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

In vivo veritas? (was: Re: Electric Field Effects in the Brain?)

KP-PC k.p.collins at worldnet.att.net%remove%
Sat Apr 19 22:16:09 EST 2003

"Christian Wilms" <usenet at out-of-phase.de> wrote in message
news:1ftp00l.1em46k7tuo1daN%usenet at out-of-phase.de...
| KP-PC <k.p.collins at worldnet.att.net%remove%> wrote:
| from a previous post in the same sub-thread:
| [...]
| > Most of why the position I'm discussing in this thread is
| > for folks who work in Neuroscience labs derives in the fact that
| > work in artificially-spearated preparations - cultured neurons,
| > slices, etc.
| [...]
| Aren't you forgetting the many labs working in awake and behaving
| animals? I am quite sure, that those working in vivo would not
| with you theories any more than those working in vitro or in situ.

You're probably right about that :-]

| [...]
| > We disagree, here, because it's verifiable the functioning of any
| > 'element' [ion, molecule, neuron. nucleus, etc.] occurs as a
| > of everything else within the global system [of course, in a
| > spatially-distributed-activation-dependent way].
| [...]
| I am well aware of the fact that a hydrogen molecule on Mars is
| theoretically influenced by one on earth - over coloumb forces -
but you
| will agree, that the influence is neglectable. Considering the
| amplitudes of field potentials measured only a few tens of microns
| distance from the firing cell which induces them, you might agree
| electric fields may also be neglected once a certain distance from
| active cell is reached - of course we can argue how large this
| is.

Although it's as you say, I wasn't specifically focused upon such in
my prior reply. What I was discussing is the way that the 3-D neural
Topology rigorously constrains energy's freedom to move within the

In artificially-separated preparations, almost all of the 3-D
architecture is 'eliminated', so it's energy-constraining action is
absent, so what remains is almost entirely artificial. Yes, the
Experimenter can poke and prod a hippocampal slice, for instance, and
such can allow =local= dynamics to be effectively studied but only to
a relatively-small degree be-cause virtually all of the 'normal'
inputs have been eliminated. The result is that the local
energydynamics occur in almost complete absence of the 'normal'
3-D-neural-architecture constraints, and, to the degree of such, the
'picture' they yield is artificial.

Since you brought up Coulomb forces, I disagree with your stated
position - not with respect to any individual ion, but because
there're g'zillions of ions in-there, every one of them
'bowing-in-homage' to the 3-D neural Topology, to TD
E/I-minimization, to WDB2T ^ -1. The result is a group-disciplined
collective Coulomb force that is commensurate with the 'momentary'
energy 'consumption' that's occurring globally within the brain - the
net ionic flow is of-a-piece, globally.

So it's not at all 'wimpy' stuff - but can only see it through the
'lens' of the entire 3-D neural Topology's constraining of energy's
freedom to move.

When 'learning' [or 'unlearning'] occurs, all that happens is that
the 3-D neural Topology's constraining of energy's freedom to move
becomes augmented [or decremented] in 3-D-Topologically-distributed
ways that rigorously reflect the neural activation that has actually
occurred within the 3-D neural Topology.

The resulting 3-D neural Topological trophic modifications literally
imbue the system with "biological mass" that exerts physically-real
inertia upon subsequent ionic conductances that occur within it. In
such derives the 3-D neural Topology's constraining of energy's
freedom to move within the brain.

The 'goal' in all of this is not to maximize net force, but to
minimize it - because doing so correlates to TD E/I-minimization
[minimization of energy 'consumption; minimization of
dynamically-configured path-lengths; maximization of
neural-activation 'focus' [convergence]; etc.] Amplification occurs
within the effectors, so the minimization stuff is all that's needed
in the way of relative power within the brain.

Get it?

| [...]
| > Isolated preparations are worthwhile, but their use does tend to
| > to observations that are inherently artificial, incomplete, and,
| > therefore, misleading.
| [...]
| You are aware of the fact, that many phenomena which were first
| discovered in slice preparations or even cell culture have been
| reproduced in vivo?

Yes - "action potentials", molecular and metabolic dynamics , etc.
can be observed in vivo, but they are relatively-nothing if the
entirety of the 3-D neural Topology isn't exerting its constraining
action upon energy's freedom to move.

| Even though they are inherently artifical and misleading?

As above. I do not 'discount' the significance of efforts to
nail-down the "action potential", molecular and metabolic dynamics.
I'm just saying that there's much more in-there when the 3-D neural
Topology is fully in-there and functional.

| The most important aspect here is the number of relevant variables
| compared to the number of total variables.

There's actually only one Variable: TD E/I [all of the neural
Topology is in the "TD" [Topologically-Distributed], and so is all of
the 3-D neural Topology's energy-constraining action]. I don't know
if anyone else can see this, but I see it of-a-piece - 'just'
relative TD E/I - just the one 'thing' [which reduces further to
WDB2T ^ -1].

Of course, depending on locus within the 3-D neural Topology, the one
thing is 'addressing' different functionality, but as TD
E/I-minimization occurs, everything, regardless of locus within the
3-D neural Topology becomes, increasingly, of-a-piece.

Such reflects the fact that global integration is a prerequisite of
'consciousness'. [To the degree that such single-variable
of-a-piece-ness is absent, 'consciousness' does not, and cannot,
exist [this stuff is treated in AoK, Ap4's discussion of the "zone of
randomness" [ZoR] - 'within' the ZoR, 'consciousness' is
extremely-'blindly'-automated ["blind rage", etc.]

It seems folks have 'difficulty' with this TD E/I
single-variable-ness, but it's absolutely necessary if
'consciousness' is to have any existence. It's one of the brain's
Great-Wonders - the brain does not do Maths via 'counting' methods,
which are 'just' mental constructs used by man to organize the doing
of external Maths - converged upon via TD E/I-minimization,
handed-down and augmented in precision and scope, over the course of
the millenia, Professor to Student.

But the brain doesn't do Maths via counting methods. It 'blindly' and
automatically 'strives' to achieve the one thing, TD
E/I-minimization, and the 'answer' is converged upon to the degree
that TD E/I is, in fact, minimized - it's not a 'wimpy' form of
Maths. Be-cause of the way that TD E/I-minimization is rigorously
coupled to WDB2T, nervous systems can literally =Know Truth= with
respect to physical reality.

| One always cuts corners in
| vitro - that goes without questioning. But considering the question
| experiment is hoped to answer, as long as the relevant variables
| controlled or known an in vitro experiment will lead to answers
| are relevant and fully transferable to a functioning, complete

I don't disagree, it's just that most of what happens within the
brain derives in, and is dependent upon, there being the entirety of
the 3-D neural Topology.

Apply the results of artificially-delimited experimental procedures,
but don't discard the almost-everything-that's-in-there rest.

| regards, Chris
| p.s. your post would be much easier to read, if you would rely on
| fullquotes the whole time.

I don't know what you mean here. Are you referring to the way my news
reader 'breaks' lines? I'd like to know what I'm not doing to prevent
such, but I just don't know what to do to prevent such. Please help
me out, here, if you can.

Cheers, Chris, ken [K. P. Collins]

More information about the Neur-sci mailing list

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