Dear Sir ;-)
"Sir Knowitall" wrote:
> Open letter to Ken Kollins
>> Forthwith I shall use the abbreviation MIOYS -- for "My Interpretation Of
> Your Statement (in A0K)". Let me know your response to my interpretations.
>> When you write about the reticular formation
>> [[by the way, I've had fun
> contriving and making theoretical use of a related abbreviation --"RAT
> neurons" for Reticular Activating Type neurons"]]
>> you state:
>> "...stochastic activation output....is inherently a TD E/I ^ state that
> occurs as a ***topologically distributed tuning-precision void***
>> [[[MIOYS (especially the highlighted expression) is:
> A more or less diffusely distributed and localised increase of neural
> metabolising activity against an ideal back-ground (or ditto tendency)
> towards a least energy consuming yet alive and adaptive brain-tissue
> state ---(seemingly a tendency in harmony with the "cosmic law of
it's straight-forward. as is repeatedly noted in AoK, TD E/I(up) activationis
relatively-random activation. relatively-random activation is relatively-
ill-defined activation. hence, "tuning-precision voids"... like the "static"
one hears when one tunes one's radio between strong (well-defined)
the nervous system "recognizes" the TD E/I(up) condition as being anti-
correlated with survival, and the simple principle, which is tightly-coupled
with what's described by 2nd Thermo (wdb2t), has profound consequences
within neural information processing dynamics, all the way up to volition.
everything's outlined in AoK.
> And, when you state (roughly represented) that functionally associated
> mechanisms "whittle down" that "tuning-precision void", what you are
> describing as in reality taking place
> is that we (a "being a neural animal") **reflect** a *self-regulatory
> process* that has 'been aimed', primarily by the evolutionary process (a
> process largely explainable by way of Darwin's super-principle Natural
> Selection) ----
(it's better explained with respect to wdb2t.)
> a process in which "the aim" involves fulfilling our needs
> (including our early developmentally timed "primal needs". That is, our
> innate needs to be really "Loved" at the right times and in the right ways,
> especially during our formative stages of our lives.
it's more than that. everything reduces to TD E/I minimization. over
"time",stereotypical stuff (including the genes) develops for the "sole" purpose
of minimizing TD E/I, which at the "molecular" and "atomic" levels is
equivalent to the optimizing of energy flow within every "part" of an
organism... "random" energy flow is relatively less-powerful than is
highly-ordered energy flow... the more ordered the energy flow within
an organism, the more work the organism can perform. the more work
an organism can perform, the more likely that the organism will survive.
> [["Primal needs" can be given and has been given rational-scientific as well
> as sometimes also touching and beautiful definitions. E.g. as per
> authorship such as Arthur Janov's, Alice Miller's, Jean Liedloff's,
> Fredrick Leboyer's, John Bowlby's, and many others'.]]
there is only one "primal imperitive"... to climb the energy gradient that
iswdb2t. everything else follows to degree that an organism has success
at this one thing... that's why "all the fuss" is made about TD E/I(min)
in AoK. it's exceedingly-rich, and i'm hoping to be able to give an in-person
presentation one day, because its richness can only be touched upon
in these little-snippets discussions... i expect that most (but not all) folks
experience my recent posts re. "Yugoslavia", and it's needlessness, for
instance, as being "absurd", but if the presentation ever happens, folks'll
find everything's in-order all the way down to the level of ionic
conductances... the needlessness of the "Yugoslavian" slaughter is
=obvious= all the way down to the ionic level... and so is everything
of the prevailing ignorance which has, on both sides, embraced the
so are things such as free will, consciousness, love, hate, joy, sorrow,
anger, etc. everything's integrated, and shown to be the one thing.
> Although your description of functions and principles involved in the "TD
> E/I v" (use "v" because I have no down-arrow --- or do I?) is unusually
> thorough, the these functions have been described quite efficiently by Paul
> Bush http://www.keck.ucsf.edu/~paul/brain.html as the principle of
> "centre/surround excitation/inhibition".
