First, I stand on the overall position of what I've posted, which
said that, if there was a prolonged 'extreme' form of experience,
then TD E/I(up) will occur, which correlates with AoK's discussion
with respect to the "zone of randomness" [Ap4], with all the
ramifications that're discussed in AoK.
I'll note, here, that in your prior post, you didn't state the
'directionality' of the sunlight correlation.
John H. wrote in message ...
>>"Kenneth Collins" <k.p.collins at worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
>news:0kwa9.5613$p%3.429909 at bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...>> Hi John.
>> I expect that the augmented-sunlight correlation actually 'points'
to
>> a functional correlation that has to do with the 'stress' a Mother
>> endures while she's carrying her Infant.
>>No,
"no" what?
>in the MS studies it was found that in spite of lack of sunlight
some
>populations have v. low MS rates. The current opinion is that such
>populations have high intakes of vitamin D via fish.
First, I note, again, that you didn't state such in your prior post
[at least not in 'language' that say it plain].
But, beyond that, what are you, now, saying?
The nervous system is a biological system. Of course, if this or that
constituent is in a deficit-condition, such'll impact a biological
system's functioning.
The nervous system is a biological system. Ofcourse, if this or that
driving dynamic occurs in an 'extreme' form, such'll impact a
biological system's performance, and can be what underpins
'depletion' of constituents of the biological system.
It's why I ask, "'no' what?"
You're completely 'ignoring' the =fact= that the nervous system
modifies itself as a function of the stuff that drives its
activation.
>I agree, MS is an immunological condition,
I've no 'problem' with such, but in my reply to your prior post, I
was addressing 'normal' nervous system dynamics being driven by
'extreme' conditions, not immune-system function.
>don't really think schizophrenia is an autoimmune
>disease except in the broadest sense;
Again, in my reply to your prior post, I was addressing 'normal'
nervous system dynamics being driven by 'extreme' conditions, not
immune-system function.
>which is easier for me than most
>because I don't subscribe to the idea that the immune system can so
clearly
>delineate self from non-self.
I wasn't discussing immune system function.
I was discussing nervous system function.
I've discussed how, and why, nervous systems 'normally' clearly
delineate between 'self' and 'not-self'.
In my reply to your prior post, in the 'section' dealing with
'schizophrenai', among other things, I discussed how such
'delineation' can 'break-down' as a consequence of 'extreme'
experiential-environmental conditions.
>> Get it? Augmented exposure to sunlight tends to correlate either
with
>> relative-absence of 'leisure', or relative-abundance of 'leisure',
>> either of which constitute 'stressors', the first, via its
>> 'coersiveness', the latter via its tendency toward 'lack of
focus'.
>> In both conditions, the Mother's TD E/I tends to go
relatively-high,
>> which means that the Mother's biochemistry tends to go
commensurately
>> 'willi-nilli', which, can communicate to the fetus via shared
>> biochemical factors, thus, impacting fetal development.
>>Nothing to get, flawed assumption as above.
I stand on what I posted.
>> So, I suggect that the 'sunlight correlation' needs to be explored
in
>> terms of what it means with respect to these other factors.
>>>> Because, let's face it, if 'augmented sunlight' were, itself,
>> schizophrizogenic, then, back in our evolutionary roots, there'd
be
>> only 'schizophrenics', 'cause folks were in-sunlight, abundantly.
>>You've inverted it, its lack of sunlight.
In your prior post, you didn't state the 'directionality' of the
sunlight correlation.
I stand on the overall position of what I've posted, which said that,
if there was a prolonged 'extreme' form of experience, then TD
E/I(up) will occur, which correlates with AoK's discussion with
respect to the "zone of randomness" [Ap4], with all the ramifications
that're discussed in AoK.
>> The next thing is with respect to 'early-onset' wide-spread
>> cell-loss. As is discussed in AoK, Ap8, this can occur as a
function
>> of a Child experiencing long-term "consistent inconsistency". My
>> studies lead me to Assert that any Child can be driven to
>> 'schizophrenai' via experiencing of long-term "consistent
>> cinonsistancy".
>>If your argument is true we should all be schizophrenic because our
culture
>is consistently inconsistent.
Whose culture? I thought you were in Austrailia?
Anyway, within any 'culture' consistent-inconsistency is, typically,
not the 'norm' because, typically, within any interactive-group,
there's 'coersed-consensus' that's consistent to an 'extreme'. The
only 'difficulty with respect to such is, as I've discussed in recent
posts, the nervous system tends, strongly, to automatically 'blind'
itself to the coersed-consensus stuff, leaving folks subjected to it
feeling that it's just 'normal' stuff. Humanity-wide, the 'mantra'
with respect to such is "It's just human nature [don't bother trying
to change anything, it's just human nature]." [Your reply to my
response to your prior post, and your only other reply to anything
I've posted during this online 'life, exert 'force' toward some
'goal' known only to you.]
Me? "Whittle, whittle, whittle... [AoK, Ap5]
>> The cell-loss derives in TD E/I-minimization, which 'blindly' and
>> automatically 'eliminates' any neural activation that can be
>> eliminated via TD E/I-minimization without resulting in TD
E/I(up).
>>>> 'Eliminated' neural activation correlates to cell-atrophy.
>>Cell loss precedes loss of activation, cell loss precedes noticeable
>cognitive decline.
Do you know the meaning of "built-in redundancy"?
Nervous systems have such in large-measure, so, of course, the
built-in redundancy must be 'eliminated' before there will be
'certifiable' symptioms.
But, if one looks, one will also easily observe behavioral correlates
of the 'abnormal' cell-death long before the onset of 'certifiable'
symptoms.
And one needn't restrict one's observations to the subject. One need
just study the subject's experiential circumstances [of corse,
without 'confounding' the subject's experiential circumstances. e. g.
without the 'magic-wand' of one's presence evoking experiential
circumstances which are other than the subject's experiential
circumstances [like consistently-inconsistent stuff being,
temporarily, 'put-on-hold' because an 'observer' is present. I see,
and document, this sort of 'magic-wand' stuff routinely, which
discloses the 'ugly' reality that folks're 'aware' with respect to
the 'inappropriateness' of the consistent-inconsistency what they're
inflicting upon the 'subject'.]
>In depression it is overactivation of the hippocampus
>that creates a problem not under activation.
Are you saying that I asserted such? I did not, not only in my reply
to your prior post, but =never=.
TD E/I(up) is 'overactivation'.
Neural activation going-'random' is 'overactivation'.
>You are making the same logical
>error so many 'pseudo Freudians' make: that mental illness is
something
>about aberrant information processing. Look at the range of
pathologies,
>neuropathologies cannot be so circumscribed, your paradigm compels
you to
>ignore the bleedin obvious: genetic defects(nuclear and mtDNA),
>immunological insults, autoimmune responses, exogenous nasties.
All you're doing, John, is projecting your own 'preconceived-notions'
stuff upon 'me'.
Why?
It's known only to you.
One thing is clear, thoug, you're either not reading what I'm
posting, or you don't comprehend what I'm posting, or you've read,
comprehended, and just want to see how I'll react to a pile of B. S.
heaped-up before me, or you're just out on a [rather mean-spirited]
'lark'.
>A model that doesn't evolve is dead.
I Agree.
If it's the case that you're 'serious' about this response of yours,
get thee before a mirror, and read your statement to yourself :-]
k. p. collins
>[...]
