On Wed, 4 Apr 2007 14:20:43 +1000, "Entertained by my own EIMC"
<write_to_eimc from ozemail.com.au> wrote:
>"r norman" <r_s_norman from _comcast.net> wrote in message
>news:dc0613d37d71dg9pcsp9up7hrskqd03jg8 from 4ax.com...>> On Wed, 4 Apr 2007 10:24:47 +1000, "Entertained by my own EIMC"
>> <write_to_eimc from ozemail.com.au> wrote:
>>>>>"r norman" <r_s_norman from _comcast.net> wrote in message
>>>news:q3k51397ohdvlt8ma2acrk5ipj6gur7pq3 from 4ax.com...>>>> On Tue, 3 Apr 2007 17:27:19 -0400, "Glen M. Sizemore"
>>>> <gmsizemore2 from yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>><snip>
>>>>>>>>>>>> More long-winded than I had hoped but there
>>>>>>>you have it.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That is why working on lobster stomach (as in stomatogastric system)
>>>>>> is so much less worrisome!
>>>>>>>>>>Wise of you to keep it short, Dr. Norman. You knew that saying anything
>>>>>more
>>>>>than one sentence would probably get me going again.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't actually mind long winded stuff if, like yours, it has some
>>>> actual content. It is just that I am a bit preoccupied right now and
>>>> don't have the time to spend reading it that carefully and responding
>>>> to the technical details. I do like the overall tone, though.
>>>>>>My EPT interpretation of your discussion is simply this:
>>>>>>Both of you are *potentially* and unknowingly scared [I'd say 'SHITScared'
>>>:-)] of what you would find if you analyzed habituation comprehensively
>>>enough (not just in depth but in dEPTh) and by force of this same scope of
>>>analytical logic you were brought close to touch on the topic of
>>>"repression".
>>>>>>It is clear to me that this is a topic that to people near the norm of
>>>neuroscientific attitudes (where you two seem to be) is
>>>"effectively/presumably taboo".
>>>>>>> Perhaps people "near the norm of neuroscientific attitudes" simply
>> have a better perspective on what is good science.
>>>> Sorry, I just could help myself! But I am also arrogant enough to
>> actually believe it.
>>I don't mind at all! :-)
>>I have never had any reasons to doubt that you represent good science.
>>All I am doing is no less arrogant perverse and punny "pushing of a barrow"
>in the slipstream of good old conservative neuroscience. [I am well aware
>that I would have far fewer legs to stand (or push with) were it not for the
>fact that perceptive, clever, meticulous folk are have been so focused on
>figuring and ferreting things out.]
If you specialized in studying millipedes, you would have more than
enough legs to stand on. On the other hand, Kandel's sea slugs don't
have any! (unless you count the head-foot as one)
>The central content of 'my barrow' is the relatively simple fact (and idea)
>that our evolution has inevitably incorporated active (and at least double
>barrelled) blocking of maladaptive "actentions" (i.e. ~= behavioral
>emotional and visceral responses) to painful sources of stimulation
>(whatever these may be) -- plus a plethora of closely related insidious
>consequences.
Objective, repeatable by independent observers experimental evidence
-- where is it?