genetic control of inter-neuron signals

ken kpaulc at earthlink.net
Fri Apr 2 14:24:39 EST 2004


Hi Dr. Norman,

"r norman" <rsn_ at _comcast.net> wrote in message
news:cmpq60hfsditb2q8uau68k11ifssrgv5fd at 4ax.com...
> On Thu, 1 Apr 2004 23:23:43 -0400, "NMF" <nm_fournier at ns.sympatico.ca>
> > > [...]

> The scotophobin story, along with the
> discovery of numerous peptide neuro-
> transmittters and the elucidation of
> cell signaling systems, is why I hedge
> my answer somewhat.  There are certainly
> plenty examples of proteins and protein
> fragments having signaling functions.
> The main issue was the claim that the
> sequence of amino acids would work as a
> digital signal.

In case you're emphasizing "digital" be-
cause, in a recent post, I stated that
~"everything is essentially binary -
'moving toward' or 'moving away from'",
that stands Verified to be True.

It's not "digital", in the traditional
sense, though, because the 'moving to-
ward' and 'moving away from' occur with-
in the "special topological homeomorph-
ism of [...] nervous systems", in which
Directionality-Mapping is, for all prac-
tical information-processing pruposes,
Infinite [AoK, Ap1].

So, in 'moving toward' myriad 'things',
a nervous system simultaneously 'moves
away from' myriad things, which is very
non-"digital". even though it's con-
structed out of 'binary elements'.

> [...]
>
> The real issue with Ungar is that he
> was advocating that the protein was
> an agent in memory transfer.  Other
> so-called memory transfer agents have
> turned out to be things like proteins
> involved in stress response -- animals
> subjected to learning trials are under
> some stress and produce proteins that
> may influence learning rates.  However,
> the protein does not in any way contain
> coded in its amino acid sequence the
> event that represents learning or memory.

Given it's specifically-located occur-
rence within the special topological
homeomorphism, it =must= 'encode informa-
tion', else "Learning" is 'Impossible'.

It's 'just' that the 'encoding' occurs
with specific respect to the functionality
of the nerual Topology, and =needs= the
neural Topology, and the 3-D energydyn-
amics that occur within it, for its 'de-
coding'.

That is, when a protein is synthesized,
it =becomes= the neural Topology, alter-
ing the neural Topology, and the 3-D en-
ergydynamics that can occur within it.

But, if one examines it separate from
the neural Topology, one can discern no
'information encoded' within it.

Let's see, what's an analogy?

Any letter of the alphabed vs. a word,
sentence, paragraph, book, library,
conversation, scientific conference,
etc., in which that letter of the al-
phabed is used.

Just as a "letter" only 'conveys' in-
formation [other than it's existence
as a particular member of the set that
is the Alphabet] when it is used in a
larger context, structural mods to the
neural Topology only convey informa-
tion to the degree that they exist,
within the "context" of the =active=
["supersystem-configured", AoK, Ap5]
neural Topology.

Another way of looking at it is with
respect to a nut, bolt, rivet, etc.
Not much "information content" there.

But put the nut, bolt, rivet, etc.,
at a specific locus in a bridge truss,
and it's "information content" becomes
very-specific, and [hopefully, redun-
dantly] specific to the "information
content" of the bridge truss - in par-
ticular, with respect to resisting the
force of 'gravity', in a specifically-
directed way.

With respect to 'gravity', the "inform-
ation content" of the fastener is
'binary' - 'move toward' or 'move away
from' resisting the 'force of gravity'.

But it's the overall energy-Topology
[3-D energydynamics] of the truss, that
contains the "information" about "resist-
ing 'gravity'".

It's the same within the neural Topology,
only extremely-very-much dynamically and
Elegantly.

This's how "biological mass" is Reified
in NDT.

"Biological mass" =does= "encode inform-
ation".

But it only does so =within=, and as
part of, the neural Topology - including
the neuron-glia interactions that I've
discussed, both recently, and in long-
former posts.

Again, for the reasons I discussed in my
immediately-previous post the =ONLY=
'alternative' to this stuff is 'magic'.

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





More information about the Neur-sci mailing list