Hodgkin-Huxley equations

KP-PC k.p.collins at worldnet.att.net%remove%
Sun Apr 13 22:10:54 EST 2003


Groaaaannn.

One more try to convey what it is that I do.

I do not 'rewrite' experimental results.

I do not 'undo' equations.

In this relatively-narrowly-defined [Hodgkin-Husley] consideration, I
=just= eliminate 'time' because including it nonsensically
'compounds' the distribution of variation.

It is important to reifiy variation.

Withing nervous systems, all variation occurs in the form of
energydynamics - so, if one assigns variation to 'time', one doesn't
completely see the variation that's in the energydynamics - which is
like taking a movie, cutting apart all of it's frames, and splicing
them together in a 'sequence' that's in accord with the metering of
energy dissipating from the spring of a 'clock' without a governor,
which spring, itself, is wound at arbitrary intervals.

The result is a very-confusing 'movie'.

In the nervous system, the variation in subjective 'time' is =just=
variation in energy-gradient - the steeper the gradient, the greater
the (force * distance) inherent in any dynamic, which, with respect
to subjective 'time', results in it's 'slowing down'.

But it's =not= subjective 'time'. It's =just= (force * distance) @
energy-gradient.

Is this stated clearly enough?

What about Hebbian coincidence? Isn't there 'timing' in-there, as in
the ticking of a 'clock'?

Nope.

I thought I'd gotten all that's necessary in the 'oscillations'
discussion from a few months back, but, if I did, folks've
'forgotten'.

The 'timing' coincidences are just =artifacts= of TD
E/I-minimization's "ratchet-pawling" [alternation of gating of
specific and stochastic inputs within an array processor - AoK, Ap5;
hippocampus and, in a more generalized way, basal ganglia &
substantia nigra]. The 'oscillations' do not code anything. They are
=just= artifacts of TD E/I-minimization convergence, and specifically
derive in the 'state'-overshoot during "pawling'. =Yes= they do
correspond to 'grouped' activation. but =no= the 'oscillations',
themselves do not 'code' anything. The 'grouping' is =just= the
convergence that's inherent in TD E/I-minimization. Virtually all of
the 'coincidence' is =just= that - Coincidental. Since the 'grouped'
activation projects into different high-'level' circuits, even the
'grouping' i meaningless [which is discussed fruther, below.

Trace the dynamics out to the effectors in an artificially delimited
case of 'only' motor activation. If the coincidence was meaningful,
the motor 'program' would be herky-jerky - in a way that would
literally reflect the coincidence 'groups'.

What happens, instead, is [in organically-intact nervous systems]
exquisitely refined effector activation that yields finely graded
motion.

The 'coincidence' that's detectable, say, via EEG, pertains, in the
main, to convergence upon loop circuits within cortex. These are
inherently quasi-periodic [roughly-'periodic'], but their
periodicities pertain are "type II synchronization" [like gears in a
clock's works] rather than "type I synchronization" [like soldiers
marching; AoK Ap5].

Just as in a clockwork, any number of the many gears can be at 'top
dead center', coincidentally, while they're driving portions of the
clockwork that are doing different things [one drives a hand of the
clock, another drives the popping-up of a 'sun' indicator, another
opens the door, another drives the motion of the this decorative
figure or that, and another drives the 'coo-coo's "coo-coo"-ing :-],
the cortical loop circuits are doing many different things, but their
loop-peridicities just happen to be 'coincidental' - the
'coincidence' is just that - meaningless coincidence - because the
loop circuits have to loop in close proximity - they have nowhere
else to do their looping - so their uncorrelated periodicities
activate the EEG electrodes in a purely-coincidental fashion.

The relative 'discreteness' of the EEG trace, and the 'rythms'
that're observable, just reflect degrees of TD E/I-minimization.
[Remember, 'random' activation is everywhere-weak, unfocused,
activation. TD E/I-minimization is relatively-strong, focused,
activation.

Out of all of this loopiness, the pyramids are activated asychronousy
with respect to the TD E/I-minimized motor 'program'. Fine motor
control derives in this asychrony.

Think about it. A bunch of stuff being activated simultaneously
cannot produce anything byt relativelycrude effector-driving.

Get it?

The cortical loop circuits are =each= doing a different thing within
the TD E/I-minimized activation 'state' - "type II synchronization" -
the superficial appearance of there 'being' "type I synchronization"
in-there is illusory - it's an artifact with respect to TD
E/I-minimization. Pure, meaningless, Coincidence.

