Axon collaterals ?

k p Collins kpaulc at [----------]earthlink.net
Mon Jan 5 05:22:42 EST 2004


"Matthew Kirkcaldie" <Matthew.Kirkcaldie at removethis.newcastle.edu.au> wrote
in message
news:Matthew.Kirkcaldie-C3B92E.17195005012004 at seagoon.newcastle.edu.au...
> In article <k5jJb.20917$IM3.2289 at newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net>,
>  "k p  Collins" <kpaulc@[----------]earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> > And, given the overall neuroanatomical context [for those
> > who have it, "the special topological homeomorphism of
> > central nervous systems", AoK, "Short Paper", explicitly,
> > and the rest of AoK in general], the 'chain of delimitation'
> > is plainly readable.
> >
> > In my view, the 'problem' has been that folks 'forget' about
> > the global Neuroanatomy, and all of the constraints disclosed
> > within it, when they get up-close-and-personal with individual
> > neurons.
>
> No, I don't forget about it, and I know that some components are going
> to cancel out or dissolve into noise overlaying function, but the
> problem is that we really have no idea how neurons do what they do en
> masse.  We therefore don't know which subtleties are critical, and which
> can be scaled out as we consider larger systems.
>
> I know you feel you have answers to many of these questions, but you
> don't ever provide details of your theories, which makes it impossible
> to discuss them.  Personally I doubt that a priori reasoning, or
> hypotheses without testing, are strong bases for this kind of
> generalisation.  But I'd be happy to be proved wrong if you would
> actually outline some of the material you refer to.
>
>          Matthew.

You've got AoK, right?

It's all in there [and in the refs cited in it].

Start with the great decussations.

They literally receive a receptor-transformed 'image'
of the external experiential 3-D energydynamics,
and turn it inside-out, upside-down, and backward,
so that it conforms geometrically to being on the
inside, looking out, all the while, preserving "be-acted-
upon'/'act" directionalities, all in a way that enables
convergence-upon-specificity to occur via 'blind'
minimization of excitation and 'blind' maximization of
inhibition.

This means that, no matter where one looks within
nervous systems, what one looks upon =must= be
functioning in accord with the above - which =greatly=
delimits the possible functional correlates of any
neuron.

[Of course, the great decussations [both sensory
and motor] are just a portion of analogous neural
Topology, all of which is ordered in the analogous
way.]

If you select a particular cell type in cortex, and
specificfy its locus [within gyrus/sulci, and cortical
layer [3-D with respect to cortical location], I'll
show how the general rules above usefully apply
[in-general - for more-specific analysis, I'd need
neural-array recorded data]. Basically, I'll discuss
the neuron's role within global convergence, which,
for most neurons, amounts to setting up relatively-
local "loop circuits" which are tuned to loop-
frequencies that tune local pyramidals. All of this
happens in a way that's rigorously in accord with
the stuff that's disclosed by the "decussation" stuff,
above. That is, the loop circuits also function in
ways that are rigorously-conformed to enabling
convergence via abstract TD E/I-minimization.

It's this stuff that's all readible right in the Neuro-
anatomy that I was talking about in my last post.

Folks study the Neuroanatomy, but they tend
not to see these "ordering principles" that are
in it.

[Please Forgive me. I'm =not= 'criticizing'
=anyone=. I am trying to 'break-through' to
folks, though. I've tried 'beating around the
bush', without any results. So I'm trying more-
direct approaches to get folks to see that
every 'twist' and 'turn' and fiber crossing and
intra- and inter-cortical, and inter-nuclei fiber's
connectedness conforms to the general order
that's disclosed by the great decussations -
all with respect to TD E/I-minimization.]

So, maybe if folks select specifically-localized
neurons [and types], and I discuss from that
perspective, folks'll get it. [At this 'level' of
analysis, the Neurochemistry is 'superfluous',
because, as is discussed in AoK, Ap9, the
Neurochemistry exists for =one= reason -
"functional multiplexing" - and the energy-
dynamics can be discussed, to a first, robustly-
useful approximation without detailing the
dynamics of "functional multiplexing".]

ken [k. p. collins]

[Will require some lengthy discussion because I'll
have to trace functional ramifications through a
number of TD E/I-minimization mechanisms.]





More information about the Neur-sci mailing list