IUBio Biosequences .. Software .. Molbio soft .. Network News .. FTP

Formal Challenge

NMF nm_fournier at ns.sympatico.ca
Fri Feb 6 16:54:47 EST 2004

Your question is irrelevant.  Why would I come to b.n. with "sole" purpose
to undermine your work.  Come on get a life.  I have encouraged discussion
with you and your theories.  I'm done with asking my questions.  It's an
exercise in futility and you never provide any significant answer.

 Even if you are deriving your data from published studies and performing a
bunch of meta-analyses on them. They have a limitation.  Most of the what we
know about the electrical characteristics at the single neuron level (which
ultimately you have to employ at some level of your calculation) have been
derived from in vitro preparations.  And guess what! They can't be
replicated in our new and improved vivo models. It's similar to all of these
transgenic approaches that is the new big and "sexy" fad in neuroscience.
(It is bloody difficult to produce a useful transgenic animal.  Believe me.
Either the animal dies or nothing happens).    You have to actually spend
some time in a laboratory measuring neurons before you take any stab at some
grand unified theory on neuronal functioning.  Actually measuring how an ion
channel conducts current and the theoretical models we have on ion channels
are often extremely divergent.

All I have asked before is how the processes you advocate can occur in a
neuronal system.  How do these processes, based upon the physical properties
and electromagnetic and electrochemical nature of the nervous tissue,
carry-out those processes that you are advocating.  You commonly refer to a
vague concept of TD E/I minimization dynamics and how these dynamics
"blindly" and can ultimately converge upon certain configurational states.
How is this different from aspects of attractors in network theory. Are they
similar concepts? Are they dissimilar? Because that is one image that comes
to my mind when you discuss these concepts (probably wrong... but hey).
Moreover, explain precisely how TD E/I minimization occurs.  Does it occur
at the cellular level. The atomic level? The subatomic level? Or is it an
emergent network phenomena.  (I have a hunch you would say that it is
probably embedded at all levels of, perhaps organized matter.  If so, what
are the physical processes that lead to the emergence of these states?).
Are there subharmonics that can serve as additional factors for producing TD
E/I minimization dynamics.

I want to see any measurable and calculated values that would show how this
could occur. Obviously there is mathematical ways that reinforce your
theoretical concepts.  Neurons, like all matter, are physical systems and
respond to in measurable manners.  Hence the dynamics you ado occurring will
obviously have a measurable source.

I already believe and most researchers believe that global dynamics
throughout the brain are responsible for its functionality, so I don't know
what your advocating here.  People are taking these perspectives.  Without
ever reading the manuscript that you keep on referencing in your posts, I
have no idea what would be an appropriate paper for you to do this
"analysis" on.

You said earlier that you disagreed about a paper that I asked you about
from Nader and LeDoux.  That's fine. Nonetheless, irrespective of whether or
not you and I may believe their findings.  They ultimately measured and
observed it.  Briefly, they found that when hippocampal dependent tasks were
reactivated (i.e. remembering), the memory trace became once again labile
even though the actual trace would presumably have moved from hippocampal to
neocortical expression (i.e. protein synthesis and long-term synaptic
modifications globally distributed throughout the brain).  If you disrupted
it with protein synthesis inhibitors, the reactivated memory trace was

Maybe do an analysis that incorporates some of the concepts on
metaplasticity suggested by Bienenstock, Cooper, Munro [BCM theory].  I
think some of their concepts, at least to me ,follow some of the points you
have brought up from time to time in your posts.  How can they be
incorporated as process in your theories. Show these processes occur in
relation to your model.  (BCM theory is starting to be experimentally
verified using in vivo preparations in living animals.  This is has been
largely pursued by Mark Bear).

"k p Collins" <kpaulc@[----------]earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:7WRUb.12949$jH6.1443 at newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net...
> "NMF" <neil.fournier at sympatico.ca> wrote in message
> news:4OQUb.16513$bp1.715453 at news20.bellglobal.com...
> > "Cluver-Bucy" syndrome, eh?
> You left-out the "[sic]".
> I wrote: "Cluver[sic]-Bucy Syndrome" [to
> Acknowledge my Error].
> > [...]
> > If you want citations ask, don't make accusations."
> With respect to not making "accusations", "Ho, ho, ho".
> You came here, to b.n, with the sole 'purpose'
> of 'accusing' me of not having done the work
> that I claim to have done.
> So what you say is Funny :-]
> With respect to asking for citations, OK, cite a
> non-trivial functional-neuroanatomy paper that
> you want analyzed from NDT's persopective.
> ["Non-trivial" = an article that takes a definite
> position, not one that has the purpose of delineating
> this or that, without taking a theoretical position
> with respect to what the article discusses. I'm not
> asserting that the latter type of article has no value.
> Of course it does, but one has to write volumes
> with respect to it because it's left open-ended.]
> Consult before you Choose, because I will
> Analyze the article Forthrightly, and any
> Consequences that result from my having to
> post my Analysis Publicly derive in =your=
> Choice. [I don't do such Analyses, Publicly,
> be-cause I want not to 'blind-side' folks.]
> It's the only way I can show you, or anyone else,
> "the data" - even in-person, this'd be the first
> thing I'd do - ask for Challenging studies. [I do this
> to help folks 'see' what they know, and do not
> know, =before= I give my Analysis - be-cause
> I've a =lot= of experience with folks saying, =after=
> I explain this or that that's never been explained
> before [outside of NDT], that "it's been long-
> known" :-]
> I'll expect you to present your Challenging Article
> within a week.
> [Oh yeah, one more thing. I've got to be able to
> find a copy of the article in the Library of my
> Choosing. So please stick to "the standards" -
> like =Nature Neuroscience=.]
> K. P. Collins

More information about the Neur-sci mailing list

Send comments to us at biosci-help [At] net.bio.net