Barry Bayliss wrote:
> Ken,
>> 1) If the functionality of the whole system can currently be described
> in an unified way, why is there no general model as to the effects of
> drugs, i.e. to be able to predict what the effect would be of giving
> a
> patient a new drug (which hasn't be tested); behavioural level. If
> there is, I have not been able to find one.
The work I've done establishes a "framework" or "scaffold"... it states that the
nervous system is "engineered" throughout its entire extent to achieve a single
goal: the minimization of the topologically-distributed ratios of excitation to
inhibition [TD E/I(min)] that are occurring within it...
So, if TD E/I(min) is all there is, why can't new psychoactive substances be
engineered on a computer and go directly from there to manufacture? The way
that the various components of the of the neurochemistry enters into what I
refer to as "functional multiplexing" (how the same transmitter can enter into
different circuitry, and how the existence of different transmitters is
the equivalent of separate wires that are electrically insulated) has not
been worked out... Duality Theory predicts, however, that when it is worked
out, the TD E/I(min) principle will permeate what is worked out... I can
go deeper with this if you wish...
...look and see, the TD E/I(min) principle serves as a useful guide to
the neurochemist...
...I'll respond to your other points in succeeding messages (don't want
to "disconnect") ken
