Basic Neuron Questions

KP-PC k.p.collins at worldnet.att.net%remove%
Mon Apr 7 12:57:21 EST 2003


One more thing and then I've got to go check on a job that's my only
remaining hope.

I understand that all of my work is 'strange'. I'm =not= saying that
folks've got to 'drop everything' with which they're 'fmailiar' and
do things 'my way'.

All along I've been trying only to contribute - to fill-in-the-gaps
that existed within the traditional approach.

Folks really can't be 'angry' with me that the 'language' of my
research is 'unfamiliar' - I was 'banned' from grad school, and just
had to do what needed to be done in any way that I could.

There's worth in the work I've done. For instance, the stuff that
I've discussed in the last two msgs of this thread applies directly
to the standard "meddenger cascades" that the molecular folks've been
working out. If folks look, they'll see that the 'work function'
links together all of what remains as 'scattered' bits and pieces in
the standard molecular approach.

That is, they'll see that all the connections within the 'messenger
cascades' are 'just' this thing's work passing information in the
form of an imposition of work upon the next thing.

It's just more of the 3-D energydynamics stuff that I discussed a
while back with respect to the protein-folding problem.

All intermediate steps encode information within the work that occurs
within them, until the net information content develops in the form
of macroscopic nervous system trophic modifications that reflect the
neural impulse activity that's actually occurred within the system -
which neural impulse activity is just one window into the
work-encoded information content that's being developed.

Folks don't have to use my addmittedly-inelegant nomenclature, but I
do hope folks'll not hesitate to integrate the gist of it - because
it's what's verifiably in-there.

Do this, and your work will, including most of its standard stuff,
implode to unity.

Then, communicate your work, and folks'll stop non-sensically
Slaughtering one another.

And that's all I care about.

Gotta go check on the job.

