TMS Question

Sir Frederick mmcneill at
Thu Mar 3 09:58:02 EST 2005

On Fri, 04 Mar 2005 00:54:06 +1100, Matthew Kirkcaldie
<m.kirkcaldie at> wrote:

>In article <9htd21ltoju5og0iv4rrvtnp9n7uc4sk1o at>,
> "Sir Frederick" <mmcneill at> wrote:
>> Affect is : the conscious subjective aspect of an emotion considered apart 
>> from
>> bodily changes
>> Where effect is : something that inevitably follows an antecedent (as a cause 
>> or
>> agent)
>Er, yeah, quite aware of the meaning of the terms.  I meant that in the 
>case of Zeki's experiment, the findings were about the perceptual 
>phenomenon and not the affective response of the subjects, and that it's 
>a fairly ambiguous thing to talk about the affective dimension of 
>pulsing MT to disable motion perception.  Much the same as talking about 
>the affective response to poking the eyeball to make a phosphene.
>> Thus if a TMS session produces emotion such as fear its effect is an affect,
>> otherwise it is only an effect.
>Meaningless really - I mean an MRI made me more afraid than being TMSed, 
>and I am more afraid of heights than either of them.  What's your point?
>> The point is the obscurity you mentioned. Direct neural stimulation 
>> poses new challenges to the language.
>No, I think you'll find most sensory experiences involve direct neural 
>stimulation - what do you think does the sensing?  Action potentials are 
>the same regardless of how you generate them.  If you want to affect the 
>actions of the nervous system directly, without passing through 
>peripheral senses, get drunk or take LSD.  If you want to stimulate 
>neurons by other means than their usual stimuli, touch a 9V battery to 
>your tongue.  Language seems to cope reasonably well with those 
>situations (though not fully, I grant you).
>> Many neurological experiments on people show a 
>> compulsive need to explain by the subject by confabulation, 
>> the situation in socially acceptable ways.
>I'd be interested to hear about a specific example.  Again, it's hard to 
>see how this is relevant to people being unable to judge the motion of a 
>stimulus - unless they claimed to have forgotten their glasses, or 
>neglected to mention the erotic sensations the pulses triggered.  But 
>that's been claimed as well.
>Sir, I suspect you of idle sophistry.
I admit to that, though sophistry is sophistry though idle.
What better is there when you're 67 years old?
I've tried depression and blindness, sophistry is at least 
potentially threatening to the hubristic bound primate folk
(more fun).

Direct stimulation of neural (inside skull) structures is a new 
avenue (without physically poking something in there). 
I am always looking for ways to overthrow the ancient
folk paradigms on what it is and means to be human; 
the old paradigms suck and are getting us into trouble. 
Frederick Martin McNeill
Poway, California, United States of America
mmcneill at
Phrase of the week :
Humanity is far from perfect in its understanding, abilities, or
intentions. We must not imagine, however, that we and our
civilization are less than precious. We have the gift of
intelligence, and that is the finest thing this planet has ever
produced.-- Michael A. Seeds
 :-))))Snort!) Sweet Lemons

More information about the Neur-sci mailing list