from [ Marc Abrams ( 2003.07.06.2332) ]
[From Bill Powers (2003.07.06.1746 MDT)]
You can't possibly NOT know the difference between a hormone and a neural
signal,
I do
so I can only guess that you don't know what a "signal" is in PCT.
I do. Rick was quite clear on this.
A signal is a physical variable that carries information from a source to
a
destination.
no problem.
A neural signal is a train of impulses of variable frequency
by means of which one neuron affects the firing rate of other neurons.
A hormonal signal is a chemical concentration that carries information
from a
gland to an organ or vice versa via the bloodstream
Bill, that's _incomplete_ at best and misleading, that, according to a
number of sources. But I will quote from just one here. From _i of the
Vortex; From Neurons to Self_ Dr. Rodolfo Llinas, 2001 MIT Press Chap 4, pgs
69 - 73. Dr. Llinas is the Chairman head of the Department of Physiology and
Neuroscience at NYU's Medical school. According to you, these credentials
mean he's an absolute jack ass, because he is unaware of your model.But I'll
go with his explanation over yours in _this_ matter. You should seriously
look into reading this book. I know you could probably teach him physiology
but you never know.
The 'firing' rate of a neuron is a controlled action. [ I say this ] based
on;
Pg.73 - 74; As is he case with prokaryotes, eukaryotes internally
manufacture proteins that the cell needs to survive. Someof these
manufactured proteins are specialized to perforate and embed themselves in
the outer cell membrane. These proteins function to regulate the exchange of
materials in and out of the cell, as well as to signal the regulation of
many self-specific events within the cell. [ Sounds like control to me. Of
course I can't seem to find an error signal or comparator in the explanation
but I'm sure they exist ]
So we have little islands of life contained inherently within "walls," the
cellular membranes of lipid, and they are for the most part closed to the
external world. One may also consider these compartments of life as closed
systems in that they only communicate--and can only communicate-- with the
outside world by way of specialized, transmembrane gates. These are composed
mostly of one or more long amino acid chains folded in complicated yet
orderly tangles. By embeddng themselves in and across the lipid membrane
these proteins function as signaling systems that serve as specific
receptors, ion channels, or pumps. These primordial compartments of life
make up all life as we know it. The operation of closed systems began a log
time ago; life is compartments, as is the mind.
[ An interesting foot note: it took 2 billion years for evolution to to join
eukaryotic cells into multi-cellular entities. It took only 700 million
years or so more to produce the first animal. It was more difficult for
nature to get 2 or more cells to communicate then it was to produce an
animal]
Pg 76: A great advance in cell-to-cell communication cane from the ability
that cells evolved to control the concentration of intracellular calcium ion
( 3 cites ) Calcium is one of the most reactive elements in the periodic
table; it is an extremely difficult ion to tame.... And yet nature has
evolved calcium as a requirement of life--and has learned to regulate it
with great precision. How did this happen? It did so as a consequence of
it's dangerous love affair with phosphorus ( 2 cites). ... Once phoshorus
was left safely alone to carry out it's role in oxidative phosphorylation,
oxygen could then be carried efficently and utilized by eukaryotic cells.
With the development of calmodulin,[a calcium-binding protein that regulates
cellular metabolic processes (as the contraction of muscle fibers) by
modifying the activity of calcium-sensitive enzymes ] the calcium calmodulin
complex became a seriuos intracellular tool as a very sophisticated
signaling system, and the normally very low cocentration of free calcium
inside the cell allowed it to be exploited for what we now term "second
messenger" roles. These roles are of critical importance in conveying
information that regulates the triggering of the rapid and localized
enzymatic reactions leading to many events such as muscle cell contraction,
axon elongation, synaptic transmission, and programmed cell death. This
paramount event in eukaryotic evolution provided the biological necessaties
that allowed for cells to be part of an organized, inter-communicating
society...
Buy the book and read the rest. the down and dirty of the chapter is that
_both_ electrical charges _and_ chemical _ions_ go between neurons. Calcium
can only go through calcium channels and potassium can only go through
potassium channels. All neuronal communication is _both_ chemical and
electrical. How can hormones affect a neuron? Is Mary saying emotions are
hormonal at one point in your life and neuronal in another? That was where
my original question was put, How could that be? Hormones are not a signal.
Chemical ions are. But they in themselves are only part of the 'firing'
process
. The pituitary gland
produces many hormones which enter various organs, probably setting
reference levels for the substances that they control;
No. It is believed to be controlled by the thalamus. The pituitary is the
manufacturer. The brain is the controller.
I can see this going to be a real waste of my time.
certainly
determining their level of activity. The pituitary receives reference
signals (many of them well known but not called reference signals, of
course) via both neural and chemical signals entering the
"neurohypophysis"
from the hypothalamus. which in turn receives neural signals from the
amygdala and other midbrain sources. The pituitary is also affected
through
the bloodstream by the outputs of the various organ systems (glucose from
the liver, thyroxin from the thyroid gland, adrenalin from the adrenal
glands, etc.). Uniformly, these feedback effects have an inhibitory
influence on the pituitary's production of the same outputs that enter the
organs, so there are negative feedback loops: i.e., biochemical control
systems, at least one per organ. Similar systems exist inside each organ,
a
lower level of biochemical control. While this control-system analysis has
not been adopted by conventional biologists, they would agree to all the
facts (of course, because I got them from conventional sources).
