[Neuroscience] Re: Physiological concentrations of dopamine and
kenneth.p.collins at worldnet.att.net
Wed Sep 7 01:35:48 EST 2005
Happy 116th Independence Day!  Brazil.
<tehgabriel at web.de> wrote in message news:1126019609.603128.219200 at g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Does anybody know references that report in vivo concentrations of
dopamine and glutamate within the cortex (of rats)?
I used application of D1 agonist SKF38393 (1-10 µM) and NMDA (same
range) and discussed with a colleague of mine if these concentrations
are somehow related to those (of dopamine and glutamate) that may be
found within an intact brain.
Thanks for any idea! Would spare me a really tremendous literature
[Note: In the "Automation of Knowing..." ms. [AoK],
the phrase, "Duality Theory", refers to "Neuroscientific
Quoting from the position I gave in AoK:
"APPENDIX 9 - IF TD E/I[-minimization] IS
ALL THERE IS THEN WHY ARE THERE
SO MANY DIFFERENT EXCITATORY
AND INHIBITORY NEUROTRANS-
With respect to the primacy of the TD E/I-minimization
principle that is asserted by Duality Theory, one question
looms importantly. If the functioning of the CNS revolves
tightly around TD E/I minimization, then why do so many
different excitatory and inhibitory neurotransmitters exist
within it? If TD E/I-minimization is the only thing with
which the biology of the central nervous system is concerned,
then wouldn't just two neurotransmitter substances, one
excitatory and one inhibitory, be adequate?
Duality Theory holds that the various excitatory and
inhibitory neurotransmitter substances constitute a system of
tuneable chemical "insulation". This set of things, which is
referred to as "functional multiplexing" within the theory,
creates "selective electricity" that permits the CNS to be
wired up in an especially-compact and efficient way. The
various neurotransmitters allow portions of its circuitry to
be used redundantly within different circuits without
creating cross-circuit interference. This has substantial
advantages which include the elimination of the need for
entire levels of supersystem integration circuitry, the
minimization of CNS bulk, the minimization of neural fiber
lengths with an associated reduction of energy consumption
and, most-importantly, the minimization of response
latencies. These things greatly enhance an organism's
propensity for survival. Thus, within Duality Theory, the
various transmitter substances constitute a "kit of tools",
albeit a substantial one, that renders the global TD
E/I-minimization process more efficient.
The only way that it can be shown that the neurotransmitters
constitute more than such "tools" is to show that they undo
the special topological homeomorphism [...] so that it
no longer exists. Otherwise, the relatively-specialized
neurochemically-mediated dynamics must operate in accordance
with the reality of that globally-integrated structural
organization. [This is the "domain" Condition that I refer-
enced in the comments I posted 'yesterday' with respect
to the analogous "domain" Condition in Albert Einstein's
Duality Theory holds that neurochemical deficits cannot be
associated with single behavioral deficits. Rather, since
neurotransmitters act as switch-junction building blocks, any
particular neurochemical deficit occurs as a variety of
partial behavioral deficits. Furthermore, spatially-separated
occurrences of any neurotransmitter substance do not have any
necessary behaviorally-relevant commonality which supercedes
that which exists within the underlying neural topology. If
there is a natural "barrier" (spatial, glial, and at
microscopic levels, active breakdown and/or re-uptake) that
separates neurotransmitter locations, then a neurochemical
can be reused in a second circuit having a function that is
independent of a first circuit that uses the same
neurotransmitter. Physical separation obviates chemical
Therefore, Duality Theory holds that artificial (non-natural)
applications of neurochemical substances which do not take
the microscopic and global realities of the underlying neural
network into account cannot produce a fully functional global
system. This, of course, includes all applications of drugs
by any means other than tissue transplant, and even in the
case of tissue transplant, the degree to which the transplant
is able to replicate the naturally-occurring circuitry's
macroscopic and microscopic topology limits the effectiveness
of the transplant. These considerations are also impacted by
the prior "learning" (microscopic neuronal modifications)
that the global system has experienced.
