"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.
AoK is not a ms. that can just be read. It was written to 'paint a
picture' of the neural Topolgy in the minds of the reader. When you
reread it [as I'm now 'sure' you will, right?], don't continue on
until you've grasped the contents of each sentence. Don't 'skip'
thinking about stuff because you think you already know it. For
instance, when reading Ap3, don't continue beyond each of the neural
Topology examples in the Proof of the existence of the "special
topological homeomorphism of the central nervous system" until you
literally see its contribution to the structure of the "S,T,H." - get
out your copy of Carpenter and Sutin [which I'm 'sure' everyone's
purchased, right?], and study the diagrams that're provided in there,
then find the ref that's cited in AoK [if you have the eighth
Edition, the page numbers are given in AoK. If you've not yet
purchased Carpenter and Sutin, get the latest version [I don't know
what it is, but you always want the latest ref. I don't have it
because I can't afford it. Then you'll have to use the index 'cause
the page numbers are likely to be different. Or, if you have some
other ref., find the same stuff in it.]
The 'point' is, don't just skim-read AoK. Every sentence is in-there
to assist you in visualizing the Neural Topology. If you want to
'get-it', you have to understand the neural Topology.
Don't give anything short-shrift because you think you already know
it - you don't know it until you've integrated it's neural Topology
within the global neural Topology, and can see why each thing cited
in AoK, Ap3 is as it is with respect to the "special topological
It's not 'just' "Neuroanatomy". It's, literally, the substrate for
Cognition, Volition, Creativity, Curiosity - and Prejudice. If you
follow what's in AoK, using your copy of Carpenter and Sutin, and
work a bit, you'll literally, see all this stuff 'coming to Life' in
a way that's analogous to the way one of those computer-generated
'hidden 3-D images' 'pops-out' at you when you modulate your eyes'
focuse with respect to it.
I'm realizing that I should've explained all of this long ago. I
failed folks by not doing so. I Apologize [there is a brief
explanation of the 'levels' in AoK, Ap5].
But, if you're going to reread AoK, do it this
work-on-a-sentence-until-you-get-it way [and don't skip the footnotes
[in the electronic version, don't skip any 'hyperlinks']].
If you have questions with respect to anything that's in AoK, I'll
help if you post a msg.
| 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.
|| 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...
| | |
| | |