IUBio Biosequences .. Software .. Molbio soft .. Network News .. FTP

On the Automation of Knowing within Central Nervous Systems

Sir Knowitall fell_joinedby_in at one.net.au
Mon Dec 20 16:23:25 EST 1999


kenneth Collins <kpaulc at earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:385D0509.93B4D429 at earthlink.net...
> it's =Science=, Peter.
>
> AoK contains refs to the Neuroanatomical and Experimental evidence upon
> which NDT is based.
>
> you've long had AoK, but you've never challenged the stuff that's
> presented in AoK by pointing to contradictory Neuroanatomical and/or
> Experimental evidence.
>
> it's =Science=, Peter.
>
> K. P. Collins
>
KPC:-
"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."

PF:-
You obviously am instinctively yet not quite consciously recognizing the
heart/truth of the matter. Your interpretation above is not okey despite all
your proclamations (re AoK).

In relation to this your INTERPRETATION of the general function of the
reticular activating system ---
"the nervous system "recognizes" the TD E/I(up) condition as being anti-
correlated with survival" --- Alexander Luria more simply and appropriately
interpreted it in terms of (and to the meaning of):

The "nonspecific system" [of neurons, in respect of which I have found that
it "helps" {if nothing else in that mirth is mighty good for you} to call
them "Reticular Activating Type" neurons] AND ITS FUNCTIONAL-INTERACTIONAL
combination (as a general principle) with the "specific system" [of
neurons].

Your interpretation shows that you blatantly have failed to put this quite
central and fundamental principle -- the general functional significance of
reciprocisity between neurons of the specific and the nonspecific system --
in a simple yet maximally relevant explanatory perspective.

That is, this principle is co-fundamental to achieving a consistently and
**completely** science-aligned umbrella-understanding of how we become
selectively conscious (AND conversely, selectively unconscious) of/with the
different "specific" and "nonspecific" representational "feature contents"
and the varying degrees of deepth and intensity, that we are.

You DISTORTINGLY INTERPRET the role of of the "GREATER reticular activating
system" (which I here might refer to it as "GRAS").

[GRAS ~ consists of RAT neurons ~ who are: **only relatively** nonspecific
and diffusely projecting and located, acting/reacting with tonic type
releases of excitatory transmitters (at least in the case of most RAT
neurons), and they (the cell-bodies of RAT neurons) not only make up the
bulk and core of the brain-stem but also form the various reticular nuclei
that are part of the thalamus (and it might even be appropriate to consider
neurons of the substantia gelatinosa of the spinal chord to be part of the
GRAS).

The very heart of this your distortion, is the part-statement that the
energizing dimension supplied by the GRAS is "...anti-correlated with
survival",...."

I would go so far as to say this is a case of a rather serious
misinterpretation of *the human evolutionary and brain-functional aspect* of
What Is going on.

Here is another past example of when I have commented on a specific dubious
generalization you made in relation to the convolutions of the cortex. It
was reflected by this reply of yours:

KPC:-
> CORRECTION:
>
> >perhaps you're referring to sections that show the relatively-long
> >inter-cortical fibers doing gyrus-to-gyrus "U"-turns?
> >
> >obviously, going-by-way-of-a-"U" is longer than
> >going-by-way-of-a-straight-line.
> >
>
> it's been so long since my days in the attic on Farmington Avenue, when i
> worked all this stuff through.
>
> i got out the Neuroanatomical 'charts' (photocopies out of library texts
that i
> 'colored' and mounted on pasteboards :-) tonight and worked it through
again.
>
> i stand on what i've posted, even with respect to the relatively-short
> gyrus-to-gyrus, 'arcuate', inter-cortical fibers.
>
> to see the 'arrows', construct a simple example... select any group of
three,
> or more, inter-cortical projections. with the first, have its termination
> distribution's topography go one way, with the second, the inverse way.
have
> the third just be an any-way, but uniform, topographical distribution.
>
> into this mapped-mix, project the 'reticular system', in its
> globally-within-cortex relatively-uniform way.
>
> projections 1 and 2 will function inversely with respect to projection
3...
> very-good, for instance, with respect to the antagonistic activation of
flexors
> and extensors with respect to the activation of projection 3.
>
> another specific, more-complex, example, including 'ramp-architecture, is
> discussed in AoK, Ap6.
>
> this stuff embodies exceedingly-powerful information-processing
capacities.