The organs _produce_ The Brain _controls_
Neural signals, in the form of varying neural reference signals in motor
systems, drive actions. Hormonal signals, by varying chemical reference
signals for organ systems, adjust the biochemical state of the body. My
only contribution to these well-known facts has been, beside offering a
few
technical terms, to propose that both sets of signals arise from the
action
of higher-level control systems. None of this is very different from what
others have proposed in the past, except for the role played by control
systems. It is certainly very different from the idea that emotions arise
directly from external events, which is by no means believed by all
reputable scientists.
I still have not figured out what a 'hormonal' _signal_ is. Insulin is
produced by the pancreas and is not a signal, it's a chemical hormone. If
your talking about chemical ions, see Llinas for the facts, each neuron has
electrochemical gradients. The chemical ions produce the voltage. But the
electrochemical gradient is applicable to both the voltage and chemical
concentrations.
An error is a difference between what is being perceived (perceptual
signal) and what is to be perceived (reference signal).
So? I say that a baby is not perceiving _anything_ out of the womb. The
crying is reflexive, and may be emotional.
A disturbance is
anything that can alter the perceptual signal, so if the perception
initially matches the reference signal, the disturbance will cause an
error
signal to appear, having a magnitude and direction that depends on the
magnitude and direction of the disturbance. Comparison is continuous,
never-ending. As the reference signal and perceptual signal vary, the
error
signal varies accordingly. There is no "initial" comparison. Emotion,
according to this picture, does not arise until there is preparation for
action resulting from an error signal.
I don't agree with this picture. Comparison is _not_ continuous, and there
is an initial signal.
Don't quibble about my saying "the" signal; this is a commonplace way of
speaking of representative or typical signals found in hundreds of control
systems that are simultaneously active.
yes, it's metaphorical, no problem.
So would a hundred thousand scientists. They will never understand the
wiring until they have the right model.
So? does this 'answer' change mine.
>Mary: THEN specific interpretations of emotional states become associated
> > with particular kinds of experiences.
>
>You mean a babies 'crying' out of the womb is not 'emotional' ?
Exactly. There is no cognitive component.
reflexive, and who said emotions were 'cognitive', I don't believe they are.
Some of your old behavioristic notions.
The crying is part of a built-in
control system for making errors of all kinds go away.
nice story, but i don't buy it. now you have a control system for anything
that doesn't have a specific one already. real cute. Reminds me of the navy
Article 134 code of military conduct. Art. 134 covers anything the other 133
might have missed and is at the discetion of the person doing the charging
It requires the cooperation of a caregiver. We don't experience emotions
until much later,
two or three years later, when we learn to categorize feeling states and
connect them with goals. Before that we just experience errors and try to
correct them. The states of physiological preparation, of course, do
exist,
driven by the neural error signals.
not even close
First I would have to understand exactly what you're proposing.
it's not real complicated. I say, that _all_ control is discontinuous
I say emotion and reflexes are initial uncontrolled responses, that are then
brought under control. I will test and experiment for this
One reason you haven't heard back from me is that you still haven't
proposed any
mechanisms.
Our senses. control 'kicks' in pretty quickly. but 3 things can 'cause this
to happen 1) when we are controlling something and a big disturbance hits
you. You react instinctively and reflexively. The second way is if you are
not controlling something and it something totaly unexpected happens. The
third way is by voluntarily starting a new task. Your initial reaction. Take
a look at your tracking tasks ( I did ) control is not nearly as good at the
begining as it is at the end. The more difficult it is, the more pronounced
the difference. Check it out. Remeber, your stats on the tracking task are
averages. Look at the data in a time series. The control gets better as the
tracking task continues. Since you were nice enough to put in a timer, I'm
going to experiment and see if there is a threshold where accuracy declines
over time or whether it contnues, showing some learning taking place.
I don't care what you "stand by" or "believe." That means
exactly nothing.
Funny, I feel the same way about you.
Tell us what your model is that explains how reflexes and emotions work.
Why? We can't even agree on the basics it seems. we have totally different
views on how control works, what is controlled, and when it's controlled.
Our memory models are different, our physiological models are different, Our
discrimination process ( your hierarchy, my network ) is different. I
beleive that behavioir is 'caused' by control, & emotion with memory &
consciousness being the adaptive glue. you think control is it, none of the
other stuff 'really' matters.
The only thing we agree on is we control our perceptions. But we can't even
agree on what a perception is
I don't think you have one.
So? Who cares what you think. I would certainly like to have you on my side,
but hey, life is tough sometimes. I can't bring myself to agree with your
ideas. Sorry.
