An electrophysiology quesiton

k p Collins kpaulc at [----------]earthlink.net
Tue Feb 17 23:55:23 EST 2004


"NMF" <nm_fournier at ns.sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:nmsYb.4941$d34.758000 at news20.bellglobal.com...
> [...]

> > If there's one ion that asserts this functionality,
> > there's just no need for other ions with respect
> > to this functionality.
>
> I still don't agree with you on that entirely.  Perhaps
> we can agree to disagree.  But astrocytes are
> extremely responsive to calcium.

I've not studied this, but, of course, there's full-spectrum
Biology in glial cells. The position I've been discussing
focusses upon the K+ 'permeability' of glia. Being
"sensitive" is not the same as being "permeant". The
former can vary, in discrete functional ways, but, while
the variability of the latter is infinite, it's always the one
thing that's varying, with respect to the neural Topology
local to a glial cell. Big difference.

> Perhaps I should have been more clear in my previous
> response.   I am not dismissing K+ role in regulating
> glia transmission.  But for evoking the necessary
> changes in synaptic efficacy that would underlie the
> theories you suggest in my opinion it is highly dependent
> upon calcium activity.

I've not explored it - because everything I've been
discussing was worked-out back in the 1970s, and
I've not read in Neuroscience since then [other than
here in b.n, and sporadically, while fighting the 'temp-
tation' to 'close the door'.

Why?

I hoped that what I'd accomplished would win the
opportunity for me to work in a 'normal' way - with
ready-access to a good Neuroscience Library, the
benefit of collegial-interaction, 'normal' Publishing
opportunity, and not having to struggle just to stay-
Alive.

What happened, instead, was that folks in 'neuro-
science' treated my work as if it had, in fact, been
Published, took it, without Crediting it, and left me
'out in the cold'.

The 'interest' in glial function =derives= in the work
I did, and shared, in the 1970s.

As I've explained, it was just too-'painful' experi-
encing all of this to continue reading in Neuroscience.

So I don't know about the Ca++ stuff that you've
brought-up.

I Know, though, that I did enough to win an op-
portunity, as above, to do more.

Folks 'wonder' why I'm 'so-crying-out', but it
should be obvious to anyone who only looks.

'neuroscience' has stolen my Life.

And it's 'hilarious' that, when I 'cry-out' against
such, folks talk about what is, supposedly, 'my
psychopathology', subjecting me to 'the test' that
has no way of being 'answered' that does not
fall into the self-fufilling-nature that's calculated
to be in-it.

Truth is, that I've been carrying all of Neuro-
science on my back for decades, showing the
way - only to experience being 'poked' and
'prodded', and having Life-within-me being
'denied' - because what's happened is so Rep-
rehensible, and everyone Knows that.

'neuroscience' is, literally, Murdering me, Neil,
because I Love Neuroscience so much that
I would not allow it to flounder within the
nothingness that had prevailed.

Why am I getting into all of this, in reply to
your post?

I stopped reading in Neuroscience decades
ago. So, if all that I accomplished is 'denied',
yes, it's easy to present stuff that's been done,
during the past couple of decades, that will
leave me 'unable' to respond.

But that doing is 'hilarious' to me - because
virtually everything that's being done in Neuro-
science, these 'days', has its roots in NDT's
New synthesis.

It's been my Analysis that folks've not allowed
me to 'come in from the cold' because folks
know that, if they don't allow such, I'll just,
eventually, Die, and they'll never have to deal
with what has been their Treachery - their Dis-
honor in-Science.

It's the same 'old-song' that's been playing,
like a broken record, throughout the course
of History.

Other Savage instances include the taking of
the Native Americans' and African's Every-
things by folks who, because they could,
'deemed' it to be the case that they were 'en-
titled' to do so.

It's a 'blindly'-automated Ravaging, and the
way that it's 'denied' and 'covered-up' is
Sorrowfully-'hilarious'.

