[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)
Wed Feb 21 21:08:10 EST 2007

I had a post, but it apparently got lost. Maybe it was because I said
a naughty word. Anyways, cats walking with complete spinal transection
is Barbeau & Rossignol 1987. Well after all the problems of TD E/I
were worked out in the '70s; back when we apparently knew everything
about the brain and the wisdom of the ancients leaves us in awe still

I think Konstantin has finally found the same problem I have with Ken.
Ask a legitimate question, and you are told that it was dealt with in
the '70s (with no real references of course). That's not education, or
even discussion. He says that he posts for people who've been
following along for the last 19 years, but then comes into just about
every single thread and expounds his theories. And when people ask
questions or attempt legitimate criticism, they're told that these
problems (like the one of spinal transection) do not exist.

Ken doesn't seem to be interested in how brains work. He's interested
in how brains might work if they follow the rules he thinks they
follow and have the anatomical connectivity he thinks they should
have. And for the record, guys, brains "at rest," i.e. during boredom
and simple relaxation with your kid (to use Konstantin's example) are
not resting. There are millions of neurons firing at these times. Slow
wave sleep has your entire cortex fire 3-4 times per second. This is
not an absence of activity, like coma. That's why coma is a
pathological state.

AT the heart of it, good theories of brain function are based out of
physiology, because that's what brains are. If you're not interested
about how synaptic events, dendritic computation, plasticity, parallel
processing, or neuromodulatory substances influence signaling of
neuronal assemblies (or consider them mere "constraints"), then you're
not interested in brains. You're interested in philosophy, not
neuroscience. Please move threads accordingly. And if you're posting
for people who've been following for 20 years, then post to that
thread and stop coming into every single neuroscience thread and
refusing to discuss your philosophy in a constructive manner.



On Feb 21, 5:16 pm, "konstantin kouzovnikov" <myukh... from hotmail.com>
> 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
> hope..?
> 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-
> >convergence.]
> Is there a class room, at you hideout?
> >in terms of 3-D-Energydynamics, they are
> >continuous.
> 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]
> thanks
> >I think "hierarchy" is just one of those
> >'fancy' words>
> >Please correct me if you think I'm wrong,
> >here.
> 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
> >function?
> 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 ...
> read more »

More information about the Neur-sci mailing list

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