The "Nernst Equation" doesn't say anything
that's actually applicable in vivo.
For instance, when it's applied to K+ conduct-
ances, it doesn't address glial function with respect
to K+ conductances, which, as I've mentioned
recently, and discussed in long-former posts, and
in AoK, Ap5, is fundamentally involved in any
relatively-focussed 'memory state', and which,
when altered, shifts 'memory state' in ways that
can be functionally-Enormous.
Alter K+ conductances, and virtually all other
conductances are also altered.
The effect acts both mechanically [altering K+
concentration within glia alters glial Geometry,
which alters neural Geometry, including synaptic
'pressures', etc.], and conductance-dynamically
[altering passive spreading, action potential
thresholds, etc.], which is how, and why, the
profoundly-differently-focussed 'memory states'
can 'coexist, recall-ably, but, nevertheless, non-
destructively [the synaptic-sprouting, etc., involved
in learning doesn't have to recur over and over
again], and non-interferingly.
This's all just more TD E/I-minimization.
And this position is Testable.
The necessary experimental design has to present
experimental subjects with the opportunity to
acquire, and switch between, widely-differentiated,
robustly-established memory 'states'.
Train to task, then train to widely-differentiated
task. Then, present one task or the other, and
sacrifice at various stages of 'switching' [which can
be monitored by measures that quantify completeness
of 'memory state' switching.
If NDT's position is Correct [it is :-], then there'll be
observable glial anion differentiation that's correlated
with 'memory state'.
What happens is [I expect] that glial anion 'conforma-
tions' are tunable, and this affects both glial structural-
'conformation' and glial K+ conductance in a way that's
correlated to 'memory state', and which can vary
Profoundly, with respect to different neurons, none of
which does the "Nernst Equation" see, or allow for.
The "Nernst Equation", like virtually all such 'equations',
is an 'instrument' that describes in vitro dynamics, and
has relatively-little applicability in vivo. It's a way of
=describing= [it doesn't actually "quantify" what's act-
ually going-on] in vitro ionic conductances.
It's important to get and keep such straight, because
failure to do so 'blinds' folks to what's actually going
on within nervous systems [and blocks progress in
Neuroscience [in a way that's exactly analogous to
the way that the 'givens' of the Ptolemaic view
blocked seeing of the 'Copernican' view of Astronomy].
Rather than 'bash' me for discussing this, do the experi-
ment, and see it for yourself.
The "long-list" of Neurophysiological stuff remains.
I'll have to evaluate whether there's any worth in
continuing [and sort-out another Analysis that I've
been doing], before deciding that it's 'appropriate'
to continue working-through-it at this 'time'.
Basically, what's here, in this msg, is a 'test' of the
prospects for further discussion [=at this 'time'=].
I'm thinking that. in recent discussions, I've given
folks enough stuff to 'chew-on', and working
through the list, further [=at this 'time'=] will be to
And I'm 'tired' [of having to expend my personal
resources only to remain 'alone'].
And Lent is coming, and my 'heart' is called to that,
and all that's in-it.
ken [k. p. collins]
"k p Collins" <kpaulc@[----------]earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:pFDXb.5755$hm4.711 at newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net...
> Tomorrow, I'll discuss the "Nernst Equation".
>> "k p Collins" <kpaulc@[----------]earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:w_CXb.5711$hm4.924 at newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net...> > [...]