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

Voltage Clamp

kenneth Collins kpaulc at earthlink.net
Sat Nov 13 22:29:38 EST 1999

=all= of the refs i've used, and the extents to which i've used them is documented (i
habitually mark-up, and write in the margins of everything i read).

as i explained in former discussions. i came to Neuroscience late (from Electrical
Engineering, with Physics being my 'first love). because of this late start, it was
clear to me that the best way i could contribute was to 'look-elsewhere', because all
of the established stuff already had so many Experts doing it. and that's what i did...
'look-elsewhere'. doing so =requires= one to work from First-Principles, because to be
able to contribute 'looking-elsewhere' stuff, one must =first= integrate the
fundamentals. i went at this as Physicists go at Physics (just because i didn't know
'any better'... as i discuss in AoK, i didn't, then, understand that Neuroscience was
pursued via many, then-disconnected, 'specializations', each with their own labs,
languages, conferences, etc.) i just set out to Master what was already in the
Library... because i didn't know 'any better', and becaause i didn't want to 'embarass'
myself in the classroom. in Physics, folks 'hammer' one who blunders, and i didn't want
to allow that to happen to me in my newly-chosen area of study.

the effort almost did-me-in. there was so much in the stacks that needed integrating.
it was during this period that i proposed doing this integration as a way to obtain a

i was rebuffed.

but i'd recognized the problem, so i just decided to do it on my own.

it's always been that, because i was 'looking-elsewhere', i just avoided existing
theory (except for then-existing 'personality' theories, because they were the stuff of
a course i took, and one class i took at the graduate level that used a book entitled
_The Metaphorical Brain_, from which, if i recall correctly, i got the frog tectum
transplant stuff that i've used in discussions from time to time.

the rationale in avoiding existing theory was that 1. if it was correct, there'd be
nothing that needed me, and 2. if it was not-yet, but going-to-be, correct, then i'd
not be able to catch-up, anyway, and what needed to be done would be done by other

so i just 'looked-elsewhere', starting with the raw stuff of experimental results. went
from one end of the stacks to the other, taking-in all the experimental results that i

the break-through came when, out of 'frustration', i drew the main circuitry on the
inside of a brown-paper shopping bag, and put it over my head so that i could study the
circuitry while i was walking around, all the while 'watching' all of my effector
activations... voi la! the 'Rosetta Stone' of TD E/I-minimization showed itself in the
RF-CBL interconnectedness. it helped that i was then living in a garret with slanted
ceilings, into which i was always banging the ol' noggin'.

this was ~9 years into my effort, and after the bag-viewing, everything just began to
implode toward unity.

"the unknown neuroscientist" :-)

cheers, ken (K. P. Collins)

kenneth Collins wrote:

> BTW, if anyone wants me to read, and comment on this or that work done by others, i
> will. but just remember, it'll've not been me who initiated such. the only thing i
> do is 'whine' about what's =not= happened with respect to the work =i've= done.
> yeah, i discuss 'borrowing' from my work. i do that to try to remind folks about
> Honor in Science.
> anyway, if it's the case that 'the problem' is that someone else is claiming
> 'priority', then the easiest path to resolution of 'the problem', is to have me
> read, and comment on what they claim, no?
> seems simple enough, to me... except for the Sorrow-filled-ness if this sort of
> thing is 'the problem'. there are a bunch of things that anyone who'd claim
> 'priority' would have to know, but which i've not yet discussed because they're
> just more-demanding than the 'level' to which i've been able to lift the ongoing
> discussion. one cannot comprehend them until one becomes thoroughly-grounded in
> NDT's fundamentals. so i've not 'bothered' to discuss them.
> but, if that's 'the problem', i'll read the other stuff, then click-'em-off, which
> is what i'm doing with respect to this or that msg, anyway.
> so, if that's 'the problem', then let's get on with what needs to be done, no?
> Mark, i like your Erasmus quote.
> cheers, ken (K. P. Collins)
> kenneth Collins wrote:
> > Hi, Mark. my response is not to you.
> >
> > if anyone 'wonders', this Q is newer than any of the refs i've used. didn't
> > 'patch clamping' garner the Medicine Nobel in the recent past? my
> > 'understanding' is that it's a powerful technique for analyzing ion-gates and
> > their functioning.
> >
> > if anyone wants to see the way i resolved the same stuff, i'll be glad to do
> > it, in-person. there's no 'mystery' to my method; just a lot of grunt-work to
> > go from global to local dynamics, while carrying-through the 'special
> > topological homeomorphism' (STH) and the necessity of TD E/I-minimization,
> > given specific inputs and outputs.
> >
> > as i've explained, knowing specific functionalities of particular ion channels
> > is insufficient for saying anything, because they can do the same thing, but be
> > participating in radically-different information-processing dynamics... so one
> > =must= carry through STH & TD E/I-minimization with respect to particular
> > inputs and outputs.
> >
> > of course, all the parallelism and sequential stuff, like dynamic subordinate
> > coupling (AoK, Ap5), must be carried through, too (just sub-stuff within STH &
> > TD E/I(min).
> >
> > as i said, except for the refs i've responded to in this NG, i stopped going to
> > the Lib to read in Neuroscience back in the mid-80s. (it's a Sorrow, but that's
> > what happened. it was just too-painful to read further).
> >
> > ken (K. P. Collins
> >
> > Mark Fehr wrote:
> >
> > > Hi,
> > >     I'm an aspiring neuroscientist, a junior in college, and was wondering
> > > if someone could help me out with a concept in my intro to neuroscience
> > > class.  Can someone explain how the voltage clamp exactly works, and what I
> > > read from it? I have a vague idea, and would like it to me more grounded.
> > > Thanks
> > > MARK
> > >
> > > --
> > > "When I get a little money I buy books; and if any is left I buy food and
> > > clothes"
> > > -Erasmus
> > > http://members.xoom.com/wolf42/forever.html

More information about the Neur-sci mailing list

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