SciAm article [was Happy Groundhog Day!]

kenneth collins kenneth.p.collins at
Fri Feb 11 17:02:18 EST 2005

<news at> wrote in message news:Z-adnfYxyPTYIpHfRVn-jA at
| "kenneth collins" <kenneth.p.collins at> wrote:
| > "kenneth collins" <kenneth.p.collins at> wrote in message
| > news:CQzMd.1851$Th1.937 at
| > | [...]
| >
| > | "Memory" is extremely-very-much
| > | more than "synapses", but this article
| > | reduces it all to "synapses".
| > |
| >  -----snip ---
| > Think about it in terms of other sys-
| > tems of information-representation.
| >
| > 1. The English-Alphabet.
| >
| > 26 symbols that can be used to create
| > "words", "sentences", "paragraphs",
| > "essays", "Letters to the Editor", "News-
| > group Posts", "Chapters", "Poems",
| > "Song Lyrics", "Books", "Libraries",
| > etc., ad infinitum.
| > ---------snip -----
| >
| > One can't get to "here" invoking
| > only "synapses" -- "memory" is
| > =much= more than "synapses".
| >
| If you can explain how the "Libraries" are more than
| 'ink on the paper', then you can explain to us how memory is
| more than "synapses".
| [...]

The answer to the question implied
in your reply was in the post to which
you replied, but I'll reiterate it, here,
from a slightly 'different' angle.

If Libraries were not more than
"ink on the paper", 'books' would
have to write-themselves -- you
know -- 'Poof!' into being via
some 'magic'.

It's the same with 'memory' and
the same with respect to any
'individual' "synapse", and with
respect to all the "synapses"
that exist within a nervous sys-

So how can "memory" be "all
synapses", when a "synapse"
can have no existence without
the hugely-more stuff to which
I referred in my previous post,
to which you've replied?

It's not "ink on the paper" that
makes a book "a book" -- that
which puts "information" into
a book is what makes it "a book",
and, without that which puts in-
formation into a book, one can
put all the ink on paper that one
wants to put on paper, stack
'volumes' of such "ink on the
paper" stuff up on shelves in
a building, but the result will not
be a "library", and there will
be no "information" in the vol-
umes, none on a "page", none
in any little inky squiggle.

It's the same with respect to

That nervous systems are not
like "books" is what I was get-
ting at in my use of an "alpha-
bet" metaphor.

"Memory" occurs as a function
of =global= nervous system dyn-
amics, and, within such, there's
lots of sutff that's at least as im-
portant as are "synapses", and a
lot of stuff that's easily seen to be
more-important than "synapses",
because, while individual synapses
are "dispensible", the more-import-
ant stuff isn't. That stuff is globally-
integrated TD E/I-minimization,
and it's =in-it=, and nowhere else,
that "memory" resides.

[Note to those who are considering
the "ER Engram" hypothesis that
I shared a few 'weeks' back -- to
reiterate, I expect that it will be Ver-
ified that the ER constitutes a cellular-
level 'library' that enables a cell to
configure itself within on-going TD
E/I-minimization, so that, along with
=much more=, the cell's contribution
to "memory" will also be optimized".

With respect to "synapses", the ER
is "boss" to them, and they come
and go while the ER 'just' builds
it's 'spherical'-conformationally-stored
Directional-encoded TD E/I-mini-
mization-evoked "information". [FLASH!
4:35pm, Friday, 2005-02-11 -- 
which warrants some consideration
with respect to degenerative diseases.]]

"Where'd he get that @#$#%& stuff?"


k. p. collins 

More information about the Neur-sci mailing list