I Lament it every 'time' I hear the Greatness
of a musical style Created by Black Folks
being attributed to others than those who
Created it.

And I stand-with all folks who've experienced
such Theft-of-Life.

If folks 'wonder' about what has been my
posting 'style'.

>
> > > If, glial cells play a role, it would be a
> > > dynamic and modulatory role on
> > > neuronal functioning.
> >
> > I disagree.
>
> Sorry I still agree with this role

I clarified my 'disagreement' elsewhere
in my reply. I'd read-ahead, and was
'disagreeing' with respect to your assertions
with respect to 'memory'. Glial fx is not only
"modulatory" with respect to 'memory'. It's
=integral= in-'memory'.

> > > Glial cells DO NOT (or shall say, HAVE NOT BEEN
> > > SHOWN) to play a direct role in memory consolidation.
> >
> > I disagree, as I've been discussing.
>
> > I see much more, but modulating neuronal
> > 'transmission', through a modulation of pas-
> > sive spread and action potential thresholds,
> > selectively tunes everything that's involved
> > in 'memory'. [This's a realm that's in-vivo-
> > critical, though, it cannot even be seen in
> > vitro - be-cause, absent global-integration,
> > the glial fx just isn't there, and, therefore,
> > only weakly-observable, so, in vitro, what's
> > important is just be discarded as 'noise'.
>
> Exactly, hence that is why they do not play a
> direct role but rather a modulatory role in terms
> of cellular transmission.  You have to consider
> the actual electrical activity of glial cells and their
> time-course of electrical change.  They operate
> extremely fast but in normal tissue it seems that
> it they show more of a lagged response compared
> to neurons.  To evoke the dynamic changes in
> neuronal states (states here being referred to
> as physiological functioning changes underlying
> some important neuronal process), glial cells
> won't be the direct trigger causing these dynamic
> changes but instead would serve as a "tuning"
> functioning (to use the metaphor that you astutely
> employed).

I stand on what I've posted, Neil. What's been
referred to as "time" is irrelevant within nervous
systems' information-processing dynamics.

It's 3-D energydynamics that determine every-
thing, and the 3-D energydynamics converge
without respect to 'time'.

This's a 'Difficult' Truth, but it's Truth.

=NOTHING= occurs 'instantaneously' within
physical reality, and nervous systems are in
physical reality.

Everything within nervous systems proceeds
in all [necessary] directions with respect to
what's commonly referred to as "time".

Convergence is a 3-D energydynamic, =NOT=
with respect to 'time'. What's been referred to as
"time" has no physically-real Existence, and
attributing 'existence' to 'time' 'only' blocks
the path to comprehension - 'only' renders 'cog-
nition' 'blind' to what's happening within nervous
systems.

So, describing stuff that's just another sub-part
of what are globally-integrated 3-D energy-
dynamics as, supposedly, having 'functional
priority' - as in a "trigger" - completely misses the
Fact that convergence is a 3-D energydynamic
that occurs, 'simultaneously', in all directions
with respect to what's been referred to as "time".

Step back, a bit, and view the Problem we are
discussing in the abstract, with respect to the
one-way flow of energy from order to disorder
that is what's =described= by 2nd Thermo
[WDB2T].

WDB2T varies from 'point' to 'point' within
physical reality. Therefore, =any= process that
would be "determined-in-'time'" would be ab-
solutely unabale to cope with physical reality.
It'd always be 'falling-into' local WDB2T
minima, and proposing such as 'the solution'.
And any process that =just= ranges-widely
with respect to WDB2T can =always= find
a better-Solution to the Problem - because
it's not 'constrained by' non-physically-real
'time' - be-cause it has directionality with
respect to Truth [as Truth is Disclosed by
Universal WDB2T], not with respect to
'short-sighted', illusory, 'time'.

Get it?

The Difference between the "glial" positions
that we've each been discussing is =exactly=
analogous.

And I stand on what I've posted.

