'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 06:25:26 EST 2003


Missing discussion added below.

"KP-PC" <k.p.collins at worldnet.att.net%remove%> wrote in message
news:Hzaja.44848$ja4.2771448 at bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
| 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?"

, is necessarily different, so this necessary difference must have
it's correlates within the neural Topology's energydynamics. Get it?
The close-up molecular approach doesn't recognize the differential
stuff inherent [yet], but it can be easily observed. Many examples of
it have been in AoK all along. See, in particular, the the "ramp
architecture" discussion in AoK, Ap3, 5, 6, & 9] and the Elazar and
Addy paper - dynamic "ramp architecture" [AoK, Ap5 re. Hippocampal
convergence upon TD E/I-minimized activation 'states'.]. kpc

|
| 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
         -1273
| | (lab)
| | | Baltimore MD 21201 USA                             Fax:
| | 1-410-706-2512
| |
| |
|
|





More information about the Neur-sci mailing list