ken

"KP-PC" <k.p.collins at worldnet.att.net%remove%> wrote in message
news:CRhka.17128$cO3.1277201 at bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
| The work-encoding of information is hierarchical along a structural
| continuum that runs from single ions to the whole nervous system.
|
| For instance, the work a "gate" performs communicates via
correlated
| relative metabolic demands from the gate to other organelles within
| the cell, demanding such and such performance from them, which,
| through the correlated functioning of the organelles, communicates
| further, and so forth, up to the nervous system as a whole, driving
| macroscopic action [performing macroscopic work].
|
| Throughout, one thing integrates everything - work with respect to
| WDB2T - throughout, everything is 'just' TD E/I-minimization that
| 'senses' WDB2T, and which by-produces 'volition', cognition, affect
| and behavior accordingly.
|
| The main thing that I've been discussing all along is the way that,
| because the way nervous systems process information has not been
| generally comprehended, nervous systems 'blindly' and automatically
| treat experientially-driven TD E/I-minimization as if it
constitutes
| Truth when all it is is experientially-driven TD E/I-minimization
| that occurs with respect to collective behavioral inertia that
exists
| within the experiential environment.
|
| It's important to get this straight because the absence of
| understanding with respect to it leads to folks Slaughtering one
| another for 'reasons' that have no existence within any absolute
| external experiential reality.
|
| Folks are killing one another - or doing stuff like perverting The
| Constitution of The United States of America to cling to
| nineteenth-century, or more ancient, stuff that Ravages others,
etc.,
| etc., etc. - ad infinitum within Human interactive dynamics - for
no
| reason than that their nervous systems are acquiescing to
| 'blindly'-automated TD E/I-minimization.
|
| All of this Slaughter can be transcended through the understanding
of
| how nervous systems process information.
|
| Looking to such understanding is the only practical method because
| the work entailed includes folks going back therough their branches
| of Civilization and recognizing how and why the 'passions' that
| induce them to 'hate' arise, not with respect to this or that
'rule'
| but solely with respect to their
intergenerationally-converged-upon,
| and intergenerationally-handed-down 'consensus'.
|
| The 'program' entails replacing happenstance experiential
convergence
| with Reasoned convergence.
|
| Why an understanding of how nervous systems work is Necessary is
| because it's necessary to understand how affective alignment arises
| within nervous systems in a 'blindly'-automated way with respect to
| TD E/I-minimization.
|
| Nothing else can expose the illogic inherent in the 'passions' that
| Slaughter.
|
| Nothing else can displace 'passion' with Reason.
|
| The 'walls' that fracture Humanity dis-integrate into nothingness
| when one understands how it is that 'passion' comes to be
correlated
| with mere experience.
|
| Why it matters - why the same-old historical approach is no nonger
| workable is that populations-wide TD E/I is net-monotonically
| augmenting because weapons of mass destruction are proliferating
and
| because modern means of communication are imposing 'unfamiliar' [TD
| E/I(up)-inducing] stuff across what have, historically, constituted
| the 'borders' of relatively-mutually-exclusive experience.
|
| It's why understanding how nervous systems work matters, and why
it's
| worth doing the work inherent.
|
| It's my Analysis that the Survival of Humanity depends upon this
work
| being accomplished.
|
| I wouldn't 'bother' folks if it weren't so.
|
| K. P. Collins
|
|
| "KP-PC" <k.p.collins at worldnet.att.net%remove%> wrote in message
| news:1Vgka.17066$cO3.1271881 at bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
| | "GRRRROOOOOAAANNNNN!!!"
| |
| | "BilZ0r" <BilZ0r at TAKETHISOUThotmail.com> wrote in message
| | news:Xns9356B3A601FF7BilZ0rhotmailcom at 202.20.93.13...
| | |
| | | >| Yes there is, Its defined by the time it
| | | >| takes for the potassium channels
| | | >| to be available for opening again.
| | | >
| | | > That this or that is "defined" to be that
| | | > or this does not make this
| | | > or that that or this.
| |
| | =Every= ionic conductance, including charged macromolecules,
enters
| | into that which you refer to "potassium channels" - or do you
| suppose
| | that, somehow, "charge" is not =always= "charge"? Do you think K+
| | sees only K+? That Na++ sees only Na++? Do you think K
conductance
| | can exist without Na conductance?
| |
| | All ionic "channels" respond to the net ionic "charge" - of
course
| | with respect to their specifically-'engineered' "gate"
correlates,
| | but there's a whole 'world' in-there that enters into the
| | determination of the specifics.
| |
| | For instance, neural glia act as K+ "electrodes", redistributing
K+
| | concentration gradients in accord with ongoing neural activity.
| |
| | Saying this or that is that or this doesn't make tthis or that
that
| | or this.
| |
| | One has to get in-there and follow the ionic conductances before
| one
| | can discern =anything= with respect to a k+, or other ionic
| "gate" -
| | in vivo, 'resting' potentials, etc., vary[everything "ionic"
| varies]
| | in accord with the ionic background.
| |
| | If one wants to have coctails at conferences, one needn't follow
| the
| | ionic conductances, but if one wants to comprehend CNS function,
| one
| | must do so.
| |
| | No "ideal cases" - no "absolutes" - everything's relative to the
| | ongiong ionic conductances.
| |
| | Understand [all]?
| |
| | | Actaully its sodium channels, I've been
| | | feeling like an idiot all day,
| | | was at work and couldn't correct myself.
| |
| | Obviously, you're not an "idiot". You;ve just read the books and
| left
| | out the most important thing - to think.
| |
| | NA++ same-old, same-old.
| |
| | Anything ionic, same-old, same-old.
| |
| | Of course, with respect to specifically-'engineered' "gates",
etc.
| |