> > > Two recent studies may be of interest to
> > > you.  One study showed that activation
> > > of working memory networks was
> > > significantly correlated with the extent of
> > > glial cell activation and metabolites in HIV
> > > brain injured patients (which exhibit abnormal
> > > glial inflammatory effects).  They hypothesized
> > > that the increased glial processing is associated
> > > with a decrease in neuronal processing.
> >
> > If it's as you've described, it's probably 'just'
> > the glial 'hydraulics', occurring 'abnormally' -
> > which provides a 'handle' into the glial dyn-
> > amics that I've been discussing [a differential
> > that can be analyzed, and cross-correlated in
> > myriad ways with respect to all aspects of
> > nervous system function].
>
> Autocorrelations and lag-lead analysis might be
> able to discern this possibility but in terms of
> actually recording this to prove this is happening
> will be difficult and I don't think current electro-
> physiological techniques are sufficient right now
> to provide an accurate measure of this process.
> Maybe I'm wrong. The problem is that the
> theory makes sense from a theoretical perspective,
> but the manner to make the theory testible
> unfortunately is not available at the moment.

I was keying on your assertion of "extent of [...]
metabolites", presuming that the "metabolites"
are already observable.

What makes it 'difficult' is(?) that everything
occurs as a 3-D energydynamic, which means
that molecular counter-processes are always
embedded within one another - which makes
discernment with respect to any one thing
'difficult'.

What would have to happen is the develop-
ment of a methodology which is, itself, a
3-D energydynamic, and which compares
the 'normal' and 'abnormal' cases in an all-
energy-gradient way [think about it :-]

[It's absoulutely-imperative to ignore 'time'
within such analyses.]

> > > A second study (published in PNAS)
> > > showed  that astrocytes synthesize an
> > > important calcium binding protein,
> > > S-100B.  It is believed that astrocytes
> > > release this protein extracellularly and
> > > that it can modulate neuronal functioning.
> > > Mice devoid of S-100B exhibit greater
> > > synaptic plasticity and enhanced learning.
> >
> > This =might= 'correspond' to the glial anion
> > 'conformational' variation that I referred to
> > in my prior reply. [I understand that my dis-
> > cussion has been inadequate. The way I work,
> > online, is to 'construct' concepts via reiterative
> > discussion.] In these dynamics, an alteration in
> > K+ conductance alters ambient energy-gradients
> > which alters protein-folding dynamics, and, there-
> > fore, end-'states'(?) ["(?)" = "working-hypothesis".
> > [This is a very-'thermodynamic' view on protein-
> > folding that I've been discussing, here in b.n, for
> > 'years' ["3-D energydynamics"].]]
>
> The confirmational changes in glial motility is tied
> to calcium.  This is why I suggested for you to
> consider calcium dynamics and calcium micro-
> domains more closely.  To produce the necessary
> changes  in protein folding and structural (morph-
> ological) alteration requires calcium-related
> signalling.  (Just take a look into the area of research
> if you haven't done so yet).

I haven't, and I'm not going to :-]

Things being as they are, others can do such
much-more-robustly than I can, and I trust
that others have, and will.

[I've been reading in Physics since I stopped
reading in Neuroscience. As I've explained,
I've just been discussing from the perspective
of what was already integrated within NDT
at the 'time' of AoK's writing [of course,
using such to comment with respect to newer
stuff that folks bring-up.]]

My personal resources are such that I can
barely eat. I can't even afford to drive to
a Library. Given such, how can anyone
'expect' me to do-more? :-|

> > Except that I work solely in conductances,
> > seeing 'oscillations' as being artifactual [not
> > what's significant].
>
> I definitely disagree strongly with the assumption
> that the oscillations are being mere artifacts.

And I definitely stand on what I've posted with
respect to 'oscillations'. They are just 3-D energy-
dynamics, converging, with self-correcting overshoot.

Which is 'just' more TD E/I-minimization.

'seeing' the 'oscillations' as 'being anything', with
respect to information-content, 'blinds' one to
the important stuff - convergence within the 3-D
energydynamics.

