[Neuroscience] Re: Wherefore art thou Neuron Code?

Entertained by my own EIMC via neur-sci%40net.bio.net (by write_to_eimc from ozemail.com.au)
Thu Apr 5 02:26:42 EST 2007


"r norman" <r_s_norman from _comcast.net> wrote in message 
news:1c77131mfhimf13kbu2fkgeb1q4kimbq6h from 4ax.com...
> 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?

I am not so arrogant that I will advice you - of all people! - where and how 
to look for existing evidence. (And how to detect the conspicuous absence of 
anything to the contrary.) That is (somewhat specifically), regularly 
occurring (over and over again) evidence for the pertinence of my marginal 
enrichment of primal theory by an etymologically pioneering terminology with 
an evolutionary psychobiologal takt. (Though, admittedly, it is a "takt" 
that is more punny and 'pooetical' than poetical.)

However, I'll respond by linking to something I spotted today: 'something 
tentatively semi-conclusive' that points in the same 'science steered' 
direction - although not as far (or in depth) - as "EPT".

http://www.newscientist.com/data/images/archive/2566/25661201.jpg

P 




More information about the Neur-sci mailing list