F. Frank LeFever wrote in message <7nu2ro$pk4 at dfw-ixnews4.ix.netcom.com>...
>>>>In other words, it means everything and nothing.
only folks who've no comprehension of the neural Topology... to them, it's
like a discussion in a 'foreign language', and of course the
information-content does not communicate to them.
but this is a Neuroscience 'place', and there're folks here who do
comprehend the nerual Topology, and the stuff, with respect to it, that i've
been discussing.
despite your efforts to impose otherwise, their brains are not your brain...
their experiences are not your experience... that's all.
K. P. Collins
>>F. LeFever
>>>>In <OWNGFyD2#GA.308 at cpmsnbbsa03> "Ken Collins" <KPaulC at email.msn.com>
>writes:
>>>>Hi, Didier.
>>>>Didier A. Depireux wrote in message <7nke90$edk$1 at hecate.umd.edu>...
>>>>>[...]
>>>>>Without going through AoK (the reprint pile on my desk is already big
>>>enough as it is), would you mind stating what TD stands for? E/I is
>>>usually (in hearing, anyway) an abbreviation for
>Excitatory/Inhibitory.
>>>>>> Didier
>>>>there's a lot in-it, but it's short-hand for "the sum of the
>>Topologigally-Distributed relative ratios of Excitation to
>Inhibition"...
>>the "TD" includes all of Neuroanatomy's twists and turns, which all
>exist
>>for the sole purpose of aligning all of the neural architecture so
>that
>>'decisions' can be made, within it, through the simple minimization of
>=one=
>>'thing'...
>>>>TD E/I.
>>>>neural activation 'states' are 'finitized' [rendered maximally-finite]
>when
>>excitation is minimized and inhibition is maximized. our nervous
>systems do
>>everything that they do by 'seeking' this one 'goal'.
>>>>[there's more to it. for instance, there's neural architecture that's
>>inherently TD E/I(up)-generating... but all such seemingly-discordant
>>instances are just more of the tightly-integrated global neural
>architecture
>>that 'seeks' to do only one thing: minimize TD E/I.]
>>>>ken collins
>>>>>[...]
>>>>>
