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

TD E/I-minimization & WDB2T

BilZ0r BilZ0r at TAKETHISOUThotmail.com
Fri Apr 4 01:10:27 EST 2003

> Even autonomic stuff is Topologically organized. To see this, imagine
> 'rewiring' the heart - it'd lose its synchronicity. Imagine
> 'rewiring' the smoothe muscles of the bowel with the nerves that
> activate the heart. "Drizzly sh...".

No, it isn't. I'm talking about the path of the vagal nerve, which isn't 
straight to the site of action at all. Im talking about the fact that 
fibres leave the head to the superior cervical ganglion and then make 
their way back up to the head. Im talking about the how celiac ganglion 
reseves input from preganglionic fibers which are below it. Theres no 
efficency there.
> And, as far as autonomic response latencies go, there's no need for
> 'lightning'-quickness in-there, because everything that's necessary
> over the short term is stored in local tissue. 'Lighting'-quick
> autonomic response latencies would only induce the system to
> 'thrash', but, more-importantly, even within nervous systems, it's
> good to 'count to ten' before 'going ballistic', which is what the
> autonomic nervous system does, and is why it's 'engineered' the way
> it is.

Next time measure how long it takes for pupially accomidation,  and for 
your heart rate to increase after sympathetic activation. 
>> In the CNS, how about the path the optic tract takes past the LGN?
> The fiber=length variation within the optic radiations is necessary
> to achieve proper timing of thevisual 'wave front' with respect to
> visual cortex topology [this's an example I sight in the "Automation
> of Knowing..." ms. [AoK].

How about you reference that claim to something other that you 
unpublished work. 

>> The
>> optic radiation isn't as straight as it should be. And the Corpus
>> callosum, why is it so small, it should extend all the way to the
> back of
>> the calcirine sulcus inorder to minamize the distance that the
> optic
>> cross over fibres take.
> I presume you're talking about visual fibers that pass to the
> opposite hemisphere via the corpus sallosum?
> They must resolve the same problem that the optic radiations
> resolve - timing of the neural-activation 'wave front' within target
> cortical areas. Their distribution even looks Topologically-like the
> optic radiations.

Again, reference. 

>> Oh, and the path the IV and the VIII cranial
>> nerves?
> IV - trochlear cranial nerve; VIII - vestibular cranial nerve - what,
> with respect to them, do you think 'violates' anything I've said?

The fact that the vestibulocochlear nerve leaves the inner ear, passes 
down the neck, into the brainsteam the goes up. And another example, what 
about the path of the cingulate bundle? It should go lateral to the 
lateral ventricle, but instead it goes rostral. I mean I could come up 
with hundreds of tracts that don't follow the shortest path to there 
target, but I'm not a neuroanatamist. 

>> > All of the above applies in the abstract with respect to
> excitation
>> > and inhibition -minimization of the ratio of excitation to
> inhibition
>> > reduces response latencies and reaction 'times' allowing a system
>> > which performs such minimization to out-compete any system that
> does
>> > not.
>> If its all about responce latencies, why do we have so many GPCRs?
>> are far faster. phase out GABAb, all GABAa eh?
> "Functional multiplexing" [AoK, Ap9]. Neurochemistry is a 'toolkit'
> that allows the brain to be wired-up in an efficient way. The
> existence of the various neurotransmitters creates the equivalent of
> 'chemically-mediated insulation' which enables neural circuitry to be
> used for multiplexed purposes, without there being any 'cross-talk'.
> This eliminates the need for redundant circuitry, and whole 'levels'
> of interneuron connectivity, which greatly minimizes brain size,
> which greatly minimizes response latencies, which enables most-robust
> survival propensity.

But that dosn't explain having two or up to 20 receptor subtypes, that 
only explains why you have more than two kinds of Neurotransmitters. But 
EVEN if it did, it dosn't explain why you would have metabotropic 

> Of course zero activation only happens with death.
> There're whole subsystems that have the purpose of injecting
> stochastic activation into the system. This, of course, constitutes a
> 'contradiction' to the TD E/I-minimization principle, but only over
> the short-term. Over the long-term, all of this stochastic stuff is,
> itself, part and parcel of TD E/I-minimization.
> For instance, a simple ambulation algorithm directs its host into a
> wall. If the host has sensory receptors that act to inject TD E/I(up)
> back within the algorithm, that 'detunes' the algorithm so that it
> can 'recognize' that it has to 'try a new direction'. When it does,
> the sensory activation ceases, and TD E/I-minimization happens.
> Short-term TD E/I(up) signals corrections that are required to
> achieve long-term TD E/I(down).
> There're =many= instances of analogous dynamics that occur within the
> brain, all the way up to the highest 'levels' of cognition and
> volition.

