DC lesion?

k p Collins kpaulc at [----------]earthlink.net
Sun Feb 15 05:00:48 EST 2004


Hi Neil,

"NMF" <nm_fournier at ns.sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:wLFXb.1$w65.274 at news20.bellglobal.com...
> There are considerable differences between what I post and what you post.
>
> Whether the effects from the DC stimulation
> are entirely local or can be generalized to
> other regions is a matter of debate.

The matter is Settled in NDT.

The hippocampus is a "supersystem configuration"
mechanism.

If folks look, they'll find subtle correlates,
within "supersystem configuration" dynamics
that are correlated to the DC injection. [I'll
work with folks who might be interested - show
them what to look for.]

"Supersystem configuration" is an inherently
globally-ramifying dynamic.

So the matter is Settled.

All folks have to do is look, and they'll ob-
serve that it's so.

>  (I am not saying that the current will actually
> flow some considerable distance away from
> the site of injection and then stimulate other
> neurons.  First of all that would be impossible
> physically. I am saying that the effect at a local
> site from the current stimulation can evoke
> activity from the neurons at that site causing
> them to modulate the activity of other distal
> target sites that may or may not result in long-
> lasting changes in synaptic efficacy.  Is that
> clear?).

Yes.

It's all been in AoK, and its antecedant papers,
for nearly 24 'years'.

> In response to your point on habituation.  The
> current is NOT directly injected into the cell

It doesn't have to be to affect membrane potential.

> but is injected  extracellularly.  Prolonged low
> intensity current stimulation (field stimulations)
> have been shown to alter the expression of specific
> subunit configurational elements within ion
> channels that are expressed by neurons within the
> vicinity of the stimulation site (these changes are
> primarily on NMDA subtypes and sometimes
> L-type voltage gated calcium channels) .

I assume that you are referring to =gne=
"expression".

If so, then, "Big-HURRAH!!!"

This's Verification of a =generalized= prediction
that NDT made, and which is in the fundamental
Neurophysiological stuff that I've been [trying to]
discuss[ing] in recent 'days' here in b.n.

> Moreover, these same neurons eventually show
> less and less of a response over time to applied
> current stimulations. You can record this easily
> in the laboratory.  This is an extremely established
> finding and is well cited in the literature.

Then what's happening is TD E/I-minimization
with respect to the artificially-induced TD E/I(up)
["tuning-precision void"; T-PV], and the logical thing to
do is explore the correlated neural constituency
via an arrayed-electrode approach, through which
the correlated neural constituency can be differentially-
activated [to see if the neurons remain functional
with respect to other TD E/I, or if their non-responsive
with respect to =any= activation].

If the T-PV that's induced by the DC is, itself,
sufficiently-generalized, then the correlated neural
constituency would tend to be rendered generally-
inactivatible [which, if the neurons survive, doesn't
seem likely to me - neurons that become completely-
inactive die [which is 'just' more TD E/I-minimization]].

> Maybe this is a semantic issue with respect to using
> the term, "habituate",

Yeah, I avoid use of the term because it's
used 'loosely', with respect to a lot of in-
herently-different stuff.

> but any time a system's response to some stimulation
> steadily declines to a point of no responsiveness
> then employing the label "habituation" is and
> would be extremely valid.

I disagree, here, because, as above, the term
has been so loosely-used that it's of no particular
use [as I see things].

> What habituates is the neurons' response to the
> current.

The response of individual neurons isn't the whole
story. The net effect is a function of the local network's
TD E/I-minimization dynamics. Inputs are still coming-
in from the 'normal' sources [or is this experiment in
'slices'? I strongly-delimit any data collected in 'slices',
be-cause it's always inherently-artificial, be-cause it's
always cut-off from 'normal' I/O].

> Your term, "tuning-precision void", seems some
> what analogous but in my opinion is extremely
> ambiguous at the same time because of the
> introduction of a term like "void".

A "void" is just an "absence". A "tuning-precision
void" is just an absence of precise tuning, which
is an instance of imprecise tuning, which, when, as
is always done in NDT, it's located within the neural
Topology, becomes a specivically-localized instance
of "TD E/I(up)", which is always important to recog-
nize because the TD E/I-minimization mechanisms
will always act strongly upon, and with respect to, it,
which always results in external observables.

> When you employ one of your terms in a discussion
> that was not initially meant to involve theoretically
> explanations, then make sure you define EVERY
> term properly and concisely.

I do, but I cannot do so in every msg I post.

I have to rely upon folks having read-along,
else I'd have to post the one same msg, over and
over again, and not be able to discuss anything that
I'd not already discussed without discussing every-
thing that I'd already discussed.

It's an 'impracticality' of NG discussions.

In general, I write for folks who've been reading
all along [for more than a decade].

> Words are extremely important and can construe
> your point if you do not adequately provide
> sufficient explanation.  Using term (or terms) like
> "void" by definition of immediately limit the discussion.

It's all very-straight-forward.

