An electrophysiology quesiton

k p Collins kpaulc at [----------]earthlink.net
Sat Feb 14 00:57:48 EST 2004


"Matthew Kirkcaldie" <Matthew.Kirkcaldie at removethis.newcastle.edu.au> wrote
in message
news:Matthew.Kirkcaldie-F26A57.16244912022004 at tomahawk.comms.unsw.edu.au...
> In article <F9lWb.20378$jH6.13273 at newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net>,
>  "k p  Collins" <kpaulc@[----------]earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> > > The resistance of the circuit varies according
> > > to the frequency of the signal, which emphatically
> > > does not happen with a resistor.
> >
> > "The resistance of the circuit" ...?
> >
> > Are you thinking of "inductive reactance"?
>
> Reactance, yes, but if you're going to be clever about it, how about
> "capacitive reactance"?  But capacitors are resistors, I forgot.  Or are
> they inductors now too?

I didn't say "capacitors are resistors".

I said 'capacitors' are little 'machines' -
compound devices, and that, when they
are 'taken apart', there're conductors
sandwitching a 'resistor', or, if you like,
a low-resistance-high-resistance-low-
resistance compound-'resistor'.

And I stand on what I've posted.

Treating the membrane as a 'capacitor'
'blinds' one to what's actually going-on
in-there.

What is that?

The ionic conductances.

You know?

Folks inject a square-wave, and, since
there's a 'ramping' in the membrane
conductances, folks say, "capacitor",
and 'to hell with what's actually going-
on in-there'.

What's actually going-on in-there is
that, pre-signal-injection, the ions are
distributed in a way that's =relatively=
disordered.

When the square-wave is injected, be-
fore any apprecable conductance can
occur, the disordered ionic distribution
has to become relatively ordered.

In other words, work must be performed
to overcome ions' existing disordered
inertias, transforming them into a relatively-
ordered, collective, inertia.

This is what the 'ramping-up' [or 'ramping-
down'] is - and it's absolutely-necessary
to see it for what it is - interms of the ind-
ividual ions that're involved - =not= in terms
of some ficticious 'equivalent circuit' B. S.

Why?

Because =everything= within the neuron,
including information-content is energy-
consumption-integrated.

The ionic conductances' collective
'Coulomb forces' 'address' the genetic
material =solely= in terms of the dynamic
energy-gradients inherent.

So, if one wants to see the 'addressing'
of the genetic material, one has to see
the collective 'Coulomb forces', and to
see them, one has to see the ionic con-
ductances, =all= of the underpinning
energy-consumption, and =all= the in-
herent directionality.

Anyway, here are some 'points' that
need to be gotten, and kept, straight:

If the 'resting potential' is a "passive"
function of the existence of a "lipid
bilayer", then Humanity's energy
worries are over - just plug your TV's,
etc., into the 'lipid bilayer'.

My point?

The 'resting membrane potential is
maintained through energy-consuming
processes. And that's a ubiquitous
instance of nervous systems' 'climbing'
WDB2T - not a "passive" thing that
just happens as a function of hydro-
phillic and hydrophobic stuff.

If the 'pumps' that maintain 'resting
potential' are killed, the 'resting po-
tential' will drop-down to a level that's
balanced by the net charg of the intra-
cellular constituents [and, since the
cell will be rendered completely-in-
active, it will dis-integrate].

There is no such thing as "negative
work". Local 'down-hill-ness' is
=always= at an 'up-hill' energy-'con-
sumption' cost, overall.

The algebraic sum of all conductances
is =never= 'zero'. There is =always=
'loss' to WDB2T.

The above rule =permeates everything=
that occurs within nervous systems,
from the 'level' of individual ions to
the nervous system as a whole.

This rule isn't 'trivial' be-cause =all=
information-content derives in the
absolute-dependability of the energy-
gradient, inherent.

In other words, it's how nervous
systems "know".

I'll break-off, here, to allow folks
opportunity to absorb what's here,
and to respond [or continue being
Jackasses], but I've got a long list
of other, analogous, stuff that needs
to be discussed and integrated.

[And, yes, I am working from texts,
but no, I'm not discussing what's in
the texts - except to use it to delineate
Errors that exist in the texts - so, as
usual, I'm not going to provide the
References. Everyone should be able
to Understand why I Choose thusly.
So, everyone, kindly stop 'bashing' me
for trying to spare folks 'embarass-
ment'. OK?]

My 'heart' is where 'yours' would do-
better to be.

K. P. Collins






More information about the Neur-sci mailing list