nm_fournier at ns.sympatico.ca
Tue Mar 16 20:29:53 EST 2004
Oops one thing that I did not state previously.
Anyway, Ken it really is good work and good approach.
"NMF" <nm_fournier at ns.sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:zmO5c.15527$E71.984533 at news20.bellglobal.com...
> I recently received a copy of your AoK piece (provided by Matt). I agree
> with every one of his comments. I have not spent a great time reading
> piece, however, many of the concepts that you have discussed in the past
> have an appropriate context. The abbreviation issue that was brought up
> earlier is something that I feel can be resolved if you ignore making
> reference to this paper in contexts where the majority of your readers
> not read the copy, and I would suggest to stop using abbreviations and
> writing each word out. These are your own words and your own definitions.
> They are not known to everyone else.
> There were some parts that need to be reworked and your interpretations
> actually inconsistent with neuroanatomical evidence. (Your discussion on
> the hypothalamus and reticular formation are one example. Your ideas
> outdated). These were slight mistakes and overgeneralizations. (Your
> discussion on the amygdala with respect to TD E/I minimization and
> information flow had interesting features and parts that were I disagree
> Although the general thesis was something that I agreed, especially with
> respect to the entire concept of TD E/I minimization and the effects on
> information flow, there were some parts that I would still disagree with
> on. For example, your premise in supporting the importance of the
> inhibitory proclivity of the nervous system is valid, yet it is an
> overgeneralization in some instances. There are many circumstances that
> emerge that are quite deleterious from the effects of inhibition. The
> situation is more complex then what you have presented. For instance, too
> much inhibition can cause seizures. Too much inhibition will interfere
> memory consolidation. I agree there must be a balance between excitatory
> and inhibitory tendency, however, reading your work that idea of "balance"
> is not really apparent. But in any case, many of the overall concepts are
> things that I agree with you about.
> One thing that might be nice would be a mathematical conceptualization of
> this TD E/I minimization ratio. Irregardless of what you believe or have
> suggested previously regarding mathematical conceptualization, all of
> processes you describe are quantifiable. Do these calculations and if
> are in accordance with experimental data, then you have something.
> When reading the previous post presented by Matt. All of his points were
> valid. I believe you have underestimated the contemporary view that
> neuroscientists have now on brain functioning. There have been many
> advances since when you complied these concepts in the 70's. Even by your
> own accord you have stated on numerous occasions that you do not read the
> contemporary neuroscience literature. This is a bad idea. For example,
> your discussion has completely ignored the contribution of the nuclear
> basalis, a contribution that would basically fit well with your concepts
> TD E/I minimization. However, you have suggested on numerous occasions,
> "Should I eat or read neuroscience papers?". Well, with this statement in
> mind, your continue believe that your approach is novel makes sense. You
> haven't read anything current and do not know what the contemporary views
> are. Thus, it makes sense and we should not continue to inform you about
> this point.
> Another question posited by Matt that I believe still hasn't been
> "Why should I accept your concepts when the same concepts are applied in
> context that is generally accepted by my contemporary peers. The
> concepts are
> measurable and have the appropriate discourse for expression?"
More information about the Neur-sci