[Neuroscience] Re: Convergent theorizing (was Re: Mirror, Mirror .... You Bloody Liar)

ian.vitro via neur-sci%40net.bio.net (by ian.vitro from gmail.com)
Sun Feb 18 10:43:49 EST 2007

At the risk of actually starting a conversation with Ken here, which I
may regret on account of his incomprehensibility (except for the first
post in this thread, which is 100x more intelligent than anything I;ve
ever seen you post) and inability to say anything in less than 5 posts
of several hundred words each, I think there may be serious issue with
your TD E/I stuff here.

You say, using your case of the cerebellum as an example, that nervous
systems shut down their own excitation to maintain an optimized TD E/I
ratio. This implies, however, that the optimal TD E/I ratio is
achieved when the brain is at rest, i.e. not signalling. It follows
directly from your postulate that excitation leads to inhibition,
which you say is a return to the optimal TD E/I state. The disturbing
part about this is that the logical extension of this postulate is
that TD E/I ratio is optimal during unconsciousness, coma, and
especially death.

The fact that brain can shift the TD E/I in a rapid and coordinated
fashion through various areas is what makes them good at doing
everything that brains do. The fact that the bursts are often short is
what makes them able to compute many discrete stimuli in a rapid
period of time. However, there are often long-lasting events of either
excitation or inhibition; or rhythmically generated waves of activity
that are equally important to motivation, emotion and cognition. And
all of them violate your theory of the purpose of brains being to
optimize TD E/I ratios - not to mention disorders of brain activity
such as epilepsy. I would say that the purpose of brain is better
stated in your theoretical framework as a generator of TD E/I
imbalances as a result of environmental stimuli. Think about it.

Ian Vitro

On Feb 17, 9:54 pm, "Benjamin" <Benja... from verizon.net> wrote:
> "Entertained by my own EIMC" <write_e... from ozemail.com.au> wrote in messagenews:45d695f1$0$24710$5a62ac22 from per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...
> > "Benjamin" <Benja... from verizon.net> wrote in message
> >news:ykjuh.19512$pb7.634 from trndny09...
> > [...]
> > To my mind comes the effect of how hostages can come to "value" their
> > nasty bank-robbing "hosts" - something that happened in Stockholm in the
> > seventies and came to be called "the Stockholm syndrome".
> > [...]
> My 'alternative' thought...
> Are you referring to =my own= not expect-
> ing anything 'in return'?
> I understand that this 'must' seem
> 'strange' to others -- because NDT
> and more-encompassing TH are
> the most-significant stuff that's, yet,
> been done in Science -- so why not
> 'expect something in return'?
> It's a 'bridge' that I had to cross a
> =long= 'time' ago -- I saw that I had
> to focus upon doing 'just' what Need-
> ed to be done -- that allowing other-
> considerations to 'dilute' my focus
> would occur as a generalized TD E/I
> (up) that would 'prevent' -- be as a
> "wall" that stood between me and --
> my doing what =actually= Needed
> to be done.
> So I eliminated that.
> Became easier-to-do as I trans-
> itioned to being too-old to have
> a Family of my own.
> It's 'funny' how all of this transpired.
> When I was Young, I could just
> do anything that I set my 'mind'
> to doing, but, because I was where
> I was in the midst of 'where' I was,
> I used what I could do in a way
> that always remained-in-the-back-
> ground.
> I took my Delight in making things
> happen in others' Lives.
> And I was =Really= Good at this.
> Then, I Saw "the problem", and
> had to do what Needed to be done.
> And the folks who I'd been Boosting
> kind of truned-against-me -- because
> they were 'angry' with 'me' for having
> 'withdrawn' my Boosting them.
> It's this to which I refer as my "Dying".
> Before that, 'everyone' was 'happy'
> to have me 'with-them'.
> After that, 'everyone' was 'angry'
> with me.
> Be-cause I'd stopped 'invisibly'
> Boosting their successes.
> The 'point' being that, contrary to
> your 'trapping' scenario, I just Saw
> that I 'had to' use what I Knew I
> could do to do what Needed to be
> done.
> Rather than being a 'trap, it's an
> example in what's in coming to
> understand.
> Coming to understand doesn't
> mean 'getting rich'.
> It means that one 'moves toward'
> Truth.
> Jesus addressed all of this when
> He said, ~"Where your treasure is,
> there will your heart be, also."
> Serve 'profits', 'gain profits'.
> Serve Truth, gain understanding,
> and the ability to actually =do= what
> Needs doing -- Fix what Needs-
> fixin'
> I don't 'want' to be poor.
> I 'want', more, not to be blocked or
> shunted as a result of 'expecting'
> stuff 'in return'.
> I find myself with shelter and
> food, sufficient 'til I Die.
> Just enough to do the work.
> Nothing left-over to expend on
> 'worrying' about anything but
> doing the work.
> In that, I'm 'Rich' :-]
> It's 'funny' -- in my Life, it's =always=
> worked-out this Way :-]
> ken

More information about the Neur-sci mailing list

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