"KP-PC" <k.p.collins at worldnet.att.net%remove%> wrote in news:mX7ka.49204
$ja4.3113425 at bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net:
> "BilZ0r" <BilZ0r at TAKETHISOUThotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:Xns93566D257ED87BilZ0rhotmailcom at 184.108.40.206...>| Well why dosn't my system work? and spare me any TD I/E or 2nd law,
> its not
>> 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.
>> I replied:
>> "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."
>> 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
> my reply.
but it dosn't make the brain bigger. and I mean, they do have
'redundant' receptors in a way. if you think about receptors in inactive
> 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.
Okay, so actaully its not a ratio at all then?
And that wasn't the system I was talking about. I was talking about why
couldn't a hypothetical nervous system work were the RMP is 0mv, the AP
threshold is very small, i.e. more sensitive Voltage sensitive channels.