micro mods to neurons

Lee Kent Hempfling lkh at mail.cei.net
Mon Oct 14 10:17:03 EST 1996


I know, I know, I was going to leave this thing alone but Colleen
can't be left alone in the pit: To all : please accept apologies for
any forthcoming lack of professional decorum.


kenneth paul collins <KPCollins at postoffice.worldnet.att.net>
enunciated:


>...no, that's not what I said... I said that words are mathematical 
>representation...

Words are symbolic representations. Mathematics is symbolic
representation. Just because Old Paint and Man Of War were both horses
does not mean they were the same horse.

>> but the words are *not* the big mac, they just represent one.  that is all
>> words ever do.

>...here, you're saying what I did say, but saying that I did not say it :-)

>> in this way, he confuses a model of learning with actual learning.

>..."who's on first?"

With an attitude. 

<snip hype>

>> the neural engram refers to the documentation of a MEMORY in a living system.
>> so far, it has not been discovered.

>...where we disagree is in the relative weights that should be attributed to all 
>of the evidence (tons of it) that verifies the existence of 
>nerual-activation-driven microscopic trophic modifications and the fact that 
>specific memories are not yet localizable...

Is this person saying that microscopic nutritional changes modify a
fictitious memory potential?  If there is tons of evidence, produce
some. If that is not what is being claimed, look up the words you use
before throwing them about.

>...where you seem to see the the specific-memory thing as a "road block", I see it 
>as a future extension to the currently-available work, and I see the 
>currently-available work as being sufficient to say that it is verified that 
>"memory" is, in fact, encoded in nerual-activation-driven microscopic trophic 
>modifications...

People learn and store memory based upon their food intake? Perhaps a
source might help here:

tro.phic \'tra:f-ik, 'tro--fik\ \-(*-)le-\ aj [F trophique, fr. Gk
trophikos, fr. trophe- nourishment, f]r.
trephein to nourish - more at ATROPHY 1: of or relating to nutrition :
NUTRITIONAL {~
disorders} 2: TROPIC - tro.phi.cal.ly av 

Let us examine this: nerual-activation-driven microscopic

The neuron starts and controls a tiny yet not nano thing...... say
what?

<snip>

>with respect 
>to the neural dynamics delimits the possible realm of the micro mods which encode 
>memory... in this way, that which constitutes the "engram" becomes 
>physically-real...

Let us try this again: 

en.gram also en.gramme \'en-.gram\ \en-'gram-ik\ n [ISV] : a memory
trace; specif : a protoplasmic
change in neural tissue hypothesized to account for persistence of
memory - en.gram.mic aj 

Is this peron saying the neuron is plastic and physically changes to
each various memory it either processes or holds or waves at as it
goes by? Is there theory here based on theory?

<snip>

>...Let me tell you, Colleen, you're taking this approach with the wrong person... 
>I've made a study of the way that so-called "neuroscientists" excuse themselves 
>from having to deal with the great mass of information that's been collected... so 
>if you want to discuss this one thing, lead on...

I will. Produce this study. You claim you've made a study. Produce it.
In fact I'll even give you amunition: I am a physicist specializing in
the quantum and chaos fields. You do not, as yet as I have seen, claim
any such fields in your heretofore unknown 'theory' and would
absolutely not include them in neuroscience yet you speak of
microscopic. Did you invent a new form of mathmatics to explain what
you want to convey in order to keep from trying to understand quantum
or is it because you do not feel the quantum is a viable course in
microscopic evaluation? If the latter, please explain chemistry. Or
would you rather the periodic table of elements be listed in
alphebetical order?


>>  hopefully, someday, it will be found.  and
>> it will be a real memory, not a representation or model of it.

>...open your eyes... it's already =in= that which is delimited by the experimental 
>results... and with respect to the worth of what =can= be done with what is 
>already known relative to the worth that would be added it I could tell a person 
>which molecules in the person's brain stored the memory of the person's first 
>kiss, it's no contest... in this matter, the exact molecular representation is 
>=relatively= worthless... at this point in the history of Neuroscience, it's no 
>contest...

Produce these experimental results. I enjoy a contest. Let us pit
which ever molecule you wish against any other molecule you wish and
let us see the Darwinian interactivity take place. For that matter
tell me what molecule (be sure to tell me the EXACT location of that
molecule) accounts for my first kiss. Or would that molecule be for
the first time my mother kissed me or would I have had to initiate the
kiss for it to qualify for the one molecule you can point out and
identify? Be sure now, to become arrogant . Please do not allow
anything to get into the way of your attitude.

>...the position you've taken is in the realm of that worthlessness...

>> please do not let me dissuade you from looking into LTP - it is actually a
>> fascinating neural phenomenon but it is created in the laboratory with
>> relatively high electric currents that do not normally exist in a physiological
>> system.  this does not mean that LTP has no use; it just means it is NOT
>> LEARNING.

