IUBio Biosequences .. Software .. Molbio soft .. Network News .. FTP

Stress, etc

mat mats_trash at hotmail.com
Mon Mar 25 18:46:59 EST 2002


CyberLegend aka Jure Sah <jure.sah at guest.arnes.si> wrote in message news:<3C9F3028.CDFB39B4 at guest.arnes.si>...
> mat wrote:
> > > The way you take the meaning of the word, you leave a couple billion
> > > things about an animal without a definition.
> > 
> > What?! err not at all.  Just because I don't call every aspect of
> > behaviour an instinct, doesn't mean I can't define or discuss those
> > other aspects of behaviour...
> 
> Ok, then: How would you categorize the wolf's tendency to howl? Or a
> person's tendency to bite it's nails?

But this is my whole point!  I do not think a wolf howling and someone
biting their nails are equivalent behaviours.  Get it now?  Not all
behaviour is the same!


> 
> > > > I don't have an instinct to want to wear particular clothes (thats
> > > > just my preference), but I have an instinct to be warm.  Show me this
> > > > evidence for this 'removing of instincts'?
> > >
> > > Removing isn't the word... Ignoring is.
> > 
> > You said removing not me
> 
> Here I have a quote from a friend: "Just like the gravity, instinct is
> unavoidable, although it can sometimes be masked, neutralized or
> hidden.  Or repressed." Say what?

How does that in any way go against what I say?  I agree with this
idea of instinct, what I don't agree with is your seeming
categorisation of ALL of behaviour as instinct.


> But it was you who introduced the "preference" thing! My basic statement
> was that there were behaviour-control instincts in humans that can be
> repressed and that causes harm to the brain. Tell me again, where do you
> see preference in this...

Becuase you are mis-naming what is differential behaviour based on
preference
as instinct.

> 
> I do have in fact, very much of an idea. My thinking model alows me to
> know how things work without knowing every detail about them.

I was hoping you would say this.  After this post my contribution to
this thread ends since you have no conception of what it is to know
how the brain works and are seemingly deluded in thinking that you
know how the brain functions.

> 
> Split the brain into 3 known systems: The neocortex, the limbic brain
> and the r-brain. The capacity and behaviour of the R-brain can be nicely
> observed with reptiles. The limbic system is obvious for what it is,
> constructed out of diffirent modules preforming specific tasks, we all
> know it handles emotion and stuff allike; the thing is also nicely
> observable, for example, with mice (experiments confirm that their
> behaviour doesn't change much if their neocortex is removed). This
> leaves out very little to be suggested to belong to the neocortex. And
> since nobody ever found anything magical in the neocortex, it is healthy
> science to conclude that it is nothing more than a neural circut.

'known systems' 'limbic system is obvious' 'nobody ever found anything
magical in the neocortex'... don't know whether to laugh or cry.

> 
> It is also known that computer simulations of the neocortex: Neural
> Networks, successfully give the impression of "a person behind the
> controls" in computer games. 

Really? and that you consider is good enough evidence to suggest an
cogntiive agent in that neural network. lol

> 
> IRL, the information about the personality needs to be kept somewhere,
> so unless your higher understanding of the brain icludes any magical
> components, it should be pretty clear that the diffirent personalities
> MUST form diffirent circuts.

That is not at all clear!  You seem to have very little understanding
of real neuroscience and no conception of how little we actually know
about the brain.

> 
> You expect me to stick rods into my brains to measure the stress
> signals... or is there another secret way to get that information? From
> the information I have so far, without any particulary intrusive
> methods, points out this result, there is no saying it is wrong, unless
> you have any just as good or better evidence that it is wrong.

I could point you to muliple thousands of papers to show you you are
wrong - just go to pub-med and type in 'brain' or 'neural' or
'neuroscience' ....  But then you probably wouldn't understand what
they were about.  Its ok, I'm finished here, you just keep on
believeing that your playstation has a self-neural-circuit.




More information about the Neur-sci mailing list

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