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

konstantin kouzovnikov via neur-sci%40net.bio.net (by myukhome from hotmail.com)
Wed Feb 21 17:16:08 EST 2007

Dear k. p. collins:

thank you very much for your reply.

>There is Reason in, and behind everything >I post, and the way I post it, 
> >>I'm just not Free to disclose that which I >don't disclose.

Hey, you’re not on The America’s Most Wanted List, or anything like that, I 

I am joking, in case it is not evident
>The rest of it is Pure-Savagery that's been
>none of my doing.

I used to tell my adolescent patients: forget about the hockey, if you want 
to look “like a man”,  get into science - the “only game”  in town which 
really worth it, it’s a real contact sport which requires the “entire” man; 
one has got to have and use his brain though, not for the science, as 
science itself is a piece of cake, but to be able to do both the science and 
feed your expensive life style; so..  That’s the game we/they play, nothing 
new... “Don’t cry me a river”, an old dog I'd say; will you take it? glad 
you are smiling....

>I like the way C. F. Kettering said much the same:

I am so ignorant, in so many ways; who is he?

>"Boredom" is reduced to its underpinning
>neural dynamics in AoK.

What’s AoK?
>FWIW, that's what, it seems to me,

what’s FWIW, some sort of Internet lingo?

>from me. The whole 'cross-posting' thing

That’s all right. One of my earlier “teachers” said to me at one point: “So 
what?! We used to fell in love by taking a horse ride which required 
ignoring the sound and the smell of horse shit separating from the rear of 
the horses as well as the driver’s pathological inability to stop swearing 
in the presence of a lady and the smell of the yesterday’s alcohol in his 
breath”. That’s it: there is cost to everything. Why not accepting it? It’s 
like a bad weather.

>why the great decussations and commissures
>exist as they do [of course, via evolutionary-

Is there a class room, at you hideout?

>in terms of 3-D-Energydynamics, they are

Where can I read more about it? Feel just slightly stupid.

>I'm entirely-sure, else I'd not be 'bothering'
>anyone with NDT.

1. What’s NDT?
2. I am sure your are sure. However, the boys would not agree, based on “the 
feelings of what’s happening” (did you ever managed to finish reading this 
book? I couldn’t.). They would consider it,  if one has “the data” presently 
considered as a sufficient argument. They reject the data delivered in 70s 
by the methods used in the 70s. That is why there is a cluster of folks 
re-packaging the science of the 70s, if not of the 19th century, and selling 
as their new knowledge. That includes the mirror- neuron “neoclassicism”.  
Again, this is “a game”. One needs to play by the rules whether you like it 
or not. The strait finger in the air works, but only  temporarily, for 
instance, as soon as “the Woodstock” of the 80s and 90s was over, the guys 
bounced back.  Which is “a good thing” (thanks, Martha!).
>The problem is that I cannot say all of NDT
>in a single post. I've been discussing it,
>online, over the course of 19 'years'. People
>come and go, catching only bits and pieces.

Have you tried setting up your own web-site?

>Then they 'presume' what they didn't read
>wasn't written and posted.

How about the folks is simply busy? And you are a “nobody” to make an effort 
and slave for as there is no immediate gain for the personal advancement in 
science? Give the guys a break, you know what I mean? It is really hard to 
survive in academia, especially being payed crap.

>I'm willing to reiterate anything, but each
>thing in a logical sequence, not when
>someone barges-in, telling me what
>'the sequence should be'.

Hay, that’s what the self-publishing opportunity is for. Otherwise you need 
to become a Prof., then get a sabbatical, and publish a book. I’ll give you 
a good example: Ed Rolls, Emotion explained. Oxford, 2006. Nice!. How about: 
“NDT explained”, ehh?

>And curiosity, creativity, affective 'states',
>cognition, and unified-consciousness.

See, you’ve got to become a domasio, of sorts before they would want to get 
you published. Are you?
. All of
>these have been discussed in AoK
>all along.

Terminally interested. Sorry I joined the game that late (was busy with 
essential survival).

>The "hierarchy" stuff is not so good.
>Karl Lashley settled this matter,

Don’t know the guy, sorry.
>"Mass action" and "equipotentiality" [~1950]
>I think "hierarchy" is just one of those
>'fancy' words>
>Please correct me if you think I'm wrong,

No you are not wrong. It is just not working for you. I just feel like using 
it as I have a problem finding another word describing the multiplicity of 
what I call “functional nodes”, just like multiplicity of the functions in 
each of them. One cannot say everything at the same time. I use this term as 
it works when one keeps in mind that a proposed hierarchy makes sense only 
in a specific context (as in A depends on B and C, while B and C depend on 
E,D,F,G); of course, when the focus is on, say, F then the model has to be 
re-described all over again; sometimes one needs to turn it upside down, 
literally); in other words, for specific reasons, in specific context, with 
specific boundaries, it makes sense to differentiate, say, Posterior Fossa 
from supratentorial structures, just to be able to say that what’s happening 
between its own structures, sometimes, under certain conditions, is 
important to everything happening beyond the tentorium. Of course, the 
opposite is also true, within certain limitations, hence the importance of 
the context, so we do not get drawn in terminology collisions, i.e. there is 
no absolute primacy of anything over anything, but, a specific process-wise, 
it can be viewed as it is, simply to support reasoning about it.

>I went to bring NDT to Dr. Marr only to >find his colleagues cleaning out 
>his >office.