So how can the illusory 'synchronization' be 'timed'?

It cannot be 'timed' - there's no 'clock' in-there.

The so-called "biological `clocks`" are =just= the waxing and waining
of the energy-gradient with respect to stuff like the
nutritional-energy supply winding down with respect to metabolic
energy consumption ["hunger"], which, if one eats at particular
'clock-times' every day will, of course, tend to 'coincide' with
breakfast, lunch, and supper 'times' - but what's actually going on
in-there is the waxing and waining of available energy, as energy is
taken in during eating, and expended via metabolic activity - it's
the energy-gradient that sets the 'time' of "hunger", not any
external 'clock time' nor any internal 'clock time'.

The same sort of thing holds with respect to waking\sleeping
'consciousness' transitions. During the waking 'state', work is
'piled-up' for doing during the sleeping 'state' [because, as I've
discussed in the past, it can only be accomplished in the sleeping
'state' [hierachical 'memory' integration of the day's stuff with the
entirety of Life's stuff - remember?]]. When this 'pile' of impending
work reaches a typical 'quantity', 'sleepiness' 'onsets'. But there's
no 'clock' ivolved. It happens when the energy-gradient 'tips' that
way. [I routinely 'experiment' with such. The current length of my
waking-conscious 'day' is around thirty hours - 'cause I'm
'pushing-energy' 'cause I want to cram stuff into the discussion,
'cause I'm beginning my Dying. It's 'intense' - my TD E/I is
relatively-high, but everything's still working nicely [although I
understand that some folks might disagree :-]

But, see? there're =no= 'clocks' in-there. If anyone wants to wire me
up, let's do it. I'll wear your wires, but you have to give me board
& room, and let me do what I do. [It's not about 'me'. It's about
seeing the underpinning energydynamics, and that there are, in fact,
=no 'clocks'= in-there. I can stretch my 'day' easily to 40 or more
'hours' [no 'stimulants' - i gave up coffee years ago, just work -
except for a cup every six months or so - you know, when I've
interaction with another Human being :-]. You'll see there're no
'clocks' in-there if you wire me up. [I used to be determined to
never allow such, but, now, I don't care anymore.]

=Everything= within nervous systems is the same-stuff - 'just'
energy-gradient.

If you want to sequence snapshots of the energy-gradient, any unit
counting method is sufficient.

Don't get me wrong. 'Clocks' have their usefulness. It's just that
what they meter is energy-flow, not 'time'. When we "synchronize"
them so we can meet for diner, we synchronize their energydynamics,
not their 'time'.

I understand this seems like 'much ado about nothing', but it matters
=greatly= with respect to sorting the never-the-same-thing-twice
nature of nervous systems' funcioning - it 'puts the teeth into' TD
E/I-minimization.

This discussion goes on forever, but that's the gist of eliminating
non-physically-real 'time', and why it's necessary to do so.

Make a little 'tent' card for your desk.

Write sum(force x distance) on it.

Let it prompt you to think about it - from the 'level' of a single
ion to the 'level' of the whole nervous system.

It's =all= the one WDB2T energy-flow being 'climbed'.

[Physicists: don't 'cave' to the illusion that it's the large
quantities of 'fuel' that do the work, with WDB2T just 'going along
for the ride'. Those quantities of 'fuel', whatever their form, were
aglomerated via anti-WDB2T, and their 'dissipation' while performing
work is pure WDB2T, no whatever their 'form'. Think about it. Try to
come up with a single example of macroscopic 'fuel' that did not form
via anti-WDB2T. You'll find none. ['nuclear' stuff? Nope. "Expansion"
points right back to the catastrophic anti-WDB2T 'coalescence' of
energy.]]

[The main 'point' of this discussion is very small, but it permeates
nervous system function, so I'm beating it into submission in a
verbose way. See if you can extract it. The important things are the
Neural Topology [all the way down] and TD E/I-minimization with
respect to it [all the way down]. I'm sure I've left out a g'zillion
useful examples that'll come rolling through yjr ol' noggin' lab
during the waking-sleeping 'consciousness' transition - the
delightful 'moment' of 'letting-go' when it becomes clear that,
sometimes, 'pushing' energy is 'counter-productive :-], but I'll post
what's here. It's been a 31-'hour' 'day', and sleep's work beckons
:-]

ken [K. P. Collins]

