The Principle that Orders Everything within the CNS

kenneth paul collins KPCollins at
Thu Oct 17 01:40:42 EST 1996

[advice on quoting prior posts needed... what's the expected norm in this 
forum...? everything, or just-enough...? thanks in advance]

Jason Eriksen wrote:
> In article <32657838.45E2 at>, kenneth paul collins
> <KPCollins at> wrote:
> >A single principle organizes everything that occurs
> >within our CNSs, including their developmental wiring
> >up...
> >
> >....our nervous systems are physically structured,
> >throughout their entire extents, so that their
> >functioning will automatically "seek" to achieve a single
> >goal... the minimization of the topologically-distributed
> >ratios of excitation to inhibition that are occuring
> >within them...
> Kenneth, since you were so kind to put your thoughts into electronic format,
> I'd appreciate it if you could elaborate your thoughts on these subjects. I'm
> not questioning your basic ideas, I just want to know a little more about the
> following:
> (1) Could you further explain the principle and experimental evidence (beyond
> the example you have given of pain avoidance) which supports your hypothesis
> of this neural "see-saw" kind of wiring? From my understanding, you are
> saying that the cortex and other structures (anything which is presumably
> not hardwired) is constantly remapping itself in response to environmental
> stimuli in order to achieve a sort of threshold. But I'm not exactly clear
> on *how* such a structure would work in dealing with non-linearly separable
> problems because it seems to me, in my ignorance of your theory,
> that what you are envisioning is that at each level of cortex where
> reorganization occurs, there is an algorithm that tells each neuron
> to remap its responses (via second messenger systems, protein production, ?)
> to the various synapses in order to minimalize the neuron's excitability.
> However, such a model seems to me to have the structure of a one or two
> layered neural network, which Minsky et al. showed in the 1960s (as I'm sure
> you're familiar with) that this class of network is not capable of resolving
> non-linearly separable problems. Only three-layered networks are capable of
> such resolutions, and from my limited understanding of neural networks, middle
> layers usually do not have inputs with excitatory and inhibitory ratios around
> 1:1. How does your system solve this problem under your model?
> To put it simply, if we were to look at an individual neuron in the CNS, how
> would you model it with respect to this minimalization procedure? What are the
> (hypothesized) mechanisms that are used in this system?

...hi, Jason, as far as I'm presently aware, no "AI" method approaches DT's view 
(although I expect that there must be such models by this late date, I've not 
tried to keep informed with respect to such... it's a long story)

...anyway, the neocortex is 6-layered (the phylogenetically-older allocortex is 
3-layered (ie hippocampus)... the basic cortical tuning dynamic involves the 
comingling of stochastic (reticular-system generated) and specific activation 
under the governance of mechanisms which actively seek to achieve TD E/I-minimized 
"states"... I've already memtioned one of these... the cerebellum's 
entirely-inhibitory outputs... there are 3 other global TD E/I minimization 
"governors", the amygdals (low level), the hippocampus (intermediate level)  and 
the basal ganglia (high level)...

...I refer to these as "supersystem configuration mechanisms" (the nervous system 
is a "suersystem" comprised of numerous systems)... they achieve TD E/I 
minimization by "latching" chance neural activations that procede in the correct 
TD E/I(down) direction...

...this is functional because any inappropriate "latching" will tend strongly to 
result in increased activation coming in from the external environment...

the hippocampal & basal ganglial super-system configuration mechanisms are array 
processors... think of an array of clock escapements... but much more because of 
the interplay between stochastic & specific activation...

> >....thus, the topography that is correlated with the
> >greatest degree of noxious stimulation receives the least
> >post-inversion excitation... this means that the effector
> >activations that were responsible for moving the body
> >into contact with the environmental source of noxious
> >stimulation will now be most inhibited... thus, an
> >"arrest reaction" will occur with respect to motion in
> >the direction of the environmental source of the noxious
> >stimulation...
> (2) I'm not an expert on the spinal cord by any means, but I thought many of
> these reflexes were mediated at the spinal cord through mono-synaptic synapses
> rather than this rather complicated-sounding scheme, which seems like it would
> involve multiple neural networks.

...yes, but dynamics which require cross-modality integration require higher-level 
processing... and BTW, even the routs that the pain fibers take into the spinal 
cord reflect the topological order that I was discussing in my prior post... the 
pain fibers enter a bit deep in the dorsal horns, and =then= head superficially... 
this is all to maintain what I refer to as the "special topological homeomorphism" 
of the CNS... so even the spinal reflexes are rigorously integrated into the TD 
E/I minimization neural architecture... (the structural order is so awesome... 
=everything= is rigorously integrated... everything fairly shouts its 
membership within the TD E/I minimization structural order :-)

> Your hypothesis reminds me of the neuroscience concept of
> motion-representation "force fields," where complex neural inputs  integrate
> motion with body position to yield the appropriate force vectors for limb
> movement, eye positioning, etc.

...well, one can analyze things in terms of "fields" of neural activation... but I 
did it the hard way... I constructed models of the actual neuroanatomy and 
"watched" it function... gradually adding nuclear groups until the whole CNS was 
integrated... so the way I discuss things is interms of the actual Neuroanatomy... 
which has some extraordinary, Truly wonderful capabilities...

> I look forward to your comments, Kenneth. Thanks!
> Sincerely,
> Jason Eriksen

...Jason, I'm sure what's here is inadequate, but if you tell me what has not 
communicated, I'll work up discussing pertaining to those points... it really 
helps to have access to a Neuroanatomy text while discussing Duality Theory's 
synthesis... thank you for hanging in with me, Cheers, ken collins
People love because they're fearless...

More information about the Neur-sci mailing list