Brain surface

kenneth collins kenneth.p.collins at worldnet.att.net
Sat Nov 27 03:28:15 EST 2004


New comments added at the end.

"kenneth collins" <kenneth.p.collins at worldnet.att.net> wrote in 
message 
news:ovtpd.59024$7i4.45885 at bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
| Newly-added comments, below,
| constitute a case-in-point re. my
| immediately-prior discussion :-]
|
| "kenneth collins" <kenneth.p.collins at worldnet.att.net> wrote in
| message
| news:Fhtpd.58995$7i4.53709 at bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
|| "Matthew Kirkcaldie" <m.kirkcaldie at removethis.unsw.edu.au> wrote
| in
|| message
||
| 
news:m.kirkcaldie-13BA9A.12442325112004 at tomahawk.comms.unsw.edu.au...
||| In article <u24op0her5t9ss5tblv8kgei6nr7df5q0b at 4ax.com>,
||| r norman <rsn_ at _comcast.net> wrote:
||| > The traditional mediators of increased
||| > local circulation include "metabolites"
||| > like decreased pO2, increased pCO2,
||| > increased extracellular [K+] and
||| > adenosine. Any number of cellular
||| > metabolic processes produce the
||| > first two: nerve activity resulting in
||| > increased Na/K pump activity is
||| > certainly a leading candidate.  The
||| > same nerve activity will also increase
||| > K+.  These factors would readily
||| > diffuse over distances up to 1 mm.
||| > The pO2 and pCO2 changes would
||| > readily cross glial cells, probably a
||| > pH change could also, although the
||| > astrocytes may shield arterioles from
||| > K+ changes.  However, you could
||| > easily imagine that whatever metabolic
||| > effect controls arteriolar dilation would
||| > be something that the astrocytes were
||| > adapted to pass through rather than
||| > shield.
||| >
||| > Using up ATP most definitely does
||| > mean a change in the metabolic rate
||| > of the cells -- the oxygen consump-
||| > tion -- since brain ATP is essentially
||| > produced completely by aerobic
||| > metabolism.  Even if the energy is
||| > derived from local stores, you still
||| > need oxygen and that
||| > means blood flow.
|||
||| These things are true in principle, of
||| course, but are you really saying
||| that the picomoles of K+ crossing the
||| neural membrane during an AP are
||| going to make a detectable dint in
||| the millimolar K+ extracellular
||| concentration a millimetre away?
||| [...]
||
|| I've not researched Dr. Norman's
|| comments, but can add, a bit, in-
|| general with respect to =all= ionic-
|| concentration dynamics.
||
|| They are not restricted to small
|| distances, be-cause each ion forms
|| it's own "center-of-action", with
|| respect to which, =all= of any
|| individual ion's force-dynamics are
|| carried with it.
||
|| So, as an ion travels within the
|| nervous system, its force-dynamics
|| are acted-upon by the force-
|| dynamics of everything that sur-
|| rounds it -- which means, for in-
|| stance, if there's an intense neural
|| activation, there can be a =net=
|| action upon an individual ion that,
|| like a Child pumping a playground
|| swing, impells the ion through
|| relatively-great distances.
||
|| These effects can, and do, operate
|| within the whole brain.
|
| =IMPORTANT= CLARIFICATION:
|
| The net ionic effects correspond
| to the net =ionic-force= dynamics,
| and =not= necessarily to individual
| ions' displacements.
|
| This is the same-stuff that I dis-
| cussed, in long-former posts, with
| respect to genetic-material tuning -- 
| how experience, at =all= of its various
| 'scales', is rigorously-coupled to
| the DNA -- how the DNA is act-
| ively-coupled, and tuned, via ex-
| perience.
|
| And that's about as Important as
| things in Neuroscience get.
|
| It's all worked-out, 'waiting' for
| folks to receive it, in-person.
|
| The rest of this post is the same
| as my prior post.
|
| ken [k. p. collins]
|
|| These extended force-dynamics
|| were, for instance, in the discussions
|| of glial tuning of "memory" that I've
|| discussed in long-former posts.
||
|| And all of this is =easily= observ-
|| able in the way that "memory"
|| for widely-'separated' subject-
|| realms can =only= be accessed
|| via an intervening "pumping"
|| stage.
||
|| I experience this sort of thing
|| routinely during my own research
|| efforts [allowing myself to, once
|| again, become "the lab-'rat'" :-], be-
|| cause the subject matter that I
|| deal with is multi-disciplinary.
||
|| When I wish to focus on data
|| that are widely-separated from
|| any current focus, I've always
|| got to do some work to "go" from
|| the 'current' focus to the widely-
|| separated focus.
||
|| During this "going", I'm =not=
|| 'relearning' everything that I've
|| formerly-learned about the
|| data-realm to which I'm "going".
||
|| Although, yest, every 'time' I
|| so "migrate" between data-
|| realms, I do =always= learn
|| a bit of new stuff [knowing that
|| this new learning does always
|| occur is some of why I've act-
|| ively sought-out widely-separated
|| data realms, and continue to
|| routinely do so]. But what happens,
|| in the main, when I "go" between
|| widely-separated data-realms, is
|| just a glia-mediated physical
|| tuning of my brain's neural topo-
|| logy. The necessary refs are cited
|| in AoK.
||
|| During this glia-mediated physical
|| tuning, brains' neural topologies
|| literally "morph", structurally, so
|| that formerly-constructed micro-
|| mods are brought into optimal
|| 3-D structural conformation.
||
|| All of this can be literally "watched"
|| as it's happening [although, care
|| is necessary while doing such
|| "watching", else the data-realm
|| "migration" that will actually occur
|| will be with respect to the "watching",
|| and not with respect to the problem-
|| focus "memory" shift. :-]
||
|| There are always stereotypical
|| 'time' courses, during which one's
|| ability to, for instance, express one's
|| self optimally with respect to the
|| migrated-from data-realm and
|| the migrated-to data-realm varies
|| inversly, one from the other.
||
|| I can write volumes about this
|| stuff, but the point I want to em-
|| phasize, here, is as I discussed
|| above -- the overall dynamics
|| are =whole-brain= ionic-force
|| dynamics in which individual ions,
|| rather than being restricted to
|| the dynamics of an individual
|| neuron's activation-potential
|| experience, are literally moved
|| by the =net= ionic-flows in
|| which they exist.
||
|| All of this is flat-out easy to
|| Verify via careful radioactive
|| assays that follow 'individual'
|| ions' cumulative flows.
||
|| The problem in doing such
|| experiments is that it's probably
|| not ethical to impose radioactive
|| quantities of fundamental ions
|| within Humans, and doing it
|| in 'rats' means that the data-
|| realm "migration" becomes high-
|| ly-subjective re. Experimenters'
|| interpretations -- is the 'rat'
|| actually "going" between wide-
|| ly-separated data-realms? And
|| how can that be externally-
|| verified? Via widely-gualitatively-
|| separated experimental perform-
|| ance requirements?
||
|| I've done it all in the ol' noggin'
|| lab, and can show 'anyone' else
|| in Neuroscience how to do the
|| same.
||
|| These things are a bit of what
|| I want to discuss in-person with
|| folks, and, a bit, of why I want
|| to discuss stuff in-person with
|| folks -- their discussion requires
|| considerable attention to details
|| that are readily-accessible, but
|| which are routinely 'invisible' to
|| folks who are untrained with re-
|| spect to them.
||
|| There's a =lot= of stuff in NDT
|| that's analogous to this. I can't
|| 'just' discuss it, in detail, in a
|| "broadcasted" way be-cause it's
|| a virtual Certainty that folks'd
|| stumble upon only bits and pieces
|| of the overall discussion, and, in
|| such "incompleteness", 'fly-off-
|| the-handle'.
||
|| I cannot allow such, so I'm sit-
|| ting here, wanting to share all of
|| this stuff, in-detail, but having to
|| 'wait' [interminably?] for in-
|| person opportunity to do so.
||
|| It's all so =Beautiful= that I'm
|| left 'wondering' if there's anyone
|| out-there who's actually interested
|| in doing Neuroscience :-]