> > >  In light of Pribr[a]m concept on the
> > >  holographic representation of memory
> > >  within the brain, glial cells and glial
> > >  processes may be useful for producing
> > >  the interference patterns that can be
> > > superimposed upon the background
> > >  activity of the brain. Enhancing the
> > > contrast between electrical patterns
> > >  of experience and background
> > >  patterns of activity.
> >
> > Yes, it was Pribram's work that got
> > me started on NDT's glial hypothesis
> > back in the mid-1970's. [And it's good
> > to hear of his work being referred to,
> > by others, with Respect [which is
> > relatively-recent. It used to be that
> > Pribram's work was, rather savagely,
> > 'ridiculed'.]
>
> Yes it was ridiculed.  I have been working
> more and more lately regarding some of his
> theories involving hologram representations
> of memory.  Right now for the past few
> months, I have been working (with some
> successes and some problems) on looking
> more directly at the glial physiology and how
> their dynamics in activity may subserve the
> production of such complex functioning.
> Maybe when I'm done with all the mathematics,
> I will present it to encourage discussion.

I did all of that, decades ago [again, not in
"symbolic" Maths, but in 3-D energydynamics].

> > As above, 'oscillations' are artifacts - not
> > information-relevant.
>
> I still don't agree.  I've read and seen too much
> support for these aspects of neuronal processing.

Yeah, folks love 'oscillations' [be-cause folks have
loved 'oscillations', so folks, wanting to be 'good
players [and to get Published], 'celebrate' 'oscillations'],
but 'oscillations' are =always= artifactual with respect
to what's actually going on within =any= physical
process - which, in Life, is convergence within 3-D
energydynamics ['climbing' of WDB2T]. [Within
inanimate processes, it's =always= divergence within
3-D energydynamics, =overall= ['going-with-the
WDB2T energy-flow].

All =any= 'oscillation' is is thresholding within 3-D
energydynamics. Such thresholding is 'interesting',
but it's always artifactual with respect to animate-
convergence, or inanimate-divergence, with respect
to WDB2T.

> Perhaps in many cases they are just epiphenomenal
> consequences of neuronal activity, but in other cases
> these dynamics are important for eliciting long-term
> changes in synaptic efficacy and are responsible for
> mediating important aspects of neuronal transmission.

Nope.

Let's see, what's a useful teaching-analogy?

"Unstable equilibrium."

Action required to balence 'a world' on
the 'point' of a pin is determined by 'the
world's tipping in any of the infinite directions
in which it can tip.

The 'oscillations' that are observable during
this balancing-of-a-'world'-on-the-'point'-of-
a-pin are =artifactual= with respect to what's
actually going-on - convergence within 3-D
energydynamics.

To the degree that the 'oscillations' are attended-
to, what's actually going-on in-there is rendered
'invisible'.

Get it?

The 'oscillations' can be =anything=, but the 3-D
energydynamics can =only= be the =one= thing.

> What would say about the over thirty years of
> research evidence that have investigated the
> importance of theta-range oscillations within the
> hippocampus?  Maybe they are epiphenonmenal
> but direct manipulation of these oscillations have
> been shown under many situations (even in awake
> live animal preparations) to impair normal neuronal
> processing and functioning.

Me thinks you already know what I say with respect
to "theat-[and other]range oscillations" - 'cuz, in an-
other post, you've discussed "overshoot", which, if
one does a Groups Google[tm] on "'oscillations'" [in-
cluding the sinfle quotes], one will [(?) - I've not done
the search] find my long-former discussion of the
fact that the 'oscillations' in-question are artifacts of
TD E/I-minimization, which is what I've reiterated,
with respect to glial fx, in this dscussion.

All of what's here is of =FUNDAMENTAL= Im-
portance within =all= of Science, and is an absolute
Necessity of doing Neuroscience.

Cheers, Neil, ken [k. p. collins]





More information about the Neur-sci mailing list