> K. P. Collins (ken)





================
>Subject: Re: brain plasticity - what causes it?
>From: "\"Sir Knowitall\"" fell_followedby_in at one.net.au
>Date: Tue, 09 November 1999 02:17 PM EST
>Message-id: <3827674b at pink.one.net.au>
>
>
>ken collins <kckpaulc at aol.comABCXYZ> wrote in message
>news:19991108012908.15385.00000686 at ng-ba1.aol.com...

>[...]

>In all your theorizing you repeadedly fail to straight-forwardly address
the
>central relevant fact that (both) exogenous addictive substances and
>endogenous helps us/our brains achieve a greater or lesser degree of
>oblivion (selective unconsciousness) in respect of not just any currently
>ongoing "Selective Hibernation Imploring Type life-Situations", but the
even
>more widely ignored reality of Conditioned-in [Kept Hibernated, Hence]
>Unconsciously Remembered [SHITS-type] Stressors Effecting Symptoms (i.e.
>symtoms of a truly wide variety) -- or in short CURSES [alt. e.g.
>CKHHURSES].

'whatever'

>Symtomatic of that you do keep being AEVASIVE in this way, is that you are
>sometimes also profoundly discrediting yourself by inferring an greater
than
>symbolic meaning to the alleged "teachings of Jesus".

with respect to what i've posted With Respect to Jesus:

1st, there's much-more.

2nd, if you can post what you've posted, you either don't know the
Neuroscience, or you don't know the New Testament, or you don't know either,
because, if it were otherwise, the Truth in what i've posted just could not
be missed. it's all that glaringly-obvious.

with respect to my 'AEVASIVE'-ness, whatever such is, if it's not clear that
i've access to much-more information than does anyone else, and with respect
to which i'm 'commenting, let me make it clear that such is the case.

what i'm working to do is to bring everything in for a safe-landing, despite
some dynamics that are inclined toward things turning-out otherwise.

it "doesn't matter" what, if anything, 'comes to me'. all that matters is
that the understanding be communicated.

recently, things've been going-well, and it seems i'll be able to 'go away'
if such continues, but i can't, and won't, while there's anything left to do
with respect to assuring that the understanding will reach the Children in
its fullness. (although i'm getting ready to go offline again.)

so i'm 'juggling' a few things, a bit, to 'maintain the proper trim, as the
thing settles in. i don't 'like' having to do some of what i'm having to do,
but there's the need for everything i'm doing, despite the fact that
individuals see everything on the board, but only understand the the
pits-and-pieces that are relevant to their own eyes.

it's the only venu that's been open to me, after all. if there's only the
one 'place', then everything has to be done in the one 'place'.

as far as being 'evasive' goes, i fully-disclosed myself the better part of
two decades ago. after that, there remained no rationale for 'evading'
anything, which, it's my hope will be clear in the work of folks who bear
the Responsibility to comunicate the 'good, the bad, and the ugly'.

>If you are anyway not going to get anywhere with what you yourself are
>preaching, then at least get no-where straight. For goodness sake!

there's 'preaching', and there's Truth.

it's easy to discern the two, be-cause Truth Matters.

>
>Yours nevertheless understanding and well-meaning,

forgive me if i remain incredulous, but don't 'worry' about it.

cheers, Peter, ken (K. P. Collins)






More information about the Neur-sci mailing list

Send comments to us at biosci-help [At] net.bio.net