"k p Collins" <kpaulc@[----------]earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:SVaKb.9595$6B.2141 at newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net...
> "Matthew Kirkcaldie" <Matthew.Kirkcaldie at removethis.newcastle.edu.au>
> in message
> news:Matthew.Kirkcaldie-C3B92E.17195005012004 at seagoon.newcastle.edu.au...> > In article <k5jJb.20917$IM3.2289 at newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net>,
> > "k p Collins" <kpaulc@[----------]earthlink.net> wrote:
> > [...]
> [At this 'level' of analysis, the Neurochemistry is 'superfluous',
> because, as is discussed in AoK, Ap9, the Neurochemistry
> exists for =one= reason - "functional multiplexing" - and the
> energy- dynamics can be discussed, to a first, robustly-
> useful approximation without detailing the dynamics of
> "functional multiplexing".]
"Geese! What a nitwit! 'the neurochemistry is superfluous'".
I stand on what I posted, and would appreciate it if folks'd
=try= to consider what's in the position I'm discussing.
=No matter what= neurochemical [molecular, etc.] dynamics
'intervene', there's only =one= thing that can occur if 'normal'
nervous system function is to occur.
That one thing is as I described it in my prior post [linked to
Within nervous system function, molecular dynamics are
analogous to 'language' dynamics during interpersonal
For instance, given a concept to communicate, the concept
can be communicated in "Russian", "Hebrew", "Spanish", "Arabic",
"Chineese", "Portugese", "Korean", "English", or any other
'language', in some 'languages', with more difficulty than in
'language' is superfluous.
The only thing that matters is that communication of the
concept actually occurs.
The analogous thing is True with respect to molecular
dynamics within nervous systems.
Yes, the precise qualities inherent in molecular dynamics
do enable some pretty-Fancy communication of external
experiential 3-D energydynamics to internal 3-D energy-
dynamics. But that's all that they do.
Then nervous systems function in accord with the 3-D
It's =ABSOLUTELY-NECESSARY= that, no matter
what 'translation' dynamics are employed, nervous sys-
tems act with sole respect to the underpinning 3-D
In vision, for instance, what matters is =not= all the
Beautiful translatory stuff that intervenes, but the fact
that this or that 'object' in the exteraal environment
is, in fact, represented within a nervous system in a
way that enables the nervous system to converge
upon activation 'states' that are survival-'appropriate'
with respect to the object.
For instance, the object might be that "telephone
pole in the midst of the sidewalk" upon which one
is walking [AoK, Ap6].
All of the molecular-translation stuff is 'superfluous'
relative to the need to not injure one's self by walk-
ing into the telephone pole.
I'm not 'trashing' the 'molecular view'.
I'm =just= decrying the 'blindness' that's prevailed,
which has 'moved away from' doing what Needs to
be done to 'move toward' the 'molecular stuff', as if
the 'molecular stuff' constitutes some sort of 'magical'
stuff that 'will tell us' anything about what's actually
going on within nervous systems.
The 'molecular stuff' doesn't tell us =anything= about
what's going on within nervous systems.
That 'view' is analogous to saying that, just because
one does not speak this or that 'language', he 'cannot
comprehend' this or that concept.
It's 'just' False.
Truth is, with some effort, =any= concept can be
represented in, and, therefore, understood by the
users of, =any= 'language'.
So why elevate 'language' to 'first-importance'?
"molecular stuff', same-old, same-old.
Gees 'louise'! 'neuroscience' has been flat-out for-
saking its Obligations to Humanity while 'frittering-away'
its energies making 'molecular mud pies' that are 'super-
fluous' with respect to what's actually going-on within
Yes, =do= understand the molecular dynamics.
But don't 'substitute' them for True understanding of
what's going on within nervous systems.
Nervous systems grasp the external experiential 3-D
energydynamics, turn them inside-out, upside-down,
and backward - in order to maintain be-acted-upon/act
directionalities, and to enable 'blindly'-automated con-
vergence via TD E/I-minimization.
The 'languages' in which such is achieved within nervous
systems are superfluous relative to this stuff that is actually
what's going-on within nervous systems.
What do I have to do to get this one thing across to folks?
Until it gets this one thing straight, 'neuroscience' is virtually
robbing the Citizenry that funds it.
[And why am I saying it with a bit of 'heat'?
I want it to have some 'stickiness'.
I want to map its TD E/I within nervous systems, with
respect to what has been the on-going 'moving toward'
calling 'molecular stuff' "everything".
I want to give folks that TD E/I(up) as an 'obstacle' that
enables them to escape the 'blind'-automation that 'sniggers'
at anything that does not call the 'molecular stuff' "everything".
If anyone looks, they'll see the Love in-here.]
K. P. Collins