brain sizes: Einstein's and women's

Kenneth Collins k.p.collins at worldnet.att.net
Sun Jul 14 22:45:58 EST 2002


Please forgive my including the entirety of the "glai' and "stem cell"
discussions in this brief addendum, the purpose of which is to facilitate
the work of Computer Science folks who might want to explore the glial stuff
within their ongoing AI work (and to dispell any 'despair' that they
might've experienced because the glial stuff seems, at first glance, to run
so 'contrary' to standard Artificial 'neural network' stuff :-)

the glial stuff is not difficult. most of what's required already exists in
'morphing' technology. it needs to be robustly-extended in 3D, within
correlated overal structural 3D stuff. ["arrays within arrays"].

the information-processing power inherent is worth-it, especially to those
who model the brain.

if that's not a goal, there're infinite ways of doing the 'same' thing, and
the 'winner' will do the same thing, optimally. as a function of itself.

k. p. collins

Kenneth Collins wrote in message ...
>before i get 'busted', i don't 'discount' the recent stem cell findings.
>
>if robust enough, for instance, they'd constitute an excellent contribution
>within the physical dynamics underpinning extremely-long-term, and
>relatively-enduring, "inversion" [big-time "changing of one's mind" (if
it's
>via stem cell proliferation, =literally= :-)] which [such fundamental
>"inversion"], with respect to Seeing beyond 'blindly'-automated TD
>E/I-minimization, has been a major focus of the stuff i've posted since
>coming back online.
>
>in themselves, the stem cells are insufficient, though. they'd have to be
>'interposed' within the rest of what's discussed in AoK. problems like the
>dynamics of their distribution within the brain are relatively-easy. all
the
>necessary directional information exists within the one Internal Frame of
>Reference [IFR] Geometry. all the stem cells'd have to do is 'swim' in
>accord with the ionic 'current' that's in TD E/I-minimization.]
>
>it seems to me that this one "inversion" thing is promising re. stem cells.
>
>of course, the other more-obvious thing is fault-tolerance maintenance and
>'repair', including TD E/I-minimization "whoop-sa-daiseys" [but these are
>mini-"inversions"].
>
>i expect that there's already enough in the Literature, but i haven't
>gotten-into it yet. probably won't [unless i can find employment]. so i
>encourage others to go-for-it.
>
>k. p. collins
>
>Kenneth Collins wrote in message ...
>>Thalamus wrote in message ...
>>>"Kenneth Collins" <k.p.collins at worldnet.att.net> skrev i melding
>>>news:mj9W8.13653$Iu6.737934 at bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
>>
>>>>[...]
>>>[...]
>>>> before reading the page to which your post directed me, i'd only read
>>rather
>>>> sketchy reports on "Einstein's brain". my understanding was that it was
>>cut
>>>> up, fixed, and sat in a jar, almost lost, for decades, with only
>>>> long-post-mortem investigation. the thing that i found most-interesting
>>is
>>>> that Einstein's brain was found to have significantly-mor[e] neuralglia
>>cells.
>>>
>>>Which is strange - glial cells are NOT information-processing cells,
>>they're
>>>functionally support cells IE oligodendrocytes, Schwann cells etc.
>>>So how could Einstein be a genious, if his structural neural network
>wasn't
>>>exceptional, if his brainsize were 'normal' ????
>>>
>>>Brian
>>
>>
>>beginning back in the mid-1970s, i sought a substrate to underpin my
>>subjective experience of being able to 'tune' 'memory' through
>long-enduring
>>focused effort. the problem was compelling because its 'mechanism' was,
>>apparently, boundless. no matter what i focused upon, if i stuck with it,
>it
>>became, =relatively=, my "whole world". yet, when, for this reason ot
that,
>>i had to 'drop' my focused effort, the correlated 'memory' would
>'dissolve',
>>and when, usually some months or years later, i returned to the correlated
>>'focus', i'd have to go through yet another period of enduring-effort.
with
>>each such relatively-exclusive-focus 'cycle', there's a gradual decrease
in
>>the effort involved. [if anyone's saved the stuff i've posted, over the
>>years, here in bionet.neuroscience, folks'll be able to See such
'cycling',
>>most readily when i was deeply-focused on one thing [i'm always at work on
>>stuff other than that which i'm 'momentarily' discussing], and someone
>>queried with respect to some relatively-'distant' other thing. the stuff
>i'm
>>discussing doesn't 'shift-gears' 'instantaneously'. and i responded with
>>'short-shrift' stuff. the topic wasn't, then, in 'where i was'. and, if
>>folks look for it, folks'll see the same stuff within their own
>>experiences.]
>>