"KP-PC" <k.p.collins at worldnet.att.net%remove%> wrote in message
news:z5hma.27117$cO3.1979665 at bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
| BTW, I've already stated all that's necessary - transform 'amps' to
| energy-gradient, and forget about 'time'.
|
| 'time' only enters into it via 'amps'.
|
| Forget 'time', and do everything in terms of the only stuff that;s
| in-there - the energy-gradient - the energy-vector-field, in which
| the prior 'instant' and next 'instant are directly readable from
the
| vector information.
|
| If you want to go from 'Monday' to 'Saturday', just give sequential
| energy-gradients sequence numbers - instead of 'conjuring'
| non-physically-real 'time' which practice =only= sends
| conceptualization off into 'fantasy-land'.
|
| It seems a 'trivial' thing, at first, this eliminating of
| non-physically-real 'time' from calculations, but doing so is
| =exactly= analogous to eliminating the non-physically-real
Ptolemais
| 'epicycles' from Astronomical calculations - if one 'looks' through
| the ;lens' of Ptolemaic Astronomy, one yeilds to the illusion of
| there being planets doing 'loop-the-loops' in the 'spheres' of the
| heavens. But when one eliminates the epicycles, one sees that the
| planets move in eliptical orbits around the sun, while realizing
that
| the 'loop-the-loop' stuff is, in fact, an illusion that derives in
| periodic orbital coincidences.
|
| Exactly analogous - non-trivial, replete-with-meaning for the
| going-forwardness of Humanity - perceptual shifts ensue upon
| eliminating non-physically-real 'time' from calculations [and, of
| course, not only with respect to Neuroscience].
|
| Please don't, now, ask me to discuss these.
|
| I've been discussing them all along. If you can't see them, you've
| got to go over archived prior discussions [Google 'em.]. I'm not
| capable of pushing that much energy, all over again, with only the
| energy I've available to me before I've got to 'log-off' [it only
| 'seems' that this way of saying, "I don't have the 'time`" is less
| elegant be-cause you're 'familiar' with the ancient illusion of
| 'time', and not [yet] 'familiar' with the sans-'time' stuff - with
| respect to the relative TD E/I inherent, "Metric\English" measure,
| "QWERTY\Dvorak" keyboard, this-cultrue\that-culture... same-old,
| same-old - "The spirit is willing, but the flesh is weak" - in
terms
| of handling the "rendering useless" [AoK, Ap8] inherent. Get what's
| inherent? There's this TD E/I-minimization 'difficulty' inherent
:-]
|
| K. P. Collins
|
| "KP-PC" <k.p.collins at worldnet.att.net%remove%> wrote in message
| news:fGgma.27093$cO3.1977657 at bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
| | "mat" <mats_trash at hotmail.com> wrote in message
| | news:43525ce3.0304130628.322d53dd at posting.google.com...
| | | If its all so obvious and simple Ken, show us the mathematics -
| | show
| | | us how you convert the hodgkin-huxley formalism into your
theory.
| | Be
| | | explicit about what you mean using equations/formulae rather
than
| | than
| | | just abstract prose which even you must admit seems to be
| | convincing
| | | no-one.
| |
| | Gladly. In-person, before fair witnesses of my choice.
| |
| | I could do it here, but no one would comprehend [well, some
would,
| | but, interpolating with respect to what's already transpired, the
| | ones who comprehend will just 'borrow' it, leaving me as I stand,
| and
| | withholding the understanding from those who are Ravaged be-cause
| the
| | understanding is being withheld from them].
| |
| | The other thing is that I've developed some 'new' Maths [I've
been
| | deep into the nervous system for 30 years, after all], which I'm
| sure
| | any Mathematician can deal with - but my Maths 'language' is
| | non-standard, and my experience has been that 'no one' would be
| able
| | to follow it without, first, giving themselves over to
| 'complaining'
| | about it's 'non-standardness'.
| |
| | In-person, I can translate all of it into vector diagrams that
| | communicate universally. In-person, I can animate the vector
| | diagrams.
| |
| | It's why in-person is necessary [that, and, through the fair
| | witnesses, to assure that it's stuff actually makes it to the
| | Children].
| |
| | So, Mat [=ANYONE=], set up the opportunity. My travel expenses,
| room
| | and board will have to be funded, including a small
| | after-the-presentation try-to-stay-alive 'kitty' [I can't dry-up
| | financially in the midst of giving such a presentation] - I'm
| ;broke'
| | [but not Broken :-]
| |
| | K. P. Collins
| |
| |
|
|





More information about the Neur-sci mailing list