IUBio Biosequences .. Software .. Molbio soft .. Network News .. FTP

Serotonin and Depression

kkollins at pop3.concentric.net kkollins at pop3.concentric.net
Wed Oct 14 19:33:54 EST 1998

Dag Stenberg wrote:

> kkollins at pop3.concentric.net wrote:
> > But, through the diligent efforts of the experimentalists,
> > the Neuroscience stacks have been overfolowing with more than enough proven
> > information for decades to allow everything to be cross-correlated at a
> > verifiably-lasting foundation level.
> Just another comment about that. The information from "decades" is partly
> irrelevant because of the development of newer methods.

I don't disagree that the latest methods are more-precise, more-powerful, and
more-disclosing. But I must disagree with you because the data that existed
decades ago was, in fact, sufficient. The result will stand as incontrovertible
Truth for all time, or at least until evolutionary dynamics greatly-modify the
very-fundamental neural architecture. That neural stuff constitutes the
physically-real substrate for our nervous systems' processing of information...
it's an in-there necessity that can't just "go away" in the midst of evolutionary
modifications, lest the nervous system, at that point, be rendered incapable of
guiding the (by-)production of behavior. This's why things can be traced back
through phylogeny. Evolution builds upon success. It doesn't throw out success
and "start over". What about an instance in which, over a long time course, new
stuff develops that will prosper so well that it can assume the functioning of
the old stuff, and then the old stuff will atrophy, and disappear... like sixth
toes or appendices? 1. No one presently on Earth, nor their offspring for 100s or
1000s of generations, will be around to expereince such. A necessity is to work
with what's available. (Surgical "intervention" to redesign the nervous system?)
The bottom line is that it's not only evolution and biological necessity that
have converged upon the neural architecture that's innate within our nervous
systems. The functionality of that neural architecture stands verified
mathematically with respect to that King of the Physical Universe, the 2nd Law of
Thermodynamics. The design we posses is an Truly-Awesomely-Good-Fit with What's
Described By 2nd Thermo (WDB2T). I regularly look for the means to improve this
goodness-of-fit... it's always been a humbling experience. The thing can be
Proven... shortest latencies, shortest circuit lengths, etc.

And all of this is right in the decades-old data.

> This is something we
> see regularly: some new approach represents a breakthrough and makes a bunch
> of old data and conclusions obsolete. One example could be molecular
> biological methods - actually measuring gene expression in situ, gene
> regulation, doing transgenics. Another example might be the impact of in
> vivo microdialysis or in situ electrochemistry - putting a probe into a
> specific location and measuring neurochemical changes there (as opposed to
> indirect measurements from faraway places like blood, urine or cerebrospinal
> fluid), possible in combination with neuronal activity recordings. With new
> methods, one finds things that could not possible be measured before. In my
> own field, for instance, the relation of serotonin to sleep was
> misunderstood until this type of measurements were possible.

Yes. Such will not change the stuff discussed above, however. It's been my
experience that having the fundamental understanding only accelerates the
applicability, and enhances the usefulness of, new methodologies. With respect to
such, one must not allow expectations to dictate one's perceptions... one must
maintain the ability to Wonder, to test, and test, and test. But my experience is
that the same theme goes all the way down, like a fractal, and it's so be-cause
the our nervous systems are elegantly engineered to tightly embrace WDB2T...
which is what all of Physical Reality also tightly embraces.

A little story discloses the view upon which I've converged. Physics has always
been my first-love in Science, but I'd only an undergrad's education in it. When
the problem of Prejudice won me over, in 1971, my education in Physics had to go
to the "back burner". Basically, I just would return to read my copy of my
undergraduate Halliday & Resnick, 1962, over and over again, mainly staying in
the Mechanics chapters 'cause I just Love =Newton's= work. I'd do this when the
disorder that I'd encountered in my new field threatened to cave me in... the
Order inherent in my rereading Halliday & Resnick would "just" recenter me (I now
understand that these turnings back to my familiar Love were self-healing flights
from TD E/I(up) (which are all duely documented in my notes, and the experience
of which did, in fact, constitute part of the "seed" that grew into the
Unification Principle [TD E/I-minimization]. But to "cut to the chase", after I'd
come to understand brain function, it was my Neuroscience which, then, served the
role that Physics had formerly served. And when I looked to see where WDB2T fit
into Physics, it just imploded... Physical Reality =is= WDB2T. It's long-since
that I can deal with any experimental result in the Physical Sciences
=completely= with recourse to nothing more than WDB2T. (I'll demonstrate in
Public, in Person, if anyone's interested.)

Around the time of this implosion-realization, I posted a msg to a Friend in
another electronic-forum place, "I looked in the brain, and say the Universe."
And it's True. So you see, since the neural engineering of our nervous systems is
so wonderfully glommed-onto the thing that gives Order to all of Physical
Reality, any modifications to it that are possible will only carry it toward the
same "destination"... a closer embrace with WDB2T... whatever new stuff is added
on as Humanity goes forward (if it can, in our present white-hot "moment", in
which Ignorance still dictates what "will be",  avoid destroying itself), short
latencies, short circuit lengths must be in-there... just as they are already
in-there... Wonderfully!

Cheers, Dag, ken

More information about the Neur-sci mailing list

Send comments to us at biosci-help [At] net.bio.net