Thank you for the Generousness of your reply.
I'll work to return it, in-kind, below.
First, though, I should explain that I've been
writing for folks who've been following a dis-
cussion that's been going on for 15 years -
which is why this or that day's post is never
enough. I'll fill-in, a bit, below.
"NMF" <neil.fournier at sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:Yg9bb.14454$hF3.1730802 at news20.bellglobal.com...
| I read a few of your posting pertaining to
| elucidating a possible mechanism
| of DNA amplification (and/or tuning).
Thanks for your work.
| Unfortunately, I have not read all of
| your postings made on this topic thus
|I have found some parts of ideas
| confusing and unclear. Perhaps if you
| ever have the time you should consider
| writing a paper outlining your basic
| concepts (which from what I gather do
| have some rather creative and novel
| insights) and ideas. Maybe
| post it as a .pdf attachment.
I agree, and plan to do so via some
computer simulations that demonstrate
the stuff I've discussed. [To all: I got a
Reprieve today. I'm still planning how to
use it, but I got a Reprieve, and use it
I will :-]
| But anyway, I find it compelling whenever
| anyone considers implementing ideas that
| serve to integrate how external (exogenous)
| activity can impart an influence upon intrin-
| sic aspects of organization and functioning.
Yes. The Necessity stands Proven.
| Your idea implementing Coulomb-based
| modulation of ionic conductance (which
| basically equates to electromagnetic field
| and/or global field current induction within
| nervous tissue) as a informational medium
| is in perfect harmony with neuronal system
| theories of processing. However, until there
| is actual evidence (measurable) to show
| that neuronal based transmission can
| actually affect and/or influence the expression
| of DNA then any theory postulating this will
| be limited (I have took some liberty and I
| may be completely incorrect in suggesting
| an aspect of your theory suggested that
| neural signals may have the compability to
| "tune" and amplify DNA based signals in vivo).
That's exactly what's in my position.
It's as I've posted. If it weren't so, then learning
would be 'Impossible' [or the genertic material
would be 'Useless' post-development].
| We do know that neural transmission can
| affect protein synthesis. There is considerable
| evidence that learning and memory tasks are
| associated with specific shifts in RNA base
| ratio. Reading a basic genetics and
| neurophysiology textbook will give you the
| numerical data pertaining to DNA/RNA char-
| acteristics and action potential characteristic
| --- and how from a intrinsic level action
| potentials can influence the extent of protein
| synthesis. For example, a single pulse of an
| action potential, with a height of 120 mV, will
| impart an energy of 100 femtoergs (an energy
| measure) on a electrical dipole molecule, such
| as RNA. This energy is the COMPARABLE
| to the stacking energy of one base pair. The
| duration of the pulse required to do this is would
| be around 20 msec (which is a typical synaptic
| duration of burst firing neurons found within
| hippocampus; a rather long range but many
| have adovacted that this range occurs during
| normal protein synthesis;
See below.
| remember the creation of new proteins is rather
| costly from a metabolic perspective and requires
| time), and this duration is long enough to act on
| the moving RNA strand for a distance of 0.5 nm
| (5 angstrom) (which is the width of about one
| base pair). Thus unstacking an ongoing seq-
| uence of RNA transcription by an action potential
| would lead to the creation of a permanent pro-
| tein record which is the correlate of memory.
| Remember the process of memory storage is
| essentially a process of protein synthesis.
| That is why if you interfere with protein synthesis
| you can impair the consolidation of new informa-
| tion (i.e. ethanol inhibits protein synthesis at
| the doses which evoke a drunk stupor... Therefore,
| as you have probably experienced at some
| point in your life when you consume large
| quantites of ethanol your "memory" of the night
| before can often be impaired).
I've done that 'experiment' :-]
| Unfortunately when you read many university
| textbooks they often do not stress exactly how
| action potentials can lead to protein synthesis.
| Most people know that it occurs however they
| do not necessarly know what it is about the
| characteristic of the action potential signal itself
| that can lead to this process. I hope that the
| above facts that i provided sheds some
| light on that (I do believe E.R. John and Karl
| Pribram have adovocated similiar ideas like
| this)
I read a book by Pribram during the 1975-6
Academic year - "holographic" metaphor
for memory.
The metaphor has stuck with me as I've con-
tinued to study.
With respect to your comments immediately
above, there is an important difference in the
view I'm discussing. It is that I don't attribute
anything to single action potentials, but attribute
the DNA tuning that I've discussed to the inter-
ference [both constructive and destructive]
dynamics that are =on-going= as a conseq-
uence of =on-going= ionic conductances that
are generated during =on-going= neural activ-
ation.