I have no idea what you just said. I don't know anything about algorithms 
or AI.
>> It might minimise the ENERGY used in tranmission, but it would
> result in
>> a scrambled signal.
> Nope. Think about it in this way. If I'm to move my arms, hands and
> fingers in a way that dances over my keyboard so that a sentence with
> a particular meaning is typed out, all of the activation that would
> cause my muscles to be activated in any of the virtually limitless
> other ways that they can be activated, must be relatively-inhibited,
> or I'll not type out the sequence of letters that comprise the
> sentence that I have 'in-mind'.
> That's just more TD E/I-minimization - in which an extremely-ordered
> set of neural activations are selected from the virtually-infinite
> set of all possible neural activations.
> Our nervous systems 'cut to the chase' and 'just' do the TD
> E/I-minimization thing directly, and behavior, etc. are produced as
> by-products of the degree to which TD E/I-minimization is actually
> achieved.
> A Brilliant solution on the part of evolutionary dynamics, but one
> that's inherently ;flawed' because, as a result of the way
> 'blindly'-automated TD E/I-minimization is converged upon within
> nervous systems, anything that's merely repetitively experienced will
> become TD E/I-minimized. This yeilds a system that tends to be
> 'blindly' and automatically prejudiced with respect to that which,
> through prior experience, has merely become relatively 'familiar' to
> it - instances include the "us vs. them" nationalistic prejudice that
> precipitates the Savagery of war. [wanting to understand these
> dynamics was the wellspring of the work work I've done in
> Neuroscience, BTW.]
> The tragic stuff inherent can be transcended by internalizing
> understanding of how nervous systems work.

I don't understand any of the logic jumps you made in that paragraph. You 
keep talking about how minizing excititory over inhibitory transmissions 
does all these things, yet I've allready shown how you can minimize that 
ration to near zero and you would have a dead system. I can't see how 
that helps.

>> and if the ratio was important you could then you
>> could just add say 50% more receptors of each kind ( Excit. vs
> Inhib.) of
>> receptors and you wouldn't alter the ratio, so again, I don't see
> why
>> this ratio is so important.
> The added neurons would make the brain larger, increase response
> latencies, and increase energy consumption, all of which would render
> such a brain relatively uncompetitive, and it would not survive under
> evolutionary pressures.

I said added receptors.
>> Now the idea of putting this that work together close together
> (esp. in
>> the cortex) is accetped, somatopy in the Frontal and prefrontal
> cortices,
>> retinotoy in V1. But its far from the rule, How about all of the
> thalamic
>> nuclei? and the SMA?
> What about them?

The fact that the brain dosn't follow topographic mapping. They are 
exampels were it dosn't. Hence, your continued reference to it is 

Right no more talk about the 2nd law.
>> >
>> >|The brain could theoretically work with
>> >| almost no entropy change.
>> >
>> > Not True.
>> Yes it is true, it is absolutly and unevquivocable true. Imagine if
>> and VSCC were sensitive to a change from 0mv to 0.1mv, we can
> construct
>> diodes that are sensitive to millions of times less change, so why
> not a
>> channel? Then we can have the brain resting at ionic equilibrium,
> and
>> instead of a depolaristion of 25mv, one of 0.1mv would be all that
> was
>> neccassary. Then a AP could be a transient change of 0.5mv. After
> that
>> the brain would work exactly the same, except Na/K ATPase activity
> would
>> have to be turned down a whole lot. There we've reduced the entropy
>> change massivly.
> I don't know, offhand what VSSC and VSCC are. 
Voltage sensitive Sodium channels, Voltage senstive Calcium channels??? 

> The brain doesn't rest at ionic equilibrium, the "resting state" is
> actually maintained, against the WDB2T energy-gradient [energy-flow]
> through active [energy-consuming] ionic pumps.

I said it COULD!
> The neural dynamics are as they are with respect to the signalling
> work that each neuron must do. Weaken any neuron's energydynamics, as
> you've proposed, and it'll not have sufficient signal strength to get
> it's signal to it's target. And that'd create disordered activation -
> which is TD E/I(up).
> I've hammered on this stuff for 31 years. Trust me [or not], there's
> nothing in it that'll 'break'.
> Your statement is not True.

You can't say its not true when you don't even understand it.


> I didn't say what you say I said. I didn't say anything about
> "accumulation". I discussed how Life seeks increased energy abundance
> [because, in the presence of increased energy abundance, survival
> propensity is enhanced.]

How does it accumulate energy. As I keep stating, Im not accumulating 
energy once I stop getting bigger, the earth isn't accumlating energy. I 
don't know what is. 

> I do cite many, many excellent, hard-won experimental results in AoK,
> and make that ref available to folks, gratis.

Well you should cite them instead.

More information about the Neur-sci mailing list

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