IUBio Biosequences .. Software .. Molbio soft .. Network News .. FTP

TD E/I-minimization & WDB2T

KP-PC k.p.collins at worldnet.att.net%remove%
Mon Apr 7 01:07:22 EST 2003


"BilZ0r" <BilZ0r at TAKETHISOUThotmail.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9356B27402F31BilZ0rhotmailcom at 202.20.93.13...
| "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 202.20.93.13...
| >| Well why dosn't my system work? and spare me any TD I/E or 2nd
law,
| > its not
| >| relavant.
| >
| > 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
| states.
|
| > The TD E/I ratio's "minimization" applyes all the way down to
single
| > ions.
| >
| > 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?

In saying it the long way, it's still a ratio. Why not call a ratio a
ratio?

| 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.

And I replied that a certain amount of work must be performed by
individual neurons, just to carry out their functions within the
neural architecture in which they are embedded.

Drop things below that level of neuronal work, and things begin to go
'random' because, to the degree of such, overall synchronization is
lost - this result constitutes an instance of TD E/I(up).

The 'time' I've left is exceedingly-Precious.

If you've not read AoK, you should. I don't want to have to rewrite
it in bits and pieces - and I've only days left in thei 'online
life'.

K. P. Collins





More information about the Neur-sci mailing list

Send comments to us at biosci-help [At] net.bio.net