"BilZ0r" <BilZ0r at TAKETHISOUThotmail.com> wrote in message
news:Xns93566D257ED87BilZ0rhotmailcom at 22.214.171.124...
| Well why dosn't my system work? and spare me any TD I/E or 2nd law,
In your prior post you said:
> 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
In a succeeding post, you corrected my error with respect my
discussing "neurons" instead of referring back to the actual
"receptors" that you used.
But it's the sme-old, same-old, thing.
Invoking =redundant= receptors has the same results as I discussed in
The TD E/I ratio's "minimization" applyes all the way down to single
And it's not even necessary to state things in terms of the ration.
One can say that all nervous systems do is 'strive' to minimize
excitation while simultaneously 'striving' to maximize inhibition.
Using the ratio simplifies the discussion by saying the same thing in
a more compact way [which, itself, is just another instance of TD
Look at it this way, "How many receptors does it take to 'change a
light bulb'?" :-]
K. P. Collins