Thalamus wrote in message ...
>"Kenneth Collins" <k.p.collins at worldnet.att.net> skrev i melding
>news:mj9W8.13653$Iu6.737934 at bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
>>[...]
>[...]
>> before reading the page to which your post directed me, i'd only read
rather
>> sketchy reports on "Einstein's brain". my understanding was that it was
cut
>> up, fixed, and sat in a jar, almost lost, for decades, with only
>> long-post-mortem investigation. the thing that i found most-interesting
is
>> that Einstein's brain was found to have significantly-mor[e] neuralglia
cells.
>>Which is strange - glial cells are NOT information-processing cells,
they're
>functionally support cells IE oligodendrocytes, Schwann cells etc.
>So how could Einstein be a genious, if his structural neural network wasn't
>exceptional, if his brainsize were 'normal' ????
>>Brian
beginning back in the mid-1970s, i sought a substrate to underpin my
subjective experience of being able to 'tune' 'memory' through long-enduring
focused effort. the problem was compelling because its 'mechanism' was,
apparently, boundless. no matter what i focused upon, if i stuck with it, it
became, =relatively=, my "whole world". yet, when, for this reason ot that,
i had to 'drop' my focused effort, the correlated 'memory' would 'dissolve',
and when, usually some months or years later, i returned to the correlated
'focus', i'd have to go through yet another period of enduring-effort. with
each such relatively-exclusive-focus 'cycle', there's a gradual decrease in
the effort involved. [if anyone's saved the stuff i've posted, over the
years, here in bionet.neuroscience, folks'll be able to See such 'cycling',
most readily when i was deeply-focused on one thing [i'm always at work on
stuff other than that which i'm 'momentarily' discussing], and someone
queried with respect to some relatively-'distant' other thing. the stuff i'm
discussing doesn't 'shift-gears' 'instantaneously'. and i responded with
'short-shrift' stuff. the topic wasn't, then, in 'where i was'. and, if
folks look for it, folks'll see the same stuff within their own
experiences.]
anyway, these dynamics seemed, to me, to be too-flexible to be attributable
to neuroanl sprouting, synaptic strengthening/weakening,
budding/disappearing, and definitely not to neural-death, so i turned to
glia [in particular, but not exclusively, astrocytes, because of their
morphology].
my view became that some glia are 'active' participants in neural activation
and convergence upon them [which, of course, includes 'memory'], because of
their selective ionic permeabilities. the first such focus was a selective
K+ conductance. [since i reached this conclusion [which, for those who have
it, is discussed, with refs., in AoK, Ap5], there's been a lot of further
work done re. glia. i've not been actively monitoring the literature [while
discussing NDT's stuff here in bionet.neuroscience, i'm working in Physics
these days ('therapy' :-)], but i've seen nothing that doesn't support an
'active' role for glia. [if anyone knows of anything contrary, =please= post
something.]]
glia exhibit a major difference from neurons [relatively-recent [~3 years
ago] stem-cell stuff notwithstanding]. they're able to replicate. because
the network of neurons is 'suspended' within the far-more-numerous glia
[100:1 (anyone: please correct me if i'm wrong)], coming and going of glial
distributions can form an 'endlessly' [in-Life] renewable means to achieve
the sort of 'tuning-to-and-via-focused-effort' stuff i'd studied within
myself as i studied this or that external (but usually internally- [nervous
system] relevant :-) problem that i was working on.
'strategic'-glial-replication/demise can, 'hydraulically', robustly
restructure the whole neural network, thereby allowing synaptic weights to
be 'mixed and matched' as each 'new' relatively-enduring, but 'temporary',
focus warrants, while, simultaneously, allowing the core information-base
that's been accumulated within the microscopic trophic modifications of the
neural network to be preserved.
and, within 'normal' relatively-fleeting cognitive focus, existing glia's
contractile properties [see AoK, Ap5 for refs] can do the same, but within
less-boundless 'boundaries'.
the information-processing 'power', inherent, is immense because it takes
experientially-'verified', relatively-enduring, neural stuff, and can cast
it in all sorts of 'lights', which, of course, is well-matched to the fact
that, in Nature, Simple 'rules' repeat all over the place in a Fractal-like
fashion, so it's probable that a mechanism that "casts
experientially-'verified' simple-'rule' stuff in new light" would =greatly=
augment overall nervous system information-processing capacity.
and the glia hypothesis has excellent goodness-of-fit with my subjective
experience that it's all wonderfully-'endless'. the only prerequisite is a
willingness to do the work inherent in establishing any relatively-enduring
[but 'temporary] focus [AoK, Ap7; elevating the diminishing-returns decision
threshold]. this last thing, of couse, is also strongly-correlated with
'nurdiness' (:-) because, if one is to devote one's self to an 'enduring'
focus, even 'temporarily', one must 'step-outside-of' 'normal' interactive
expectations. [which, in many ways, is like a 'dying'.] which is some of
why, even though it's in-there, it seems most folks don't take advantage of
it. 'pressures' antagonistic to such are, themselves, immense [a by-product
of 'blindly'-automated TD E/I-minimization in which the real 'dying'
derives] [in my own experience, for instance, it's why i've remained
unmarried wouldn't be 'fair' to subject folks i Love to the intensely-inward
[on a problem having stuff they can't see] focus. wouldn't be Fair to the
Children if i didn't dd the work. (damned if i do. damned if i don't. "Damn
the torpedoes, full speed ahead!" {Farragut] [it's a double-dose of 'dying'
for me 'cause, innately, the thing i most-like to do is just 'play', which
is fun to Share, but i can't. See? :-) [forgive me this 'whining', please. i
long for someone, anyone, to Understand.] ]
as i see it, this glial mechanism works 'symbiotically' with neural
mechanisms, and through it, the scope of the longest-enduring 'memory' stuff
is rendered immensely-more rich, immensely-more potent. the diminution of
effort required with each focus-cycle, reflecting such long-enduring
neuronally-based stuff.
anyway, i recall smiling when i read of Einstein's glial-cell count. gave me
that extra bit of confidence in the developing hypothesis.
[experienced it as an "of course!]
so, aren't you glad you asked? :-)
Cheers, Brian, k. p. collins [ken]