>>anyway, these dynamics seemed, to me, to be too-flexible to be
attributable
>>to neuroanl sprouting, synaptic strengthening/weakening,
>>budding/disappearing, and definitely not to neural-death, so i turned to
>>glia [in particular, but not exclusively, astrocytes, because of their
>>morphology].
>>
>>my view became that some glia are 'active' participants in neural
>activation
>>and convergence upon them [which, of course, includes 'memory'], because
of
>>their selective ionic permeabilities. the first such focus was a selective
>>K+ conductance. [since i reached this conclusion [which, for those who
have
>>it, is discussed, with refs., in AoK, Ap5], there's been a lot of further
>>work done re. glia. i've not been actively monitoring the literature
[while
>>discussing NDT's stuff here in bionet.neuroscience, i'm working in Physics
>>these days ('therapy' :-)], but i've seen nothing that doesn't support an
>>'active' role for glia. [if anyone knows of anything contrary, =please=
>post
>>something.]]
>>
>>glia exhibit a major difference from neurons [relatively-recent [~3 years
>>ago] stem-cell stuff notwithstanding]. they're able to replicate. because
>>the network of neurons is 'suspended' within the far-more-numerous glia
>>[100:1 (anyone: please correct me if i'm wrong)], coming and going of
glial
>>distributions can form an 'endlessly' [in-Life] renewable means to achieve
>>the sort of 'tuning-to-and-via-focused-effort' stuff i'd studied within
>>myself as i studied this or that external (but usually internally-
[nervous
>>system] relevant :-) problem that i was working on.
>>
>>'strategic'-glial-replication/demise can, 'hydraulically', robustly
>>restructure the whole neural network, thereby allowing synaptic weights to
>>be 'mixed and matched' as each 'new' relatively-enduring, but 'temporary',
>>focus warrants, while, simultaneously, allowing the core information-base
>>that's been accumulated within the microscopic trophic modifications of
the
>>neural network to be preserved.
>>
>>and, within 'normal' relatively-fleeting cognitive focus, existing glia's
>>contractile properties [see AoK, Ap5 for refs] can do the same, but within
>>less-boundless 'boundaries'.
>>
>>the information-processing 'power', inherent, is immense because it takes
>>experientially-'verified', relatively-enduring, neural stuff, and can cast
>>it in all sorts of 'lights', which, of course, is well-matched to the fact
>>that, in Nature, Simple 'rules' repeat all over the place in a
Fractal-like
>>fashion, so it's probable that a mechanism that "casts
>>experientially-'verified' simple-'rule' stuff in new light" would
=greatly=
>>augment overall nervous system information-processing capacity.
>>
>>and the glia hypothesis has excellent goodness-of-fit with my subjective
>>experience that it's all wonderfully-'endless'. the only prerequisite is a
>>willingness to do the work inherent in establishing any
relatively-enduring
>>[but 'temporary] focus [AoK, Ap7; elevating the diminishing-returns
>decision
>>threshold]. this last thing, of couse, is also strongly-correlated with
>>'nurdiness' (:-) because, if one is to devote one's self to an 'enduring'
>>focus, even 'temporarily', one must 'step-outside-of' 'normal' interactive
>>expectations. [which, in many ways, is like a 'dying'.] which is some of
>>why, even though it's in-there, it seems most folks don't take advantage
of
>>it. 'pressures' antagonistic to such are, themselves, immense [a
by-product
>>of 'blindly'-automated TD E/I-minimization in which the real 'dying'
>>derives] [in my own experience, for instance, it's why i've remained
>>unmarried wouldn't be 'fair' to subject folks i Love to the
>intensely-inward
>>[on a problem having stuff  they can't see] focus. wouldn't be Fair to the
>>Children if i didn't dd the work. (damned if i do. damned if i don't.
"Damn
>>the torpedoes, full speed ahead!" {Farragut] [it's a double-dose of
'dying'
>>for me 'cause, innately, the thing i most-like to do is just 'play', which
>>is fun to Share, but i can't. See? :-) [forgive me this 'whining', please.
>i
>>long for someone, anyone, to Understand.] ]
>>
>>as i see it, this glial mechanism works 'symbiotically' with neural
>>mechanisms, and through it, the scope of the longest-enduring 'memory'
>stuff
>>is rendered immensely-more rich, immensely-more potent. the diminution of
>>effort required with each focus-cycle, reflecting such long-enduring
>>neuronally-based stuff.
>>
>>anyway, i recall smiling when i read of Einstein's glial-cell count. gave
>me
>>that extra bit of confidence in the developing hypothesis.
>>
>>[experienced it as an "of course!]
>>
>>so, aren't you glad you asked? :-)
>>
>>Cheers, Brian, k. p. collins [ken]
>>
>>
>
>





More information about the Neur-sci mailing list