neat trick.
>>But maybe we could look at that from the other way around. Maybe the
>>brain does not encounter such widely varying conditions. Maybe when the
>>brain is doing a very good job at what it has come to do, it encounters
>>the same conditions day after day. Ever wonder where we get the
>>impression that people never change? ... that the older people are,
>>the less they change? ... that the stability of our communities rests
>>on this principal? ... that the only way to change is to change your
>>environment first! ... that the people who have become good at that are
>>just those people who are our leaders.
> I didn't make my point clear. I was referring to constantly changing
> physiological conditions. Irrespective of the environment changes in various
> physiological processes impact on brain function yet it maintains a
> remarkably consistent output.
Your point came through loud and clear. We (at least i) have not been
trained to think of the brain as an organ who's job (as it were) was to
maintain constant output (obviously sensitive to the context in which it
finds itself). So that was a flash of sorts for me. I just started
there and gave my impressions of how that affected our lives. I can't
hope to shed any light on your question, i dont know anything about the
More information about the Neur-sci