Under such conditions, rather substantial and
enduring 'eddy-currents' can develop in 3-D-
distributed ways, and these can literally tune
the DNA-RNA protein-synthesis 'toolset'.
I don't see a single action potential as being
sufficient.
| Now, this implies that the neural based activity
| is working at the level of RNA synthesis of
| protein, however, the signal indirectly acti-
| vates molecules that must functionally interact
| with the DNA of the nucleus. The question
| is can this change or impart an influence on
| the lasting expression of the pattern of DNA
| and ultimately effect the entire genome?
According to the hypothesis that I'm discussing,
yes - but via aggregate ionic conductances and
their interference dynamics. not via single action
potentials.
| Well it really depends on how you look at it.
| From a functional perspective DNA is rather
| static, however, we do know that exogenous
| signals can alter DNA expression (i.e. nonion-
izing radiation) that can have a deleterious
| effect upon the survivability and functioning of
| the organism. Thus, having the DNA system
| capable of responding to external signals may
| be quite troublesome for the normal functioning
| of the organism.
No. This is not a problem because the neural
Topology 'demands' that any EM that will interact
with it occur in a way that 'replicates' it.
That is, the neural Topology is, itself, a 'receiver'
that is expressly tuned to, and tunable by, the ionic
conductances.
This's why, although we exist within a 'sea' of EM',
our nervous systems remain largely unaffected by
most of it - most of it 'passes right through' undetected
be-cause the externally-generated waveforms to not
conform to the neural Topology.
Get it?
Get-small. Think of how the sense of smell happens.
Current;y-accepted theory holds that there are arrange-
ments that are like 'keys' and 'key-holes' - that the
'hook-up' is 'mechanical'. But it's not. The 'hook-up'
is via the sort of Coulomb-force interference dynamics
that I've been discussing. The 'hook-up' happens =be-
cause= of the Coulomb-force interference dynamics
that I've been discussing.
Why does it happen.
Be-cause the receptor-molecule's 3-D-Coulomb-force
structure conforms to the odorant-molecule's 3-D-
Coulomb-force structure in a 'positively'-interfering way.
It's not 'mechanical' but electrical.
And, when the work of smelling this or that orderant-
molecule has been accomplished, a signal to the
receptor can alter its conformation, and the Coulomb-
force Topologies no longer 'hook-up', with a 'simul-
taneous' signal to 'send-in-the-mucus' to clear the
oderant-molecule.
If it was mechanical, there'd have to be little 'plungers'
in each olfactory receptor.
Anyway, the 'point' of this smelly digression is with
respect to the way that the receptor-molecule's
Coulomb forces can 'hook-up' with the oderant-
molecule's Coulomb forces be-cause their energy-
distribution Topologies 'match-up'.
Without such Topological-matching, there's no
Coulomb-force interference, and no 'hook-up'.
It's the same with neural tissue in-General.
Almost all of the EM in the external 'sea' can't
'hook-up' because =it= is 'oblivious' to the neural
Topology. Its wave-dynamics don't conform to the
neural Topology.
[Note: This doesn't mean that an external wave-
dynamic cannot be engineered in ways that do,
at least partially, 'hook-up'. And that's a Danger
separate from the Danger of ionizing EM. But I
don't care to become embroiled in the cell-
phone, etc. controversy. I prefer to work as I am
working.]
| however, recent evidence that RNA interference
| molecules can impart a functional amplification
| and/or attenuation of specific gene sequences
| during DNA-RNA transcription. Perhaps this
| might be the mechanism by which you can fine-
| tune or amplify DNA signaling. But we first need
| to show that this takes place in mammalian
| species first.
I'm working at a much-smaller scale than "molecule".
In the hypothesis I'm pursuing, "molecules" are
the analog of 'behavioral' outputs with respect to
whole-nervous-system function.
"Molecule" is to Coulomb-force interference dyn-
amics as "behavior" is to brain.
End-products, not the dynamics through which they
are constructed and sent on their information-
processing ways. This is =not= to say that this
or that molecule does not constitute a means of
communication within nervous systems. Of course
molecules serve such purposes.
In this thread, I'm just working at a smaller scale.
| I am looking forward to reading your future
| (and/or other individuals) comments.
|| NMF
I hope my reply communicates. The 'point' about
the Necessity of Topology-'hook-up' is of exceeding-
importance.
It's easier to see via an animated calculation, though,
which is what I'll be working to do over the coming winter,
and why.
Cheers, Neil,
ken [k. p. collins]
