"KP-PC" <k.p.collins at worldnet.att.net%remove%> wrote in message
news:8Nwfa.26467$S%3.1533494 at bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
| Oh yeah - the 'gates', themselves perform [alter their
| 'conformations'] in accord with their local ionic concentrations
| [this's where the "3-D energydynamics" stuff got it's start with
| respect to biological considerations, BTW, back in the mid-1970s [I
| recognized its stuff because of work I 'd done in my Physics
| [if it matters]]
The 3-D energydynamics stuff has been in AoK all along. It's what's
discussed in Ap9 - I thought folks'd just see all of it in the way I
emphasized that the neurochemistry has to 'recapitulate' the neural
architecture 3-D to 3-D.
Please remember that AoK was written in about 2 months after I'd
spend more than a decade working on the problem, devotedly.
AoK was a 'desperate' attempt to write a doc small enough that
folks'd read it, but which caputred the essence of NDT. It's
extremely-densely-written. Just about every sentence in it can be
It was my hope that folks'd read it, and then allow me to discuss the
rest of NDT with them in detail - this because I'd been trying to
'break-through' on the theory's behalf for years, already, without
As is explained in AoK, Ap5, AoK is written at many 'levels', and
with repeated reading, the 'levels' 'peel-back', like an onion,
because each reading gives the reader the ability to see what's in
the next-deeper 'level'. [Of course, as is explained in the Preface,
simultaneous study of the refs cited in AoK is required if this
traveling-the-'levels' is to be experienced [AoK is an
integrative-Guide to the stuff that, at the 'time' of AoK's writing,
remained dis-integrated in the refs.]
One of these 'levels', in which the footnotes play a primary role,
was written expressly for general readers.
The only stuff that I can presently recall that I've discussed here
in b.n that was not in AoK at the 'time' of its writing was the
"hippocampal stem cell stuff". All the rest of the stuff I've
discussed was in AoK at the 'time' of its writing [unless it was with
respect to some ref. someone posted, and it's most often been the
case that I was just commenting upon the ref's stuff to show that
it's stuff was already treated in AoK].
It's the 'levels'. Folks who think that my online discussions are
"more up to date" than is AoK should go back and read AoK again.
They'll see it with the new eyes they've gained while participating
in the online discussions, and will see what I mean about everything
in my online discussions having been in AoK all along.
This is, for folks who've endured my online discussions, itself, a
first-hand experiencing of the relatively-long 'time' course of the
high-'level' information-processing dynamics that are discussed in
AoK, Ap7, and means that folks're finally getting-it with respect to
what's been in AoK, and the refs cited in AoK, all along.
It's the "curved path of learning" stuff that I've discussed from
'time' to 'time', and which has also been in AoK all along.
When I wrote AoK, I thought it'd win an opportunity for me to 'merge'
back into the Neuroscience community - that I'd be able to 'hit the
ground running', and just continue my work.
I'm sorry - I didn't realize that I'd so 'slipped the bounds' of the
existing Neuroscience 'paradigm' - I thought folks'd recognize what's
More of my 'naivete'.
So I just 'bit the bullet', resolved to 'stumble' through what I
didn't understand was the result of the fact that I'd 'run too far
ahead', and folks couldn't see what's in AoK.
I've been giving an unpaid, and free, PhD course in Neuroscience,
charging my expenses to the CCSF.
Please, don't be 'offended'. It just needed to be done.
But will folks 'leave me out in the cold' forever?
|| "KP-PC" <k.p.collins at worldnet.att.net%remove%> wrote in message
| news:Fuwfa.26448$S%3.1530447 at bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...| | The way I see it is that it's due to 'resting' background ionic
| | concentrations being maintained homeostatically - because it's
| | just so much variance can happen due to =any= 'pump' or gating
| | 'event' - because the ionic dynamics 'want' to be at their
| | 'set-points', overall - so a gating 'event' greates an ionic
| | that 'upsets the homeostasis teakettle', and the homeostasis
| | locally-imbalanced 'reacts' with an opposing ionic 'force' that's
| | proportional to the divergence from homeostasis due to the gating
| | 'event' - this reaction ionic 'force' reverses the gate's
| | flow-potential [and the actual ionic flow within it].
| | This way enables extraordinarily-powerful overall integration
| | at a 'deeper level' than, for instance, synaptic dynamics.
| | all of the neural glia considerations that are briefly addressed
| | AoK and which I've discussed in long-former posts here in b.n.]
| | This can be tested by playing with background ionic
| | in-vitro.
| | Cheers, Chrissy, ken
| | |"chrissy" <chrismin at bigpond.com> wrote in message
| | news:5fe998a3.0303232039.4d88fb39 at posting.google.com...| | | I was recently looking at an I/V plot for K+ current in a
| | and
| | | the plot was a straight line with an x-intercept (zero current)
| | | about -45mV. I was told the K+ reversal potential is
| about -80mV,
| | so
| | | I assumed the voltage-gated K+ channel stopped current flow at
| | | point, but I don't know enough about the properties of the K+
| | channel
| | | to be sure about that. The K+ concentration inside and outside
| | | cell was what a normal neuron would have.
| | | Was I wrong about the reason the K+ current stopped? It sounds
| | like
| | | there's a better reason, but I don't know it...