> This, his, expression can be taken to include the principle of "lateral
> inhibition", or, IOW, **situationally** biased* mutual (lateral
> inhibitory) competition "for dominance" between parallel same-level
> actention modules at the same level of "program structural" [or "proster"
> (as per Leslie A. Hart)] integration --- as well as, at the same time,
> hierarchically sub or super-positioned (and of course innately
> threshold-prioritised) "actention modules".
i've preserved the documentation of NDT's development.
> "Actention modules" is related to e.g. Hebb's "neural assemblies" and
> what appears to be e.g. Gazzaniga's concept of brain modules.
>> "Actention modules" ("actention" used e.g. as in "focuses of actention") is
> a pragmatic (concEPTual) invention. That is, the term was tailor-made to
> allow the construction of an alluding and unusually self-defining and to me
> uniquely powerful (powerfully explanatory) acronym.
because the functioning of any "module" is only relevant in light of all the
activation that's occurring in all the other "modules", one must get beyond
the postulation of such "black boxes" to the level at which the nuts and
bolts of all the self organization exists, understand such, then hold it all
together while it self assembles in one's mind.
when this's done, the "boundaries" of the "modules" are seen to be only
artificially defined ("False Finitizations", AoK, Ap4).
there's TD E/I minimization. the various "mechanisms" all gain their
structure from the TD E/I minimization opportunities that remained
at every instant within evolutionary dynamics... when one looks,
everywhere one looks, one sees "the hand" of wdb2t sculpting
things... phylogenetically-late stuff gets sculpted out of the TD E/I
minimization (energy-flow optimization) opportunities that remain
at any "stage" of evolutionary dynamics. when a high-level TD E/I
minimization strategy is so successful that, while augmenting
TD E/I(min), it also creates a better solution to TD E/I(min) problems
that were "solved" by more-primitive TD E/I(min) mechanisms,
the more-efficient mechanism displaces the less efficient mechanism,
and the good husbanding of energy inherent in such, creates more
opportunities for TD E/I minimization.
and so it goes on and on.
> You use the term "homeomorphic".
>> MIOYS is that you are referring to the neuroanatomical (and I am sure
> hormonally integrated as well) channels/scheme for mapping the reality of
> having a physical-functional body that can but interact with and
> self-regulate at incoming influences of environmental factors; the sum total
> of which I have lumped-together into the expression/term
the definition i invoke is given in the "short paper" section of AoK (the first5
pages after the Dedication, TOC and Preface.
> Or, for representing (emphasising) the inclusion of past personal as well as
> past phylogenetic (come instinctive) (and possibly intermediate)
> life-Situationally caused factors of influence or determinants of how we
> behave at any one time, I sometimes use the expression "Total Situation".
>> MIOYS, "trophic changes of TD E/Iv" is: conditioned-in aspects of
> successful self-regulation.
yes, as above.
> MIOYS, "different super system configuration = different focuses of
> (or at least the subliminal state of competition that gives rise to our
> *always only transiently dominant* actentions.
it's more than this... to see the oneness, one has to carry through
theduality... attention and action are by-products of TD E/I minimization
within the biology... all "mechanisms" as functioning to achieve the
one end of TD E/I(min)... to the degree of such, "attention" is focused,
and behavior is precisely-defined, and has commensurate ability to
accomplish specific work.
> You use TD E/I minimisation "hunger" ---- instead of the state of needing or
> having unfulfilled needs and/or primal needs.
sorry, no i don't... there's an illusion of such, but "hungers" are,
themselves,only by-products within the overall dynamics... specifically, they
cognitive "handles" by presenting the organism with stereotypical "affect"
with respect to stereotypical TD E/I minimization requirements... they are
lake cognitive "balms" that assuage the TD E/I(up) tumult within, enabling
stereotypical "recognitions" within the drive-precedence hierarchy... the
affect correlated with food-hunger, for instance, just reflects the "state" of
tuning of the system, in which nutrient-intake has gained ascendency
with respect to TD E/I minimization... because TD E/I minimization cannot
occur unless there's energy sufficient to empower life.
everything else is the same, all the way up to the highest "levels" of
> The seeking of "TD E/Iv" = (include) the search for primal need fulfilment.
sensations of "need" are only by-products of the overall TD E/I
minimizationdynamics... this's why any "need can be turned off (for which i'm
> MIOYS, "the momentary TDE/I [is] a function of the **sum** of the
> individually unique learning that each person has experienced", is "Total
> (life-) Situation"
"experiential total"... of course, experience is experienced via the
geneticblueprint... but when one looks, one sees that the genetic blueprint
directly to the same stuff as TD E/I minimization (energy-flow optimization).
