neuroscience I/V plots and the K+ reversal potential
k.p.collins at worldnet.att.net%remove%
Tue Mar 25 04:26:10 EST 2003
"KP-PC" <k.p.collins at worldnet.att.net%remove%> wrote in message
news:ddUfa.23557$ja4.1616728 at bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
| "KP-PC" <k.p.collins at worldnet.att.net%remove%> wrote in message
| news:8Nwfa.26467$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
| | 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
| 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
| expanded massively.
| It was my hope that folks'd read it, and then allow me to discuss
| 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
| 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
| 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
| 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
| 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
| 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.
And, of course, I've not been sitting-static with respect to what's
been in AoK all along. I've been looking more deeply into it all
along - I learn, too. And I'm Grateful for the opportunity to discuss
NDT's stuff here in bionet.neuroscience - looking for ways to say
things differently has enabled my own learning with respect to my own
| When I wrote AoK, I thought it'd win an opportunity for me to
| 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
| existing Neuroscience 'paradigm' - I thought folks'd recognize
| in AoK.
| 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?
| | ken
| | "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
| | 'force'
| | | that 'upsets the homeostasis teakettle', and the homeostasis
| | becoming
| | | locally-imbalanced 'reacts' with an opposing ionic 'force'
| | | proportional to the divergence from homeostasis due to the
| | | '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
| | that's
| | | at a 'deeper level' than, for instance, synaptic dynamics.
| | [includes
| | | all of the neural glia considerations that are briefly
| | | 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
| | at
| | | | about -45mV. I was told the K+ reversal potential is
| | about -80mV,
| | | so
| | | | I assumed the voltage-gated K+ channel stopped current flow
| | that
| | | | point, but I don't know enough about the properties of the K+
| | | channel
| | | | to be sure about that. The K+ concentration inside and
| | the
| | | | cell was what a normal neuron would have.
| | | | Was I wrong about the reason the K+ current stopped? It
| | | like
| | | | there's a better reason, but I don't know it...
| | |
| | |
More information about the Neur-sci