before i get 'busted', i don't 'discount' the recent stem cell findings.
if robust enough, for instance, they'd constitute an excellent contribution
within the physical dynamics underpinning extremely-long-term, and
relatively-enduring, "inversion" [big-time "changing of one's mind" (if it's
via stem cell proliferation, =literally= :-)] which [such fundamental
"inversion"], with respect to Seeing beyond 'blindly'-automated TD
E/I-minimization, has been a major focus of the stuff i've posted since
coming back online.
in themselves, the stem cells are insufficient, though. they'd have to be
'interposed' within the rest of what's discussed in AoK. problems like the
dynamics of their distribution within the brain are relatively-easy. all the
necessary directional information exists within the one Internal Frame of
Reference [IFR] Geometry. all the stem cells'd have to do is 'swim' in
accord with the ionic 'current' that's in TD E/I-minimization.]
it seems to me that this one "inversion" thing is promising re. stem cells.
of course, the other more-obvious thing is fault-tolerance maintenance and
'repair', including TD E/I-minimization "whoop-sa-daiseys" [but these are
mini-"inversions"].
i expect that there's already enough in the Literature, but i haven't
gotten-into it yet. probably won't [unless i can find employment]. so i
encourage others to go-for-it.
k. p. collins
Kenneth Collins wrote in message ...
>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]
>>