See "Transplantation in the Central Nervous System", by A.
Fine, SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN, Volume 255, Number 2, August,
1986, p. 52. This article shows that tissue transplants do,
at least to a degree, reconstruct portions of the special
topological homeomorphism, and, thus, are governed by it.
This article also discusses, and depicts diagrammatically,
bilaterally-asymmetrical movement and postural disorders
that follow asymmetrical lesioning of the special topological
homeomorphism of the CNS.]"
End quoting from AoK.
So any, and =ALL=, questions pertaining to
the Neuropharmacology are "Moot, to the
degree that they 'separate' themselves from
the neural Topology.
=Of course= this Truth could not have been
Realized without the Arduous-Work that's
been done with respect to neuropharmalog-
ical Experimentation, but, be-cause of the
Proven-Existence of the "special topological
homeomorphism, in light of what's quoted,
above, from AoK, unless it's done Completely,
neuropharmacological Experimentation will
never yield Sufficient data to say =anything=
with respect to questions such as the one
you've posed. And, when neuropharmaco-
logical Experimentation =is= done Complete-
ly, the Result will be that it will have 'just'
recreated the "special topological homeo-
morphism, neuropharmacologically, there-
by Verifying the discussion that's been in
AoK all along.
When I wrote AoK, be-cause I saw that
the Need was so Great that folks Under-
stand nervous system function, in light
of what had been my experience as a
Student in Science and, in particular, in
Neuroscience, I decided to work to
"crack" the Problem of nervous system
via a multi-disciplinary approach.
As far as I was concerned, it =just=
COULD-NOT-BE that folks were
left as Victims of the "prejudice to-
ward the familiar" [AoK, "Short Paper"
and throughout] that it was Obvious
to me [after an intense 'period' of Be-
havioral Observation] was, in-Fact
'blindly' and automatically Ravaging
So I "pulled out the stops", letting the
full-Armament of Science loose against
this one Problem.
The Result is =Neuroscientific Duality
Theory= [NDT], which is briefly-intro-
duced in the "Automation of Knowing..."
Only to find, be-cause I'd used methods
in-Science and Maths that were 'unfamiliar'
to my Colleagues in Neuroscience [and
the rest of Science], that my 'fate' was to
have to "endure" a never-ending(?) series
of 'questions', such as yours, in which
folks, 'blindly' and automatically, 'assert'
this or that with which they are 'familiar'
as 'tests' of my "knowledge" with spec-
ific "areas" of their Expertise -- with the
'presumption' of the 'questions' =always=
being that, "if he can't answer this ques-
tion, then there cannot be any worth in
anything that he has to say about neuro-
But all such 'questions' are is the Same-
Stuff of the whole Problem that's been
Resolved in NDT, and discussed in
AoK, for 'decades' -- "prejudice toward
the familiar", "throwing it's monkey wrench"
into the works, so as to 'blindly' and auto-
matically "perpetuate" Absence-of-Under-
My way of "addressing" such 'questions'
that have already been Addressed and
Answered in AoK, is to "Groan", and
do what Needs to be done -- Ask folks
to "step outside of" being 'Dictated'-to
by the stuff that's accumulated within their
'familiar' experience, to See the Answer
to their 'questions' are handed-to-them
in the Proven neural Topology "special
topological homeomorphism", which, as
is Asserted in AoK, and as I've discus-
sed in long-former posts here b.n, can
be followed all the way down to sub-
'atomic' 'levels' of 3-D E [3-D Energy-
I do understand that the neuropharma-
cological approach 'must' "play-itself-
out", but the fact that folks 'move away
from' the only Result that that approach
will yield has always left me whispering,
"Gees, 'louise'! What a Waste!"
