Christian W. <melvin at gmx.de> wrote in message
news:20000105190551142579 at nafp2-189.rz.uni-frankfurt.de...
> <steve at tropheus.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> In a neuron the weight of a synapse can be described through three
>> 1)the number of neurotransmitter release-sites
>> 2)the probability of neurotransmitter release from the pre-synapse
> following an actionpotential
>> 3)the density of receptors on the post-synapse
>> The synaptic weight is a construct which is directly proportional to
> these three effects.
In order not for the "weight" concept to be simple enough to be most useful
for forming a philanthropically oriented outlook on how brains work (i.e.
how we are) I believe we should 'incline' what we mean by "synaptic weights"
towards being a meaure of a baseline/background value (viewing it as more of
a constant than as a variable). Hence it is is better defining it without
"2)" [or with a far stronger weight on "1)" and "3)", than on "2)"]
What I am promoting by this proposed "restraint of meaning", is a simple yet
potent 'optimally omnidirectional' overview; one that none-the-less is
elastic and 'zoomable' enough to be precisely revealing of how we are.
(a far from perfect but at least never inEPT explanatory
(What follows is likely to be perceived as an overload, but I included it
This overview would (does) involve a distinct recognition of the importance
of the "DNA-recipe" for human structures+functions (functures), that this
"recipe" can be "accEPTably" understood (if only by acknowledged aid of the
"Principle of Tolerance") if one strategically interpret and
categorize/conceptualize amongst "selective pressures" -- including an
inevitably often occurred overlap of certain such kinds "pressures" -- that
the ancestral lineage of the human species was inevitably as if "shaped" or
"naturally pruned in" by; and if one weave such an approach and recognitions
into an associational web of additional cross-correlational references that
also include any relevant fields (facts and interpretations) of science.
[That is, I have found that an umbrella explanation that loosely yet
rationally and self-consistently integrates the basic principles of
evolution-theory with ~all~ other relevant and *firmly scientifically
established principles and theories* ("~all~" only of course *as far as I*
have been able to sample amongst the trend of increasing factual knowledge
and the on the whole converging and/or increasingly compementary
interpretations of thus availed - i.e. "scientifically etablished" - facts)
can become a rewarding -- although *in a certain sense* "effectively
philosophy-terminating" -- reality.
By not only that such an "explanatory philosophical thesis" is possible, and
lends itself to be felt as a *complementary* "position of understanding",
but that such an explanation (come position of "optimally omniscientific"
understanding) DOES NOT HAVE TO BE TOO DRY, either! As evidenced by
Re: "selective pressures":
"(Natural) Selection pressures", or IOW ditto naturally selective
"challenges" (or "Situations"), are usually thought of as being selective
mainly in context of "phylogeny". However, they are *of course* also
selective in real-time; i.e. (metaphorically) as if via their "pressing" of
sensory "selection-buttons" of (living) "juke-boxes" who contain and more or
less regularly are made to play their *available*
behaviour/response-producing "program structures" ["prosters"] or "actention
Some "prosters" are mutually exclusive and prioritized basically by inbuilt
internal "weights" and wiring-schemes; though sometimes some of these are
later significantly modified by conditioning experiences, given that
"prosters" for aquiring now or modifying preexisting prosters are
fundamental components of "juke-boxes".
Of course, even the process of ontogeny may be affected environmentally,
i.e. at stages of the individual-producing process of life (where
RNA-mediated translation of DNA into proteins, and their coming together as
brain and/or somatic structions, takes place) so that the process of
ontogeny does not reach its full functural potential.
So selective pressures are here taken to include "psychosocial" and
related/similar interactions; and to have been as if 'Naturally exerted'
with respect to have the lives of real and/or "budding" individuals.
The two most general types of selection pressures are -- rather obviously --
the dialectically related categories "Adversity type challenges" (or ditto
pressures or "Situations") and "Opportunity type" ditto.