"k p Collins" <kpaulc@[----------]earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:d6qFb.4254$IM3.2778 at newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net...
> [...]
> For those who have it, see the discussion of "functional
> multiplexing" in AoK, Ap9 [There's also more important
> discussion of "inversion" there, too.]
> [...]
Here is AoK, Ap9:
APPENDIX 9 - IF TD E/I IS ALL THERE IS THEN WHY
ARE THERE SO MANY DIFFERENT EXCITATORY AND
INHIBITORY NEUROTRANSMITTERS?
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 [1] 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" [2],
albeit a substantial one, that renders the global TD
E/I-minimization process more efficient.
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
(electrical) separation. [3] [4]
[1] For background information see THE BIOCHEMICAL BASIS OF
NEUROPHARMACOLOGY, by J. R. Cooper, F. E. Bloom and R. H.
Roth, New York, 1982.]
[2] 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 of the CNS 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.
[3] 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.
[4] 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. [Added 2003-12-21: These constitute
surgically-induced localized functional "inversions".]
k. p. collins
