Posted by JohnX2 on March 6, 2002, at 14:03:10
In reply to Re: what do you think of flibanserin (Ectris)? » Cam W., posted by JohnX2 on March 6, 2002, at 13:47:39
>
> Hmm, I kinda see what you are saying...
>
> Well, a lot of work has been in trying to analyze things
> from ground up and start pushing buttons there. Problem
> being things were just too complex and we didn't have the
> tools to understand the "big picture" and really think about
> how to turn the knobs working from the "top".
>
> I do microchip design, and there are a lot of analogies
> between the complexity of what makes a microprocessor
> with 25+ million transistors that fits on a finger nail
> work (would anyone had believed we'd have this 50 yrs ago?),
> all the feedback mechanisms, things that need to work
> absolutely perfect to get a functional chip, etc. Just blow
> 1 of those 25 million transistors and we have a dead chip.
> We can actually pinpoint which transistor killed the part with
> our technology (but this had to be thought out ahead of
> time before initiating the design).Better yet, we have many chips that can run
a good deal of software that can work around those
faulty transistors as they are not always needed.
But pop up a particular game in some bizzare
scenario erratic to duplicate, etc, and "crash".
The events that led to the crash set up a huge cascade
of "states" amongst the other million of transistors that
1 itty bitty transistor was talking too. Sometimes we
go nuts just trying to duplicate these crashes to
have something repeatable and predicable to study.Also a lot of transistors are devoted to making the
chip faster, and they can fail yet the chip can execute
every instruction you give it, just not as fluently as
it would if the transistors were all communicating as
we intended. We don't sell these crummy chips of coarse ;).I see alot of analogies to the body/brain.
-John
> We don't build chips by slopping down transistors and then
> gluing them together and working are way up into this
> elegant 25 million transistor computing device, it would
> never work. I understand it from that perspective. Yet
> the brain is much more complex, and the transisitors
> (neurons, enzymes, whatever) are just being understood and
> we really are just exciting them to see how the rest of
> the computer (the brain) reacts. Not much to go by.
> Need to think about how the body is architected from the
> top. Arggh, i almost feel we would need to have the
> technology to build a frankenstein monster to really get
> a grip on the complexity of the human body/brain though.
> But going back to my 25 million transistors on a fingernail,
> thats facile today, so maybe getting a grip on the human
> system some day is not out of this world. Arggh. Rambling,
> don't know if this helps, its how my brain thinks in case
> your wondering.
>
> -John
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > John - I think we need to take a different view of all biochemical systems that self-check (ie use biofeedback). We need to view them as we do an organ (albeit an ephemeral one). Scientists keep looking at the systems from a bottom-up approach, when perhaps a top-down theory may show us more.
> >
> > Perhaps we should be looking at simultaneous activity in different brain structures, and how this changes over time and in various emotional states. The flux of the electrical activity in neurons, as it relates to bodily states (eg. moods, reactions, etc.), may be more important than the individual wiring (ie. the type of neurotransmitter a particular neuron uses, and where it "plugs-in").
> >
> > Rahter than looking at the HPA axis, we should start looking at the result of what the HPA axis is doing in relation to other bodily "axes" (eg. HPA's interaction between the endocrine system, cardiac system, etc.). In other words, we should be looking a a relative (and perhaps subjective) view of homeostasis, and be studying the overall impact of change on homeostasis through change in one or several of these systems. This is basically using a homeopathic approach, but done in an orderly scientific manner, whose results should be reproduceable and unequivocal (ie. the results should be obvious to everyone).
> >
> > Just babbling (honestly, the above is not psychotic rambling ... there is a thread of thought in there; it just won't come out in words :^)
> >
> > Can someone who knows words kinda come to my rescue here? - Cam
poster:JohnX2
thread:95939
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/20020301/msgs/96735.html