In NDT, there's a "base-set" of information that
has to be comprehended before anything is
comprehensible. [It's provided in AoK, which
I'll, now, send to you, if you want it.]

> Your theory, by the virtue of the terms you employed-
> like "void"- are by definition non-measurable and then
> can only be inferred and not directly tested or measured.

Not True. It's all very-straight-forward, but one
does have to deal in the neural Topology - locate
the T-PV within it.

Basically, it requires only knowing the Neuroanatomy.

I've been discussing the DC-induced T-PV, and how
it points directly to subtle "suersystem configuration"
observables. All of this stuff is precisely-addressable
to the degree that the locus of an experimental inter-
vention is precisely-located within the neural Topology.

There's nothing 'vague' in-it.

> You could have substituted a term like, "tuning-
> precision God", or some other derivative.

Nope.

When it's located within the neural Topology,
a relative "tuning-precision" describes =everything=.

To get this, run a thought experiment in which
you're looking through a set of binoculars while
varying the focus.

You can go anywhere between seeing nothing
to seeing with elegant-precision.

It's the 'same' within neural dynamics.

In NDT, "tuning-precision voids" are significant,
because, since they are least-lrecisely-tuned stuff,
they get max 'attention' from the "TD E/I-minimiza-
tion mechanisms", which, when carried through
"supersystem configuration", allows one to see
virtually everything that's going on within a nervous
system [as I'm discussing elsewhere, at all scales].

It's only 'hard' because no one's ever allowed me
to work it through with them, which is necessary,
because, as is discussed at the beginning of AoK,
Ap5, NDT redefines everything within nervous
systems [while maintaining rigorous accord with
the experimental data].

> In either case, I or anybody in that manner cannot
> say it is wrong nor can we say it is right. The choice
> of labels employed are by virtue directly immeasurable
> and ambiguous.

No, you just haven't come up-to-speed with respect
to the necessary "base-set" understanding, yet.

It's precise all the way down to the 'level' of individual
ions.

It's just that the neural Topology has to =all= be
carried-through when one works in NDT's per-
spective. "TD" is "Topologically-Distributed". To
see "TD", one has to be able to see the neural
Topology.

>  Moreover, employing your theories are not necessary
> since this finding and discussion has been shown and
> explained a long time before any of us had begun
> discussing this (for an example see Graham Goddard,
> "the original kindler", work).

The OP described a 'controversy'.

NDT cut-right-through it, and I'd no
prior knowledge of the DC-injection
experimental design.

> This is something that Klenow is most likely aware of
> and isn't really the point of the discussion. Your
> comments that subtle "supersystem configuration"
> 'abnormalities' post-DC-injection would occur is
> something I completely agree with and I would say
> that supersystem configurations is a good metaphor
> that basically means the results are from the physical
> changes in the expression of specific ion channel subunit,
> alteration in their firing dynamics, and indirect effects
> from the local neuronal activity on their associated
> targets.   That is a mechanistic approach to a ambiguous
> umbrella explanation, like "supersystem configuration",
> that encompasses actual physical processes.

The neural dynamics are all very-precise in NDT.

In it's functionality, "supersystem configuration" is the
closest thing to 'magic' of which I'm aware, but it's
not 'magic'. It's 'just' some awesomely-powerful
information-processing dynamics, through which
massively-parallel hierachical-prioritization of every-
thing that occurs within nervous systems happens
'blindly'-and-automatically - "drives", "emotions",
"cognition", "creativity", "curiosity", "volition", gen-
eralized attraction/avoidance, including all-mode
sensory-gating to "consciousness", etc.

It always [still] leaves my eyes 'wet' when I get-
into working in-it.

I'm not a 'bad-guy', Neil. I've just learned that
I've got to keep hammering-on the absence-of-
understanding until folks get the "base-set".

And I'm 'angry' that I have to because, since
I promised to just 'go away' once communication
happens, it's all at great personal cost that can
never be recouped.

It's been as if Life, itself, has been being 'sucked-out'
of me.

And I don't accept that it could not be better-accom-
plished in-person, which would leave me, then, free
to 'pick-up-the-pieces' of what's left of my Life.

I'm 'pushing', hard, toward that end.

Thank You for your "straight" discussion.

Cheers, ken [k. p. collins]

> > Do you realize that, except for what I'll discuss below,
> > you've just reiterated my previous discussion without
> > integrating what you've reiterated?
> >
> > Although, if it continues indefinitely, it'll probably
> > have physiologically-deleterious effects, there's
> > nothing intrinsic in low-level DC that can be "hab-
> > ituated" to. It 'just', local to its injection, shifts
> > membrane potential, and everything else that
> > occurs operates upon that shifted membrane
> > potential, 'seeing' it as being 'normal' [which is
> > what results in the "tuning-precision void" after
> > the DC is withdrawn. And why there should
> > also be subtle "supersystem configuration"
> > 'abnormalities' post-DC-injection [see AoK, Ap5].
> >
> > K. P. Collins






More information about the Neur-sci mailing list