It's =NOT= 'only' a Waste of the Re-
sources of Science, it's, simultaneously,
a Waste of 'countless' Human Lives,
[due to the Devastation and Destruction
of "War", and, most-Significantly, the
ever-increasing "Deficit", with respect
to "WHAT COULD HAVE BEEN"
if folks'd 'just' come to Understand
how and why nervous systems pro-
cess information via 'blindly'-automat-
ed TD E/I-minimization when such
Understanding was made-Available
to folks 'decades' ago, which includes
=IMMENSE= 'Subtlties', such as
with respect to the augmenting Hu-
man Population, which is occurring
be-cause, left to "Flounder" in its
ity cannot See that there's anything
other to do than "Procreate".
The "list" of such =IMMENSE=
Subtlties goes-on-Forever, and has
been Augmenting, Mightily, while
'science' has been 'unable' to "get-
its-hands-around" Truth, "laid at its
feet" 'decades' ago.
Do you See how and why it's been
so Sorrowfully-'hilarious' to me that
It's the Same-Stuff that was Reified
in NDT, and briefly Communicated
in AoK, that has Acted, thus far, in
Science's Stead -- 'science' has al-
lowed its own "prejudice toward the
familiar' to 'Dictate' to it that "it can
do nothing" to Lift Humanity Up out
of what has been its historical Self-
Be-cause, instead of doing such,
'science' has 'busied'-itself in the
'pursuit' of 'questions', such as the
one you've posed even though, if
Answers to those 'questions' are
already Available to them in Texts
that catalog the Science's Hard-Won
Do you See how and why this's so
The Work is 'just' "piled-up", and
folks 'just' 'move away from' finding
Recourse in-it, in 'favor', 'blindly'
and automatically, 'moving toward'
the B. S. that they were Coerced,
by 'blindly'-automated TD E/I-min-
imization, to "learn" if they were to
be allowed to receive their "Degrees".
=That= Being, "We don't know any-
thing about the brain".
Which anyone who just spends De-
voted 'time' Studying in the Neuro-
science stacks can See is is a Pathetic
Yet 'everyone' in 'neuroscience' "bows-
down" to that Pathetic-Lie, virtually
"singing-its-refrain" whenever they're
confronted with work in Neuroscience
that's Discordant with that Pathetic-Lie,
be-cause, being 'unfamiliar' with any-
thing other than the 'stuff' of that Pathetic-
Lie, which they were Coerced to "Swal-
low", "hook, line, and sinker", as Students,
under Threat of "not being granted their
Degrees", they 'blindly' and automatically
act to Coerce the same Pathetic-Lie up-
on anyone, and anything, that 'moves
away from' "bowing-down" to the
And all that is is 'blindly'-automated TD
'everyone' in 'neuroscience' being 'Dic-
tated'-to they "Cannot just do what
neuroscience professes to be-about
But, Mostly, 'just' Sorrowful.
Forgive me, Please, Thomas. I Under-
stood, immediately upon reading your
post, that your Purpose was to elicit
my "position" with respect to "Neuro-
pharmacology", it's been in AoK all
along, but I've taken-advantage of
your post to Emphasize aspects of its
underpinning Rationale with Respect
to what has been Humanity's historical
Since your Purpose was self-disclosing,
I Hope[!] you'll not be "disappointed"
with the content of my reply.
=YES=, this stuff is Exceedingly-'Dif-
ficult', but it's the Falseness inherent in
intergenerationally 'Difficulty' that Rav-
So the =only= Resonable thing to do
is "whatever-it-takes" to =Eliminate=
the Falsehood inherent, while ["of course"]
Honoring Free Will.
So that's what I've worked to do, here,
in my reply to your post.
I Hope that you are not "disappointed".
I mean no "offense".
I Mean 'just'-the-Opposite stuff.
Somehow, the "hard-nut" of Ancient
Prejudice must be "Cracked" -- so
that Humanity can be Released from
what has been its Unworthy, 'blindly'-
Cheers, ken [the "Nut-Cracker"]
[k. p. collins]
More information about the Neur-sci