All you've given us so far is a lot of claims and denials, without a shred
of reasoning or evidence to >give them substance. References to other
people's books mean little, since you
would have to explain exactly which parts of the books you think are
important and why --
Exactly. Which is why I recommended the books I did.
and others might not interpret what they read there in
the same way you do.
Yep.
If you can't lay out your theory on your own, you don't really have one.
Scientific discourse doesn't > consist of yelling "I'm right and you're
wrong."
Then I guess I'm still in the developmental stage of mine. It certainly is
not fully developed. I'll work it out. I still have much reading to do and
much to learn. My knowledge changes by the hour, but I do know what I don't
agree with so far and have not seen any compelling evidence from PCT to
think otherwise. My exchanges with Rick were very illuminating for what he
was unable to answer, which was most of what I asked.
It doesn't consist of quoting authorities, either.
Sure it does, otherwise why have a bib in the book. To give credit to
people who helped you generate your ideas. If I read a bib ( wich is one of
the first parts of the book I look at) and saw certain authors there I could
get a pretty good handle on what kind of spin I might get from this reading.
I guess your (adapted) reorganization model from the Weiner in B:CP is not
quoting from an authority.
The work by Hans Selye on the General Adaptation Syndrome, which you were
so hot to adopt only a few months ago,
No, I was not happy to adopt it, actually I thought ( wrongly ) that his
model was simply a control model. the problem of course is that his model at
some point becomes a positive feedback model. That is why I abandoned my
notion of it being a control system. It could definitely be emotional, but
controlled, sorry.
showed very clearly that emotional
states to which we give different names are at least very similar
physiologically, if not identical. The main difference between them is the
cognitive part, the goal, the reference signal. This is true in adults; it
is reasonable to suppose it is true in children after they have developed
the necessarily levels of organization..
How do you account for the positive feedback when the system dies or is
destroyed.
Mary:
> > I mention exhilaration because lots of people like to get their
> > physical systems churning now and then and go out of their way to
> > do it, up Fourteeners or down the rivers here in Colorado, or out
> > to the amusement park roller coaster. Then they call what's
> > going on fun, rather than anger or fear or threat or what have
> > you. It's also why having gone to war is such a crowning event
> > in many lives.
>
>And what do you base this on? have you done some research or modeling? If
>so, can you please elaborate a bit on it.
By that criterion you should just shut up and listen. This is a totally
inappropriate kind of comment on what Mary said, which was by way of
making
clearer just what is being proposed as a model of emotion. You can always
make yourself seem erudite by demanding proofs and experiments and models
and tests, but if you do it in this way, it just make it seem that you're
saying "Oh, yeah? Prove it!" like a kid who has run out of arguments.
Give it a rest. A totally inappropriate response to my questions. Mary was
telling a 'just-so' story, and presenting it as 'facts' I don't see any,
'this of course is only conjecture' type of statement. The last sentence was
said as if it were a fact all should know. I think it's BS, personally.
Of course. Don't you think these things are controlled variables? The fact
that you can't control them consciously does not mean they are not
controlled by systems inside of you.
That was exactly my point.
>So smiling, i.e. feeling
>emotional, is not controlled. Your husband would argue this point with
you &
>so would Rick.
That's a complete garble of what Mary said.
I don't think so. I was not trying to misrepresent what she said.
>Did you ever resolve this for yourself? I suspect not. For your info,
they
>are. They were able to stimulate the facial muscles to produce a 'smile'
a
>'frown' and a 'growl', all without any emotion involved.
That's irrelevant.
No it's not. That's why I said what I did.
One question was whether a smile produced voluntarily
(consciously) for a purpose like being photographed involves the same
facial muscles as when the smile seems to occur spontaneously as part of
an
emotional state. Another question was whether the same muscles that seem
to
express one emotion are used in expressing other emotions. Neither of
those
cases has anything to do with muscle responses to electrical stimulation
from electrodes.
To me it did
=======================================================
OK, so you suckered me into replying again by your continuous stream of
outrageous misinterpretations and misrepresentations.
No Bill, your the one with the outrageous misinterpretations and
misrepresentations.
The irony is that I do it even knowing that I will not budge you an inch,
and you will not
understand a word I say, I suppose that, like Rick, I'm a bit concerned
that onlookers who are just starting in will take your arguments
seriously.
Don't worry,There are no on-lookers. Another of your fabulous strawmen, no
doubt.. Any one who has followed these threads can see the none answers and
personal attacks you and Rick are so good at. You answered _none_ of my
questions. This post alone was filled with insinuation and nonsense. Your
physiology is pitiful. If you weren't so busy trying to prove to the world
how fabulous your theory is you actually might have some time to clean it
up.
I am grateful to Brian Thalhammer for pointing out that if anyone is
driving subscribers off our list, it is probably you.
Yep. betwen Rick and I we probably depopulated this list. I'm also
responsible for the civil wars in Africa, and the starvation throughout the
world. Of course _your_ theory had _nothing_ to do with anyone ever leaving.
HA HA HA HA HA
You have lowered the
tone of these discussions considerably, frequently to the gutter..
With _much_ help from you and Rick. I could not have done it alone. 
Marc