And the stuff that I discussed
in the long-former "NL-P Med-
icine" thread applies in-toto, to
the stuff I discussed in the prior
post, quoted above.

Also, the "nonlinearity of per-
spective", as it is discussed in AoK,
Ap6, applies, in-toto, to =all= of
Neuroscience.

Neuroscience cannot be done
without it. Nothing, in all of Science,
can be done without it.

It's as I wrote in footnote 114 of
Ap6 [a "jump" button in the elec-
tronic version [I think the 7th [I
don't have the electronic version
of AoK installed on my Inet PC]]:

"(A further note: I expect that the
dynamics of nonlinear 'perspective'
will be shown to have some =general=
significance in the physical sciences.)"

It's True.

Science cannot be done without
invoking the nonlinearity of per-
spective as it's discussed in AoK,
Ap6.

'science' can, of course, be done.

But when the NL-P is invoked,
Science's view upon physical
reality becomes so much advanced
over the view of physical reality
without invoking the NL-P that
the sans-NL-P view appears a
"toy".

Forgive me, please.

It's True.

There's Awesome-Wonder-stuff
that's rendered flat-out Visible
when the NL-P is invoked.

This, because, if folks're going to
Kill me, I'm Obliged to give them
before they do.

K. P. Collins 





More information about the Neur-sci mailing list