Walter Eric Johnson wrote:
>kkollins at pop3.concentric.net wrote:
> : Yeah, viral infection might result in "depression"-like symptoms, but
> : "depression" is not the result of a viral infection because what's been
> : referred to as "depression" is a fully-functional information-processing
> : mechanism that's "engineered" right into "normal" nervous systems.
> :
> : And =everything= that happens in the nervous system has "genetic" correlates.
>> Huh! Are you claiming that the only people who suffer from depression
> are genetically predisposed to suffer from depression as a consequence
> of some specific structure in the brain?
No... I'm saying that the mechanism which underpins what's been referred to as
"depression" is a fully-functional, necessary, information-processing mechanism
that's innate within all "normal" nervous systems.
> What structure would that be? Evidence, please.
It's in AoK.
> : <snip, snip, snip>
>> : "molecular neuroscience" is a Fraud that, for the sake of "funding", has
> : Forsaken those who Suffer-Greatly.
>> So you claim that it makes absolutely no difference what chemical
> processes are going on inside of cells?
No... it's "just" that, to the degree that "chemical processes" which violate the
nervous system's "special topological homeomorphism" (see AoK) occur within the
nervous system, as when one abuses psychoactive substances (thereby,
"re-engineering" the nervous system's "special topological homeomorphism"), the
information-processing capacity of the nervous system is diminished.
All chemical and molecular stuff must be in-accord with this. My recent Challenge
is with respect to this one thing.
> I find this really amazing. You talk about genetics and then turn
> around and disparage molecular neuroscience. Don't you realize that
> genes encode proteins? As far as I know, that's all that they do.
You just don't read what I post carefully-enough... the only thing I was crying-out
against was the fact that folks in Neuroscience jumped on the "big-science" "band
wagon", abandoning Scientific First-Principles for the sake of winning "funding"
which was being handed out by folks who were prejudiced in favor of the "big
science" "fashion"... instead of =thinking= about the Neural Topology (the Neural
Geometry"), and doing the work necessary to See what's right in-there.
> In fact, a very large number of genes encode proteins that are
> specific to the nervous system. If you throw out the chemistry,
> genetics becomes inexplicable.
I'm not doing any such thing. Kindly, if you don't want to think, do not attribute
the result to me. "Thank you. Thank you ver' much." (Elvis Presley)
> So why do you praise genetics and denigrate molecular neuroscience?
I did neither. If you look, you'll see that what I was doing was "chiding" my
Colleagues because they've been "wandering around lost" for so long, when just
about everything needed to bring things far-beyond where all the "molecular"
efforts have gotten folks was in Truex and Carpenter decades ago.
I can Demonstrate such, so I'm =Obliged= to discuss such, aren't I?
Yes.
> Could it be because your underderstanding of the molecular processes is
> nonexistent?
Well, perhaps it would be is someone could successfully deal with my
recently-posted Challenge... but no one can.
And, you know, it makes a difference... because folks Suffer-Greatly in ways that
can be Ameliorated by the one approach, but not by the other approach. And, to the
degree that the "molecular" approach remains incommensurate with the "Special
topological homeomorphism", it'll remain so.
Look closely, and you'll see where my Love is, both with respect to those who
Suffer-Greatly, and with respect to my Colleagues in Neuroscience.
But I'll tell you, Eric, if you make any more false Attributions with respect to
what I post, I'm just going to Guard Free Will, and let you be a Jackass. K. P.
Collins