sinapses&weights

Sir Knowitall fell_joinedby_in at one.net.au
Sat Jan 8 17:35:28 EST 2000


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:
<snip>
> In a neuron the weight of a synapse can be described through three
> effects:
>
> 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.

--
http://web.one.net.au/~fellin/main.htm
(a far from perfect but at least never inEPT explanatory
platform-terminology)
--
P.S.
(What follows is likely to be perceived as an overload, but I included it
anyway.)

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
http://web.one.net.au/~fellin/main.htm]

===================
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
modules".
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.








More information about the Neur-sci mailing list