'In Search of The Engram' [a Homage to Karl Lashley's Devoted Thirty Years' Work]

KP-PC k.p.collins at worldnet.att.net%remove%
Fri Apr 4 02:33:59 EST 2003


It's just Common Sense that any neuron's contribution to "memory"
will vary as a function of the information-content of the correlated
"memory" - because each "memory" must conform to the differential
demands of the "memory's" information content.

That is, one's external behavior with respect to being asked, "What's
the sum of two plus two?", and being asked, "will you, please, take
out the trash?"

What's been referred to as "memory" =necessarily= embodies the
behavioral differentials pertaining to the information-content of the
"memory", including all of the "supersystem configuration" [AoK, Ap5]
information that pertains.

Hence, the individual contributions of neurons with respect to all
"memories" =cannot= show any local consistency. At one 'time' a
neuron's contribution to the globally-distributed energydynamics
takes one form, at another 'time' [with respect to a different
"memory's" information content] it will =necessarily= take a
different form - because every neuron's functioning is included in
the establishing the fleeting internal "supersystem configuration"
which literally =embodies= the "supersystem configuration" that
'passes-through' stuff like the effector-driving that's
specifically-correlated to the information content 'addressed' [AoK,
Ap6] in the globally-distributed "memory".

Get it?

Looking for consistent individual-neuron "memory" traces is
non-sensical. Such is like telling a Child to always respond,
"Three", in answer to any Maths question. The 'consistent answer'
thus imposed will most-often be wrong. Same-old, same-old with
respect to individual neurons contributions within
globally-distributed "memory".

The thing that cross-correlates all of the locally-varying neuronal
energydynamics is the way that everything within nervous systems is
regorously ordered with respect to TD E/I-minimization. It's TD
E/I-minimization that imposes "group discipline" within and upon the
locally-varying neuronal contributions.

Get it?

If I'm playing football, I don't carry a baseball bat, or a
basketball, or a lacross stick, etc., onto the playing field with me.
Instead, I configure my behavior with respect to 'playing football'.

It's the same with respect to =all= behavior, =all= cognition, =all=
affect, =all= of everything that occurs within nervous syste,s'
energydynamics.

"Memory" =must= embody the internally-relevant "supersystem
configuration" information pertaining to the information content of
the particular "memory" that is converged upon [via TD
E/I-minimization]. The internally-relevant "supersystem
configuration" information is necessary internal
information-processing-"overhead" pertaining to the actualization of
the externally-relevant information content of the "memory". The
former =requires= that the neuroanlly-specific energydynamics vary
commensurately with the demands of "supersystem configuration".

As a result of this necessity, no consistent neuroanally-specific
'memory-trace' will ever be discovered.

What will be discovered is the overall rigorous correlation of all
neuronally-specific energydynamics to global TD E/I-minimization.

'Whoops!'

That was discovered thirty years ago, and has been explained in AoK
all along :-]

Cheers, K. P. Collins

"KP-PC" <k.p.collins at worldnet.att.net%remove%> wrote in message
news:...
| Hi Didier.
|
| "Didier A. Depireux" <didier at rai.isr.umd.edu> wrote in message
| news:b6hj3t$e9q$2 at grapevine.wam.umd.edu...
| | In bionet.neuroscience KP-PC
<k.p.collins at worldnet.att.net%remove%>
| wrote:
| |
| | > |The brain could theoretically work with
| | > | almost no entropy change.
| |
| | > Not True.
|
| I stand on my "not True" in reply to the prior post.
|
| | Well, that would depend on what is meant by "almost". After all,
as
| you form
| | new memories, no change is observed in the brain's structures
etc.
| Looking
| | at the organism as a whole, you see that new memories/abilities
are
| being
| | formed, but looking at the single neuron level, you don't know
what
| changes
| | occur (and don't tell me that LTP is a model for memory).
|
|
| I agree, Didier, and here's why: The 'problem' is that the
| microscopic trophic modifications to the neural structure as a
result
| of the neural activation that occurs within it are distributed
| throughout the neural Topology. This results in any attempt to
| observe energydynamics that are restricted to any relatively-small
| 'area' [say, and individual neuron's structure] turning up 'no'
| correlations that can be said to specifically encode learning -
| because, while one thing happens at this 'time' a contrary thing
| happens at other 'times'.
|
| But, when one steps back, a bit, to use more-structurally-inclusive
| methodologies, as one does so with increasing structural
inclusivity,
| one sees, plain as day, that the overall neural Topology is
| undergoing net-modification as the direct result of the neural
| activation that has occurred within it.
|
| Easy [gross neuroanatomical] examples abound, the most-striking,
| perhaps, being examples of neural plasticity following episodes of
| stroke, or limb amputation, etc.
|
| The 'memory' problem has been deemed to be 'difficult' because
| experimenters have applied the vast armada of "molecular"
| experimental techniques within a problem 'area' that is inherently
a
| complexly =distributed= one, It's an instance in which
technological
| prowess hinders, instead of helping - because, look too closely,
and
| what one sees seems to be 'without correlation'. But as one looks
at
| the problem with increasing distributed inclusivity, one can easily
| see the net distributed modifications that occur as the result of
the
| neural activation that has occurred within the system.
|
| This distributed solution is old, dating back to Karl Lashley's
| thirty years of searching for the "engram". His principles of "mass
| action" and "equipotentiality" are solid-gold stuff - they set the
| Standard for resolution of the "memory" problem.
|
| It's because the micro-mods [the "biological mass" which
instantiates
| "behavioral inertia"] are =distributed= within the
ever-changingness
| of the global neural Topology.
|
| We can see the single-neuron modifications, we just cannot see
their
| correlations to "memory" unless we 'step back' to "see the forrest
| [despite] the trees" :-]
|
| Cheers, Didier, ken
|
| |
| | Didier
| |
| | --
| | Didier A Depireux         ddepi001 at umaryland.edu
| didier at isr.umd.edu
| | 685 W.Baltimore Str
| http://neurobiology.umaryland.edu/depireux.htm
| | Anatomy and Neurobiology                      Phone: 410-706-1272
| (off)
| | University of Maryland                                      -1273
| (lab)
| | Baltimore MD 21201 USA                             Fax:
| 1-410-706-2512
|
|





More information about the Neur-sci mailing list