SciAm article [was Happy Groundhog Day!]

kenneth collins kenneth.p.collins at
Thu Feb 3 03:55:06 EST 2005

"kenneth collins" <kenneth.p.collins at> wrote in message 
news:y7bMd.6895$xR1.3895 at
| [...]

| The one I purchased was the Feb, 2002
| issue of =Scientific American=.
| There's an article in it, "Making Memories
| Stick", by R. D. Fields, p.74, that I'll read,
| and comment upon after the President's
| State of the Union address, but one thing
| caught my attention when I skimmed it before
| I bought it.
| On p81, there's a bold text box that reads,
| "Finally, we began to appreciate that the
| important factor was time."
| This's B. S., although the use of the past
| tense is fitting.
| I'll discuss, in-detail, after I've studied
| the article, in-detail.
| This discussion will be something no one
| who Loves Neuroscience will want to
| miss.
| [I Promise.]

The article is self-contradictory, saying,
early-on, that "short-term synapse
strengthening" enables the synthesized
proteins to "find" the synapses that are
to undergo "long-term strengthening".
Then, later, it says that the "strengthen-
ing" still happens if the synapses are
turned off.

So, with this self-contradiction, I don't
know how to respond to it. [It's author
is the same author who wrote last 'year's
"glia" article, to which I responded "neg-

What I was going to do was discuss the
"everything is 'time'" stuff, showing that
that's not the case, but I'm going to "bag"
doing that, just saying that that's not the

There's another sub-article in the same
issue of SciAm. This other thing also
emphasizes 'time', and is a direct "bor-
rowing", I presume, without Crediting,
of Tapered Harmony's basic stuff.

The guy won an award :-]

I'll discuss all of this, more, after I study
it all, more. I won't be able to do all I'd
wanted to do without finding some in-
dependent References, and I've nothing
current enough on-hand, and can't af-
ford to go to the Library [especially not
to address an article that "beats-itself-

So I'll probably just discuss it "from the

Toward that end, I "groaned" when the
author reiterated the ancient misconcep-
tion of how the hippocampus is involved
in memory consolidation.

The author writes that "people, places,
events -- must pass through the hippocampus
before being recorded in the cerebral
cortex. [p75]

This is not-True.

As is discussed in AoK, Ap5, the hippo-
campus is an intermediate-'level' "super-
system configuration" mechanism.

Information reaches neocortex via
=many= routes, each route existing for
=one= reason -- that it enables TD E/I-
minimization that'd not occur in its ab-
sence. That is, as has also been ex-
plained in AoK all along, =all= of the
"twists and turns" [including commisures
and decussations] exist as Maths func-
tions that literally embody TD E/I-min-
imization, together constituting the "spec-
ial topological homeomorphism of central
nervous systems" [Aok, "Short Paper"].

What the hippocampus does, along with
the other "supersystem configuration"
mechanisms that're discussed in AoK,
is to 'blindly' and automatically "whittle"
TD E/I down to the minimal-possible
'state' that can be, "then", achieved. Dur-
ing this TD E/I-minimization, all neural
activation that can be "tuned-out" of the
'momentary" "supersystem configuration"
without resulting in the occurrence of
overall TD E/I(up), is "tuned-out".

What results is an =ordered= overall
"supersystem configuration" that allows
"information" to be "addressed".

So what breaks-down in cases like "H.M.",
which the author cites, is this "supersystem
configuration" action of the hippocampus,
which leaves the "supersystem" without
it's 'normal' ability to maximally- =order=
its neural activation, which means that,
although the "information" is in-there via
the many non-hippocampal routes through
which it routinely gets in-there, it cannot
become maximally-ordered, so it cannot
be optimally "addressed" -- be-cause TD
E/I-minimization cannot occur as it 'normal-
ly' does.

Experiment has verified =all= of this. [See
L. Squires' work with respect to the var-
ious "modes" of "memory".]

So, I hope I never again have to read of
the hippocampus being the stuff of some
ancient mis-take.

Here's an easy way to See it for what it
has been Proven, by Experiment, to Be:

It's a "spatial map" that maps into a neur-
al-topological map that maps into the
host organism's "experiential external-
reality map" [which is the experiential
external environment, itself.

Map --> Map --> Map.

It's the the rigorous mapping of the
"special topological homeomorphism"
that's formed in rigorous accord with
global TD E/I-minimization that, with
'instantaneous' TD E/I-minimization,
=unifies= all of this, and =keeps= it
unified, so that Consciousness is ex-
perienced as a Unitary-Whole.

Get it?

The hippocampus =has to Be= a
"spatial map" be-cause it's role in
converging upon "supersystem con-
figurations" literally operates upon,
and within, the "special topological
homeomorphism -- roughly the 'same'
thing one does when one gives Dir-
ection to a lost motorist. Get it? Just
as you have to understand the direc-
tional-topography in order to "config-
ure" the motorist's future directed-
driving, the hippocampus has to "un-
derstand" =Directionality= within the
"special topological homeomorphism"
so that it can Direct 'movement to-
ward' maximally-ordered 'states' of
TD E/I-minimization.

Which is =why= experiment has dis-
closed the hippocampus' "spatial"-
map correlates. It couldn't carry out
it's role in TD E/I-minimization con-
vergence if it were not so rigorously-

Same as you cannot give Direction
to the lost motorists if you don't know
the physical-layout of the land 'contain-
ing' where you are 'now' and where
the motorist wants to go.

It's =Simple=.

What made it seem "mysterious" was
the general absence-of-understanding
with respect to the Fact that =every-
thing= within nervous systems is rigor-
ously-ordered to do exactly =one=
thing -- achieve TD E/I-minimization.

Absent that understanding, everything
within nervous systems appears to 'be'

With that understanding, nervous sys-
tems are not only Seen to be Awesomely-
Simple, but they flat-out describe them-
selves and =everything= that occurs
within them.

If only one Looks in-there.

Anyway, I want to discuss this 'time' mis-
take [or "provocation], but I'm 'tired, now',
so I'll discuss it more 'tomorrow' [or 'the
next day'], but I've got to obtain independ-
ent References before I'll be able to dis-
cuss the overall "memory-stickiness" hy-
pothesis that the article describes.

[FWIW, it's definitely inferior to the 3-D
energydynamics stuff that I've been discuss-
ing all along. That's one of the things I'll
be able to demonstrate that 'tomorrow'.
The hypothesis that's presented in the
article ]

'Course, if someone would let me meet
with them, in-person, nearby a Good
Neuroscience Library, it'd be short-work
to keep my Promise.

BTW, anyone made any progress with
the "endoplasmic reticulum as engram"
experiments I discussed a couple of 'weeks'
ago? That stuff's going to be Verified, and
it provides what's 'missing' from what was
discussed in the article. I'll explain 'tomor-

k. p. collins

More information about the Neur-sci mailing list