> MIOYS --- "DT holds that addiction reduces to the minimisation of TDE/I", is
> that the statement is aligned with the notion that "primal Pain" [Janov] --
> an obviously very common conditioned-in brain state -- does very often
> motivate (or at least tends to co-motivate) addictive behaviours (incl. drug
unless i've misunderstood what you've said, the refferents are more rich.
> [Re: Page two of ap 8 :2] MIOYS --- The mechanisms of depression is
> activated when **behaviour**......". The word "behaviour SHOULD IMHO have
> been "experiences".
> At Ap. 8:2 page 3, you might PERHAPS wrote something to the effect that
> 1. the state of depression is correlated with and caused by situations that
> give rise to a "TDE/I [that] remains high over an extended period"; and that
> "[the brain state/signature of depression is] a greatly elevated TD E/I"
it need only be prolonged because it constitutes a relatively-well
defined"state" within an, otherwise, ill-defined larger "state", and it,
can gradually "take over" everything, despite it's relatively-small, momentary,
>> (to me) you are de facto saying/describing that repression is a functional
> consequence of living (in) a "S.H.I.T.S." (one of my acronymal concEPTs) and
> you are also describing the "conditioned-in" residue of SHITS that I have
> given the alternative acronym-name (i.e. alternative to terms used by
> others) CURSES.
:-) i'm unfamiliar with your provocatively-chosen terminology, Sir.
> In one of my brain-theory "bibles", Alexander Luria's The Working Brain, he
> writes (in chapter 2) about (describes a principle characterised by) the
> reciprocal complementary relationship between what he calls "specific
> fibres" and "nonspecific fibres" [i.e. ditto types or sub-systems of neurons
> making up the nervous super-system -- my words and my reflecting comment].
> YOU use --- with roughly the same meaning --- (MIOYS) the words/labels
> "epicritic" and "protopathic", respectively.
if it's as you say, yes... the route i followed to the conclusions in AoK
isthoroughly documented... how far did Luria go in integrating things?
> Lastly (I could comment a lot more but think I should stop at this point):
>> MIOYS, "Topologically -distributed algebraic summation function", is that
> it has been quite similarly explained (but more simply -- to a layman and
> brain-ignorant person like I was --- by Leslie A Hart) as "program
> structures" ("prosters") functioning similar to "jukeboxes" and good old
> "summing-amplifiers". (Her? book "How the Brain Works" was the very first
> book about the brain I read.)
in my work, i deliberately didn't read any "syntheses". i figured that, if such
existing syntheses were correct, that any contribution that i could make
would be moot, ao i "looked elsewhere", at the level of the single-unit
studies, and at the level of the global neuroanatomy (basically what was
in _Truex and Carpenter_ and later _Carpenter and Sutin_, and many
sources like that... i went at it from the perspective of Physics, which
remains my first love... again, the route i followed is thoroughly
documented (which i emphasize because i'm always hearing of
"similarities" of the sort you raise) anyone who looks at the
documentation can follow it, and discover for themselves how
the concepts evolved.
>> I hope you read and comment on my "EPT".
i'm flat-out as i have been for decades, Peter. why don't youjust post a few
critical points here in bionet.neuroscience.
> This URL takes you most directly to the main EPT document is
>> Via www.ozemail.com.au/~fellin/portal.htm
> you can access all my web documents. And (hopefully) see why I
> enjoyed composing them.
>> I hope you (who seemed to me to be a kind and sensitive person) does not
> bad about the kind of humour I have used/have.
i still have a sense of humor... somewhere within my being :-) it's a biton the
"quiet" side, though.
> About your effort: Am, as I said before, very impressed by your
thank you. AoK is just bit of the whole, though. i wrote it in the hope
that folks'd want to hear more.
Cheers, Sir, ken
remove the "WhoopDeeDo" to respond