>cats walking with complete spinal transection
>is Barbeau & Rossignol 1987.
Thanks, Ian, didn't know this paper. as I said, I guess including in this
case, cerebellum was always left connected, aside from the brain stem. As
you have not said anything about the two computational references I have
made, you either consider them useless or do not know the work. In the
opposite case you would interpret the first statement in a very particular
fashion, i.e. as an answer to why the cats were walking and Ken is right.
The majority of neuroscientists, today, do not have the answer to that. If
you think you do, answer the following: why there is no paper on walking
cats with no supratentorial structures as well as no cerebellum? Don't say
because they are dead.
>I think Konstantin has finally found the same problem I have with Ken.
>Ask a legitimate question, and you are told that it was dealt with in
>the '70s (with no real references of course). That's not education, or
Sure, there is a problem. Problem(s). So much harrased, Ken has irrational
expectation (only partially irrational): as in the past, he just will be
kicked in the butt and noone is interested in what he has to say. Why can't
you forgive him for his "tresspasses" as you may need to ask him to forgive
your's? (hopefully soon!). If the goal is to find a problem one would always
succeed, by way of persistence alone. I was looking for the content, not for
the problems. I found what I was looking for and am very happy with that. Do
not make it look as I am in your boat. My point is that the actual content,
perhaps delivered in a particular manner which may not be to everyone's
taste, has a number of extremely valid points.
>problems (like the one of spinal transection) do not exist.
When apparently intelligent people use such a extreme language, there is a
message which is different from tsuch a maximalistic choice of phraseology.
C'mon Ian, we all have personality. As we are joining the same old staff
kitchen, on the Internet, why don't we make good use of each others
personality, but keep staying kind, and keep reminding ourselves that
without such personalities our life would be as emotionally exciting as life
without guys like... Glen (where, the hell, his postings, I miss him) for
instance. I personally like to see the passion and am ready to forget some
wording because I am enjoying to see how the guy's mind works. One has to be
intelligent to be so brave and expose his/her thinking. There is no higher
level of observable harmony, aside from love, to become really fascinated.
Aside from learning from these people, it's like watching a fire -
mesmerizing! I see the same wonder in Ken as he is as cool as an old cranky
wisard can be. There is a lot to learn from him, if you are still interested
in learning. Bisides, what kind a scietific exchange is it if there is no a
good fight? Boooooring, as Homer would say. Relax, man! Ken told you that he
has his Reasons to do what he is doing, so, let it be.. Just respect is as,
I am sure , you respect human rights, equality and all these jazz? sure you
do, otherwise how would you achieve what you have achieved?!
>>Ken doesn't seem to be interested in how brains work.
That is just not fair to tell a guy who apparently spent his life on it.
C'mon, man! Only because he is in such a minority (socially), it doesn't
mean we should get together after school and kick the hell out of the guy
for whatever the hell is the reason, just making ourseves feeling better,
there are doors for it, just slum them as hard as you can and then say:
ooops, sorry, didn;t mean to.. something like that; remember what Bill Gates
said? don;t kick a nerd because, on day, he may give you a job.
>in how brains might work if they follow the rules he thinks they
Have you noticed that he has an absolutely similar problem with you and
you-like? What does it tell you? This is normal. It is called having
convictions. Felt he is wrong? Find a good argument which may work for him
and see how Ken responds. But above all, be kind. It'll take further with
those who may teach you something extremely important you need to know and
you just don't know yet that you do need to know it.
>have. And for the record, guys, brains "at rest," i.e. during boredom
>and simple relaxation with your kid (to use Konstantin's example) are
>not resting. There are millions of neurons firing at these times.
Hang on, Ian. Is you definition of "resting" brain involves neurons stop
firing? Are you learning about imaging from Scientic American? You've got to
consider what is the convention: resting imaging is an antipode to fMRI and,
in the majority of the cases, involves absense of "f", i.e. a specifically
designed way of uploading brain with a specific task. Course there is a huge
methodological problem with monitoring environmental or internal
thought/affect stimulation, but, again, the convention is that resting has
nothing to do with neurons stop firing. The cetral focus is a controlled
effort in discouraging brain from intentional (volitional) functioning
and/or seeting the brain for strong spontaneous self-stimulation. The
methodological problems with resting imaging are not greater as in
functional, but are different. I hope you do not need a lecture on what the
problems with functional imaging are.
>not an absence of activity, like coma. That's why coma is a
Sorry, Ian, no offence, but I will leave the undergrads fighting with you on
this one. You are faring the surface here and getting subjects mixed so
badly that one would need much more space than Ken sometimes is using, to
comment on this one.
>>AT the heart of it, good theories of brain function are based out of
>physiology, because that's what brains are. If you're not interested
>about how synaptic events, dendritic computation, plasticity, parallel
>processing, or neuromodulatory substances influence signaling of
>neuronal assemblies (or consider them mere "constraints"), then you're
>not interested in brains.
So, you really do not know what Ken is talking about, including how much
physiology, in a different form, is in what he is talking about. Just sad.
I would like to thank you for making it so clear as before reading this
statement I was absolutely perplexed with why the computational arm of
neuroscience managed to get out so much more practical science than the
pre-, peri- and clinical neuroscience. What you are saying is that unless
one is talking exactly within the paradigms of the contemporary physiology
and what you are refering to the connectivism type of thinking, it is not
science of brain. You actually go further than that:
You're interested in philosophy, not
>neuroscience. Please move threads accordingly.
Allow me to get "Ian's hut" on and approach you with the venom you have
indulged yourself in placing onto other people:
Ian, you have completely revealed yourself - you are a scientific pagan; a
good man who is as naive as well intentioned. You have no insight how much
you are both a child and a victim of scientific positivism and are a part of
what has caused a crisis in neuroscience, for quite a while now: a lot of
false prophets and little output. You think that the philosophy is a waste
of your time. More to that, you have the audacity, after patronizing all of
us describing how Ken's 1st message was 100x smarter than anything else
written in this group, then acusing him of being a moron, to now suggesting
to a lot of us that any attempt to interpret the physiology with any level
of abstraction, whether it is computational, or systemic, or any other path
of, sometimes, sequential - from lower to a higher- abstraction of
physiolological phenoma would be as not belonging to neuroscience. What a
brilliant case of an attempt to orchestrate a goup-wise rejecting
opportunity based on personal feeling of complete and utter inadequacy when
dealing with a slight elevation of abstraction in neuroscience!
You know what? You just have committed a suicide, sorry to say that. What
you have said here is beyond an opportunity for social scientific recovery.
Not in a near future. This is just bad stuff, man.
>thread and stop coming into every single neuroscience thread and
>refusing to discuss your philosophy in a constructive manner.
If this is an example of a "constructive guy" describing what is
"constructive" I need to refer you to a few communistic regimes that are
still kicking around. You will fit well, IV. Alternatively, you can follow
the suggestion of a good and confident broadcaster: don't like what I have
to say, turn off the bloody radio,... Saddam.
Ken has the same rights you do. Incidently, he has more to share and, guess
what, a few of us are ready to make an investment into understanding where
he is coming from. Leave Ken alone, Ian. Be a good sport!