>...in this, you are also wrong... read in the stacks... any instance in which you 
>read of trailing-off high-frequency components in an activation trace is an 
>instance in which there is a form of tuning which is in the realm that can be 
>termed "LTP"... the length of the term of potentiation varies, but it's all in the 
>same realm as "LTP"...
>[snip]

Ahhhhh, tuning..... are we speaking of frequencies now? If so, please,
what frequencies?  High frequencies? Theta Waves? Gamma Waves? Beta
Waves? Alpha Waves? Collins Waves? Waves in the football stadium when
a touchdown occurs? What is created to permit observation already
exists?

<snip>

>...and if you want to know why I'm so "hot under the collar" about all of this, 
>it's just that I've just about had it with folks who trash what I bring to them 
>without even bothering to understand it... and who attempt to do so with this or 
>that "fashionable quote" from one of the texts that, rather than =doing= 
>Neuroscience, amounts to nothing more than a "throwing up of hands" in a putrid 
>swoon over "how difficult is the problem on which we're working"... "oh, aren't we 
>grand?" ...it is precisely =this= which I refer to as B.S. ...such is unworthy of 
>any place in the company of Scientists, "Neuro" or otherwise...

The 'folks' are not the ones who have brought the trash. Many have
attempted to understand what you proport to discuss. If you can not
deal with, or explain away, those 'fashionable quotes' how in the
world would you stand before an academic crowd of alligators and stand
the teeth? DO you think a forum such as this is going to be receptive
alone? Are you imparted with wisdom beyond question? Is your wisdom
self delusionary or is no one to have the permission to question it?

<snip>

>...B. S. ...with respect to cross-modality integration the PNS is 
>=hugely= differentiated from the CNS... of course they are connected... so what? I 
>was discussing the differential healing, and why it occurs...

A person who uses useless language is unable to think of a more
intellectual retort.

<snip>

>...B. S. ...=study= the relative cross-modality integration problems...

A person who uses useless language is unable to think of a more
intellectual retort.

>...Colleen, it's offensive in the extreme to have one's Life's work brushed aside 
>with the sorts of "canned objections" with which you've responded... get one thing 
>straight... with me, in discussions of the Neuroscience, only the stuff of the 
>experimental results matters... the rest, including all of the trite sayings with 
>respect to the "difficulty" of the "neuroscientific" problem that are fairly 
>celebrated at meetings among "neruoscientists", are B. S. ...broach such in my 
>presence, and I'll take such and fling it up against the nearest "wall"...

You are very good at that.

>...and don't come back at me with recriminations with respect to my "attitude"... 
>people are suffering greatly under the yoke of prejudice... nations, under the 
>yoke of nationalistic prejudice, are fighting, or preparing for war... all of 
>which can be can be ameliorated with the stuff of the Neuroscience experimental 
>results that have existed for decades already...

"Neuroscience experimental results that have existed for decades
already..." this I presume means you have discovered nothing new just
having taken things others have already done and made up a new
mathematics to prove your own deductions?

>...when you, or anyone else who's taking up a funded position in Neuroscience 
>talks canned B.S. rather that doing what's necessary on behalf of those who 
>suffer, they become the cause of the suffering... can't anyone see that... good 
>grief! Neuroscience is funded by the tax dollars of those who are forsaken by 
>Neuroscience...?

You are by doubt, a learned Judge of the Neuroscience court. Do you
think that those who study the science have no heart? Do you think
that (here we go again) corporate entities are heartless since they
are called corporate entities? People suffer. Solutions are sought to
stop the suffering. Many great strides have been made in this venue
but changes of society are societal Are you the comforter some are
waiting for? From whence does your wisdom come?

>...I am here to =do= neuroscience... I have tolerated B.S. for more than 2 
>decades. I will not tolerate such any further... B. S. will not be allowed to 
>stand... and this is not an "attitude problem"... this is =Neuroscience=, and 
>Neuroscience deserves no less... people are suffering and dying for goodness' 
>sakes... and folks in Neuroscience resort to B.S.? K. P. Collins

This is neuroscience? This IS attitude. An author's work is a product
of the author. Does this mean your work is a thorn?  I trust not. But
your attitude is getting in the way. If you care to match wits then I
am sure there are those in this forum quite well up to the task. But
if you continue to resort to attacks and names and non-intellectual
verbiage it is only yourself you are marking.

Now...... attack away.. Show your true colors. Or.... shock us all and
act civilized.

lkh
Lee Kent Hempfling                   |lkh at cei.net
Neutronics Technolgies Corporation   |http:www.cei.net/~lkh/ntc/
PO Box 3127 Fort Smith Ar 72913      |Due to traffic: new improved site.
Room temperature, cold dynamic system, quantum computation, built and proven.
Video available at the above site.




More information about the Neur-sci mailing list