| | The quantity of work a gate must perform against the ionic
| background
| | encodes the 'state' from which learning-correlated microscopic
| | trophic modifications gain their information-contents.
| |
| | Everything within nervous systems is rigorously-coupled to WDB2T.
| |
| | The work-encoding with respect to WDB2T is how information is
| stored,
| | cross-correlated, and retrieved within nervous systems.
| |
| | | Theres a "conseptualization" thats wrong. If I define something
| as
| | | something, that is the only thing I can be sure that it is.
| | | X=2, now I know that X=2.
| |
| | But if your definition stands before you as a 'closed door' that
| | prevents your seeing what's necessary to see, your "deinintion"
is
| | nothing more than a 'brick wall' that's worthy of nothing other
| than
| | being 'torn down'.
| |
| | What good is a "definition" that 'blinds' you?
| |
| | Good-for-nothing.
| |
| | | > The =only= "absolute" that exists within
| | | > Living nervous systems is that their functioning
| | | > rigorously conforms to WDB2T.
| | |
| | | the absolute refractory period isn't called
| | | absolute becasue we know exactly what
| | | it is. Its called that to outline the different
| | | between it and the relative refractory period.
| |
| | In vivo, no such thing as an "absolute refractory period" has any
| | existence. It's all as above, with respect to the ongoing ionic
| | conductances.
| |
| | | > The rest is dynamic as a function of experience.
| | | > No neuron is ever in the same 'state' twice
| | | > because all neurons undergo microscopic
| | | > trophic modifications as a result of the activation
| | | > that actually occurs within them, and the rest of
| | | > the neural structure in which they are embedded
| | | > - all the way up to the nervous system as a whole.
| | | >
| | | > Such feeds-back into the ionic concentration gradients which
| | | > determine the stuff that you were non-existent-ideal-case
| | | > short-shrifting, with the result that the 'ideal case' is
total
| | | > fiction.
| | | >
| | | >| > [...]
| | | >| > Within Living nervous systems, there exists
| | | >| > no such thing as "normal" levels of stimulation.
| | | >|
| | | >| What? Yes there are. look at any monosynaptic
| | | >| nevous pathway.
| | | >
| | | > As above, there exists no such thing as a neuron
| | | > whose energydynamics occur as the sole result
| | | > of synaptic 'events' - the synaptic 'events',
| | | > themselves, occur as a function of whole-nervous-
| | | > system energydynamics.
| | | >
| | | > If it were as you say, to the degree it were so,
| | | > the 'nervous system' in question would be a
| | | > non-learning automaton.
| | |
| | | The normal level of stimulation. The level at which
| | | is would normal fire an AP at. The threshold of
| | | activation. Call it whatever you want, if you
| | | want to argue that there is no such thing, you're
| | | going against what everybody bar you thinks.
| |
| | "What everybody thinks" is wrong, as above, because "everybody"
| | doesn't get-in-there with the ionic conductances - as above.
| |
| | There's =nothing= 'static' within nervous systems. Everything is
| | 'tuned' with respect to the ongoing conductances. This's where
| | "intelligence" arises - in the quantities of work that stuff like
| | "gates" ["punps", etc.] perform, the rigorous correlation to
WDB2T
| | becomes established - this's how nervous systems "know" what ever
| it
| | is that they [via TD E/I-minimization] converge upon "knowing".
All
| | information is work-encoded within nervous systems in this way.
| |
| | Everything within nervous systems is 'linked' together in terms
of
| | such work.
| |
| | The neural Topology establishes the substrate in which the
| | work-distribution is "recognized" - from the ionic 'level' all
the
| | way up to effector-driving, with cognition in-between -
| =everything=
| | is work-encoded.
| |
| | The easiest way to get an initial 'handle' on this is to study
the
| | motions of your hands as you are performing externally-relevant
| work.
| | Calculate that work, then follow it back into your nervous
system.
| |
| | Throughout, it's all the same stuff - calculating with respect to
| | WDB2T.
| |
| | The calculations can be performed by nervous systems because
WDB2T
| | permeates physical reality in a way that is consistent.
| |
| | That is, there are local variations in WDB2T, but no matter the
| | vairiance [within the bounds of what's survivable], nervous
systems
| | are able to 'sense' its 'meaning' in terms of the work that
dealing
| | with it entails.
| |
| | Is it freezing-cold outside? -> do the work necessary to find a
| | more-favorable WDB2T energy-gradient [to find 'warmth'].
| |
| | Is it hot? -> do the opposite.
| |
| | It's all 'moving toward', or 'moving away from', with respect to
| | external WDB2T.
| |
| | | >| What I can't say how fast a action potentialtravels?
| | | >| Lol. Not exactly, but I can give the accepted range.
| | | >
| | | > It's like I said, OK at an introductory 'level', but totally
| | useless
| | | > if one actually wants to comprehend how nervous systems work.
| | | > Clearly, if it's "bionet.neuroscience", we're beyond the
| former,
| | and
| | | > interested in the latter.
| | |
| | | I don't think the poster was interesting in
| | | comprehending the nervous system as a
| | | whole. He wanted to know how far a AP
| | | travel during the absolute refractory period,
| | | so I told him.
| |
| | I explained why I 'jumped' your post.
| |
| | The books are 'stepping-stones' upon which one can 'stand', but
| only
| | to see-further, not 'dictators'. And if they're left as the
latter,
| | then either the Author of the Reader has failed.
| |
| | The questioner was best-served by telling him where to go to
start
| | thinking, not what to think.
| |
| | That, and that you've been 'jumping' my posts as if you think I'm
| | some sort of 'crack-pot', and that always gets my 'attention',
| sooner
| | or later.
| |
| | I mean no 'offense', but there's Truth on the line, and I 'move
| | toward' Truth.
| |
| | Period.
| |
| | K. P. Collins
| |
| |
| |
|
|





More information about the Neur-sci mailing list