TD E/I-minimization & WDB2T

KP-PC k.p.collins at worldnet.att.net%remove%
Fri Apr 4 02:45:29 EST 2003


I stand on what I've posted.

K. P. Collins

"BilZ0r" <BilZ0r at TAKETHISOUThotmail.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9353B8FA8DB32BilZ0rhotmailcom at 202.20.93.13...
|
| > 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| unpublished work.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?
| > LGICs
| >> 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
| receptors.
|
|
| > 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
| unreasonable.
|
|
| 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
| > VSSC
| >> 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