[Neuroscience] Re: Wherefore art thou Neuron Code?

r norman via neur-sci%40net.bio.net (by r_s_norman from _comcast.net)
Wed Apr 4 07:47:20 EST 2007


On Wed, 4 Apr 2007 14:20:43 +1000, "Entertained by my own EIMC"
<write_to_eimc from ozemail.com.au> wrote:

>"r norman" <r_s_norman from _comcast.net> wrote in message 
>news:dc0613d37d71dg9pcsp9up7hrskqd03jg8 from 4ax.com...
>> On Wed, 4 Apr 2007 10:24:47 +1000, "Entertained by my own EIMC"
>> <write_to_eimc from ozemail.com.au> wrote:
>>
>>>"r norman" <r_s_norman from _comcast.net> wrote in message
>>>news:q3k51397ohdvlt8ma2acrk5ipj6gur7pq3 from 4ax.com...
>>>> On Tue, 3 Apr 2007 17:27:19 -0400, "Glen M. Sizemore"
>>>> <gmsizemore2 from yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>><snip>
>>>>>
>>>>>>> More long-winded than I had hoped but there
>>>>>>>you have it.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That is why working on lobster  stomach (as in stomatogastric system)
>>>>>> is so much less worrisome!
>>>>>
>>>>>Wise of you to keep it short, Dr. Norman. You knew that saying anything
>>>>>more
>>>>>than one sentence would probably get me going again.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I don't actually mind long winded stuff if, like yours, it has some
>>>> actual content.  It is just that I am a bit preoccupied right now and
>>>> don't have the time to spend reading it that carefully and responding
>>>> to the technical details.  I do like the overall tone, though.
>>>
>>>My EPT interpretation of your discussion is simply this:
>>>
>>>Both of you are *potentially* and unknowingly scared [I'd say 'SHITScared'
>>>:-)] of what you would find if you analyzed habituation comprehensively
>>>enough (not just in depth but in dEPTh) and by force of this same scope of
>>>analytical logic you were brought close to touch on the topic of
>>>"repression".
>>>
>>>It is clear to me that this is a topic that to people near the norm of
>>>neuroscientific attitudes (where you two seem to be) is
>>>"effectively/presumably taboo".
>>>
>>
>> Perhaps people "near the norm of neuroscientific attitudes" simply
>> have a better perspective on what is good science.
>>
>> Sorry, I just could help myself!  But I am also arrogant enough to
>> actually believe it.
>
>I don't mind at all! :-)
>
>I have never had any reasons to doubt that you represent good science.
>
>All I am doing is no less arrogant perverse and punny "pushing of a barrow" 
>in the slipstream of good old conservative neuroscience. [I am well aware 
>that I would have far fewer legs to stand (or push with) were it not for the 
>fact that perceptive, clever, meticulous folk are have been so focused on 
>figuring and ferreting things out.]

If you specialized in studying millipedes, you would have more than
enough legs to stand on.  On the other hand, Kandel's sea slugs don't
have any! (unless you count the head-foot as one)

>The central content of 'my barrow' is the relatively simple fact (and idea) 
>that our evolution has inevitably incorporated active (and at least double 
>barrelled) blocking of maladaptive "actentions" (i.e. ~= behavioral 
>emotional and visceral responses) to painful sources of stimulation 
>(whatever these may be) -- plus a plethora of closely related insidious 
>consequences.

Objective, repeatable by independent observers experimental evidence
-- where  is it? 





More information about the Neur-sci mailing list