ken's work

NMF nm_fournier at
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> wrote in message
news:zmO5c.15527$E71.984533 at
> Ken,
> 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 outdated).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
> with).
> 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 mailing list