What a loss!!!... However, I took a lesson from his paper on cerebellum. 
Remember, he pointed out that he developed the concept while being a 
student, but published it only after he was in position to published it. He 
also described why he was not able to publish it when he was already ready. 
That, technically speaking, makes you no different from David. It is too bad 
one needs to get dead before the importance of the work is being talked 
about. Their effort to minimize his work was just..  I mean, hey, that’s the 
game we play.
>Gave them some of my work back
>then.>>Never heard from them again.

Why did you give it to them? Why did you expect them to get back to you? 
Don’t answer, please.

>I've been discussing it, online, over the course of 19 'years'.
Well, get ready as it is all just getting funny, “dude”. It is 19 years  
that it took me before “coming out of closet” and attempting to produce what 
seems to be along the same lines you are doing for.. How long?– 100 years 
now?. You are guessing (or you are not?) about the reasons I provided you 
with very specific comments? So, what happened 19 years ago, a very hot spot 
on the sun? And a few guys (it’s true - a few of us) got “damaged” in the 
very same way? Now, aren’t you tired with all this free jazz? 19 years? I 
don’t know about you, but I am at least trying to do something about it. 
Again, I hope you’re not in prison (am I pushing your sense of humor too 
much?) or some sort of Protection Program, or feeling “too old” or anything 
of this nature? I mean how come you haven’t gone out and did your shtick 
like all the guys are trying to do? It’s a fair game outthere...

> > time I am referring to Kilmer's concept of "action selection mechanism".
>It was this statement of yours that
>resulted in my wanting to reply to
>your post, BTW.

Thank you, Sir. Kilmer is important.

>What do you want to know about cerebellar

Hey, how do I know what I don’t know? Everything. Absolutely positively 
everything. Do I need to send a truck to pick the stuff up? How far are you 
from Nova Scotia?

>The neocerebellum is widely connected
>This has been known since the 1970s.

Right. What about everything else? How about the deep nuclei? No, what I 
need, is everything.

>You're discounting the work of Cajal >and his colleagues in Neuroanatomy.
Another gap of mine. Don’t know his work. However, judging from what I know, 
it is still not at the point when one can reliably use it for work on 
humans, although the boys and girls, all over the world, are producing 
cerebellar and other reversed engineering toys (not my area of interest).
>The brain stem circuitry has been
>sufficiently-mapped for most of
>the 20th 'century'.

I need it. Can I have it?

>Everything that was necessary to do so
>was just sitting in the Library [and has
>been cited in AoK all along.]

It looks like what I was able to fish out is only a small portion of what I 
need. An interesting observation, half of what I needed for my work was not 
cataloged in any data bank, but..  May God bless good librarians, some of 
them do help, a lot.. You see, a lot of the most important stuff I got is 
exactly from the 70s. Isn’t it funny that rock-and-roll and neuroscience is 
not very attractive for the best of us any more?  70s rock, man!!!...Or it 
is just a phase? And all the guys who went into currency transactions and 
web-based merchandising will, eventually, send their kids into neuroscience?
>It's been in AoK all along.

Have you counted the use of this phrase in your response? Like it. You made 
my day, what’s your name, “dude”?
>I don't know what you mean by,
>"exponential transmission".

If you accept my attempt to talk about brain’s “food chains” of information 
processing as well as “the internal structural and functional architecture” 
of each “node” within each food chain, the ratios monitored by each “layer” 
of nodes have not one, but multiple “off shuts” on the next “functional 
node” (are you OK I am using Kilmer’s language?), in other words, a specific 
to layer A ratio affects a number (from “a” to “n”) ratios at the layer B, 
and even more at the next one, C, etc. The reverse is also correct. As an 
example, a chain or a system of the “christmas tree” of the neuroimaging 
signals can be related to a single “reading” in a “hierarchically” 
fundamental (for this specific event and these specific conditions) ratio, 
naturally, located not necessarily where the boys picking up the BOLD signal 
(or its absence). Have you read about the very recent and rather phenomenal 
“accident” when a few Canadian guys, in a split second, by symply touching a 
very specific part of the brain stopped the pain (the actual reason for the 
procedure) and... stopped ALL THE DIABETIC symptoms?

>By "newer brain functional zones", >I presume you mean neocortex, >and 
>What else is "newer"?
I am talking mostly about the phylogenetic stuff here. That’s all.

>"theoretical 'invariant'" [if I >understand what you mean

when a new knowledge is in the air, different people “wrap it up” 
differently; if anyone is seriously questioning (why not?) your version of 
“the truth”, they simply need to read what is becoming more and more popular 
in neuroscience, i.e. Raichel’s et al (Seattle) work on Intrinsic Brain 
Activity. First, the boys did resting MRI, so there is more than one way of 
collecting and processing such data. Last year, one lab produced some MEG 
related data analysis approaches. It is my personal view that all these work 
can be very nicely translated into your terminology as the guys are 
producing nothing, but your ratios.

> > no one "ratio", but a number of them, in my view, organized 
>All TD E/I-minimization is integrated.

Look, what I said does not negate what you are saying, actually, the 
opposite is true.

>You're too-kind, Konstantin.
Don’t call me names, please. It is just “a good man is hard to find”, as 
Coco Taylor sang. So, my hut is off to you. Hope you have some plans to put 
it into work.
>You'll "blow my cover" as a 'trouble-maker' :-]
impossible; one can’t teach an old dog new tricks; they need to learn how to 
like you as... it is The 70s Show..  Al over again!
>Thank you
The pleasure is all mine.

Click Here To Find Your Perfect Match This Valentines!  

More information about the Neur-sci mailing list

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