genetic control of inter-neuron signals

ken kpaulc at earthlink.net
Fri Apr 2 13:10:31 EST 2004


"r norman" <rsn_ at _comcast.net> wrote in message
news:davo601mdvik5kv69bhcba0et6lc7e9khe at 4ax.com...
> On 1 Apr 2004 11:32:27 -0800, QXUXBTVOTSAO at spammotel.com (Sandy
> Hodges) wrote:

> > [...]

I've skipped the OP because it's question
cannot be addressed without, first, estab-
lishing a =lot= of baselines.

Didier's comments are pertinent, and it
can be a simple function of the procre-
ation 'imperative' and age-mapped rela-
tive physical strength - as when young
males are driven from a pride of Lions,
which forces them to seek mating oppor-
tunities elsewhere.

But I found your discussion both Interest-
ing and Important, so I'll discuss it.

> Leaving aside your ideas on incest taboos,
> your idea for neurons to exchange complex
> information sounds interesting from a
> theoretical perspective.  Unfortunately
> it lacks support from the biological
> mechanism end.  It is conceivable that
> digital information can be encoded into
> an amino acid sequence, just as it could
> into a nucleotide sequence in DNA/RNA or
> into an action potential sequence. However
> there is no experimental evidence to sup-
> port such sequences being used that way
> in any case that has been examined nor is
> there any mechanism known that would allow
> such an interpretation.
>
> First, protein signaling agents are not
> taken into the receiving cell, but act
> by stimulating receptors on the membrane.
> These act by activating a second messenger
> system which exist in relatively limited
> number inside the cell.
>
> Second, if the protein did enter the cell,
> there is the decoding machinery to deal
> with.  For now, the only known way a
> complex message like you envision could
> be decoded is for it to bind to a specific
> DNA sequence and so activate a specific
> gene. Although some lipid or lipid soluble
> hormones do enter the cell and activate
> genes, and some neural transmitters can
> influence gene expression through gene
> activation, these all work using proteins
> that originate inside the cell, not be
> proteins taken into the cell.
>
> Third, nothing we now know about the gen-
> ome or the processes of protein/DNA inter-
> action suggest that information could be
> transmitted the way you suggest.  Even if
> genes could be activated, there are only
> so many ways a cell could react by changing
> its activity.

I expect no reply, but hope folks will
think about what I'll discuss in this
post.

I'm not going to comment, one way or the
other with respect to the OP's hypothesis,
but the "just so many ways" of your reply
is something that I disagree with - not
because I don't see a limit with respect
to a single neuron's functional capabil-
ities [of course I do - if it weren't so,
one could conceive of a single neuron be-
ing sufficient for a whole nervous system :-]

It's just that any neuron's dynamics oc-
cur within it's extracellular environment,
and, in vivo, that environment is hugely-
more-free than is the case in vitro, or
in a slice.

Altering ionic concentration gradients,
even by tiny amounts, makes everything a
neuron can do something other than what
it can do at other ionic concentrations.

And it's easy to see why such is not only
useful, but necessary - because the only
limit upon experience is duration of Life.

That is, Experience can be Huge, so there
must be a mechanism that's commensurate
with the fact that Experience can be Huge.

That is, further, if it were the case that
in-neuron dynamics did delimit neural abil-
ity to 'address' information, then capacity
for Experience would, itself, be commensura-
tely delimited.

The other reason that I'm discussing from
the perspective of Experience is that, if
it were the case that Experience did not
'address' the genetic material, then there'd
be a 'disconnect' between Experience and
the Existences of all proteins - which'd
leave only 'magic' as a 'means' of 'ex-
plaining' how and why this or that pro-
tein is correlated to neural functionality
that's correlated to Ewperience.

So, since 'magic' is unacceptable, Experi-
ence =must= 'address' the genetic material
in a way that also 'addresses' protein syn-
thesis.

I've explained, in long-former posts, how
I worked this Problem through, and why I
did so as I did - "3-D energydynamics",
"standing-wave Genetics" [SW-G], 'therm-
odynamic'-"always-downhill-ness" [the role
of enzymes in the protein-folding Problem"],
any how all of this stuff is 'addressed'
by ionic conductances.

And everything I've discussed is Verified-
in-Experiment, to Exist [even though such
Verification has anly been noted in the
discussions I've posted].

> Cells do interact with each other in many
> ways beyond one cell simply producing a
> synaptic potential on another and these
> produce complex patterns of interaction
> using, as you suggest, proteins as inter-
> mediary messengers.

When the Necessity of such "encoding" be-
ing coupled to Experience is integrated,
the only Possibility that remains is the
"3-D energydynamics" stuff that I've dis-
cussed in long-former posts.

Proteins can't be synthesized in any way
that's 'disconnected' from Experience, and,
somehow, nevertheless, be what's necessary
to "encode" Experience.

Get it?

Experience =can only= 'address' everything,
all the way down to the ionic 'level'.

It's an Absolute Necessity. The =only= 'al-
ternative' is 'magic', in which, despite
there being 'no coupling' between Experi-
ence and the genetic material, or protein
synthesis, or proteins, or enzymes, etc.,
Experience is still 'successfully-encoded'.

So the "3-D energydynamics" stand Proven.

[The only thing that makes them 'Difficult'
is that there is no account of them within
the Published Literature. [And that's not
my 'fault' :-]

> Still, coding information in the particular
> sequence of amino acids is a little far
> fetched for what we now know about cells.

I agree. Since Experience can vary Infinitely,
if a survival-sufficient subset of all Exper-
iential Possibilities was explicit-ly-'encoded'
in the DNA, we'd all be great blockheads, and
a single molecule of 'dna' would be visible
to the naked eye.

So, rather than 'encoding' explicitly with
respect to experiential possibilities, the
genetic material can only be as a computa-
tional entity which, given an experiential
input, produces a survival-inducing output.

But the "everything-is-Necessarily-coupled"
Nature inherent is as is briefly discussed
above.

The =only= possible 'alternative' is to in-
voke 'magic'.

> From my perspective, the inability of real
> biological cells to do all the incredible
> things we can think up using mechanisms that
> seem to be relatively simple is good evid-
> ence for the absence of intelligent design.
> Any really intelligent designer would have
> done all these things!  But cells don't
> seem to work that way.

All that's necessary, in any of what I've
discussed, is the one-way flow of energy,
from order to disorder, that is what's
described by 2nd Thermo [WDB2T].

And it's Verifiably, the same across Phy-
logeny.

While noting that there's Awesome Intelligence
in-there, I also note that the 'question' of
"Intelligent Creation" is one that Cannot
be addressed by Science.

One would have to 'explain' how non-physical
'dynamics, nevertheless, interface with phy-
sical dynamics.

How does one even begin to do such?

[But, since you broached "Intelligent Creation"
"Religion"], this iw Why the Obvious correlation
of the stuff Jesus Said, Did, and Taught,
with what Experiment Verifies with respect
to nervous system function, is so Amazing to
me.

I can't 'explain' such. I can only See it.

I Choose to Believe, even though I Cannot
'explain' how it could be so.]

Cheers, Dr. Norman, ken [k. p. collins]





More information about the Neur-sci mailing list