"NMF" <neil.fournier at sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:q6kQb.20436$cQ6.893168 at news20.bellglobal.com...
> KP Collins:
>> Interesting concept.
It stands Proven. Everything necessary has been
in AoK all along [except illustrations that are in
the paperversion do not appear in the hypertext
version].
> That has some aspects that sound extremely similar to
> both David Marr
I'd worked it out earlier, and tried to
contact Marr because I thought he'd
be interested. He never got back to
me. Then he died.
> and Roll's idea of the hippocampus. I have a few
> clarification questions. Could you explain in a little
> more detail what you mean exactly by TD E/I(down)
> and TD E/I(up)? (I have a vague sense but I would
> like some information and perhaps some neurophys-
> iological evidence to suggest how such a process
> would occur normally within the brain).
"TD E/I-minimization" is a meta-concept with respect
to "excitation" and "Inhibition", as they are distributed
within the neuroanatomy. Most folks seem to find it
'difficult', because it requires a =lot= of cross-correl-
ation of experimental results.
So, having done this corss-correlation work, I wrote
AoK so that folks wouldn't have to.
> When you say the "blindly"-automated,
"`blindly'-automated'" refers, solely, to the fact
this or that occurs within Consciousness, but ,
'typically', 'outside' of aware-consciousness.
['typically', because that which is 'outside' of
aware-consciousness can alter, and does alter,
as a result of relative understanding with respect
to nervous system function.
> do you disregard the account of pre-existing
> synaptic weights and sliding threshold ("windows")
> potentials, that could presumably alter the probability
> weights of certain incoming synaptic inputs incoming
> into the hippocampus, and ensure that certain
> "information" embedded with in this incoming input
> will be readily consolidated? (this concept does have
> 'typically', experimental evidence, so I don't know what
> 'typically', this means in context to your model).
The hippocampus, itself, does =not= 'evaluate'
information-content. It's functioning is 'blind' to
information-content.
That's part of what's so 'amazing' about it's
functioning :-]
> I like the metaphor of the hippocampus as a
> "traffic cop" (very clever and astute observation).
There are =many= 'traffic-cop'-like dynamics
within 'the' nervous system. They =all= do only
=one= thing - direct 'traffic' flow 'toward' TD E/I-
minimization.
> One recent finding that I'm not to sure if you
> aware about,
I've read-ahead, and I'm not aware of what
you discuss.
> is that neocortical traces require the reactivation
> of the hippocampus during "remembering".
I'm Skeptical, because H.M. remembered every-
thing that happened before his hippocampi were
excised.
> The recent work of Nader and LeDoux (2002)
> in a Neuron paper, involving rodents. They
> showed that presumably stabled contextual
> fear information that were previously learned
> and considered to be now distributed throughout
> the neocortex as a stable (or at least presumably
> stable) representation,
"Buzzzzz".
What has been referred to as "fear" occurs as
a function of relative TD E/I, =not= as a function
of "stable representation". "Fear" is recreated on-
the-fly, as a correlate of the degree of TD E/I-
minimization that can be achieved.
'storage' of "fear" would be completely non-
functional with respect to Survival.
Folks say "fear is a memory" have just not
comprehended the stuff that's reified in AoK
[and the Literature that's cited in AoK].
'fear' is "warning learning", as it is discussed
in AoK, Ap7 [I recently Erred in writing that
"warning is discussed eleswhere in AoK. [In
pre-release versions of AoK [which I still
have], it was discussed in Ap5.]
"Warning learning" gets recreated, on the fly,
as a function of degree of TD E/I-minimization
that the "supersystem" can, 'momentarily' achieve.
> that when the "trace" was re-activated again
> caused the memory to return back to a "labile"
> state.
There is no "memory" of 'fear'.
There is only generalized 'memory', the TD E/I-
minimization mechanisms [as they are discussed
in AoK], and ongoing TD E/I-minimization.
'fear', and the absence of it, are. along with
everything else that's in "affect", are literally
Calculated on the fly, as functions of relative
TD E/I.
> (A finding that goes against Squire's concept
> that once memory has been consolidated and
> spread throughout the neocortex, the memory
> is relatively "stable".... (I understand that the
> word, "stable", may not be the best way to
> describe memory and I cringe at the use of it
> now, but I am in lack of a better word at the
> moment.
The result you cite above, does not "go against"
Squire's position, but Squire's position with re-
spect to "memory" is not Correct, mainly, be-
cause he doesn't see the underpinning TD E/I-
minimization dynamics which converge upon
what folks refer to as "memory".
If anyone wants to comprehend "memory"
they must start with Karl Lashley's Seminal
work, and work forward from there, or read
Lashley, then just read AoK, in which all the
rest is synthesized. [Don't take my word for
this - read the refs cited in AoK, and see for
yourself or, just take my word for it. Either
way the reader will end-up in the same 'place'.]
> I definitely think employing concepts of
> memory as being "stable" is a completely
> incorrect concept and goes against the years
> of clinical experience showing the dynamic
> and often changeable nature of memory.
> i.e. Daniel Schacter has written extensively
> on the subject )).
There =is= 'stable' "biological mass" [as it's
discussed in AoK, and as I've been discussing
it here in b.n] created within the nervous sys-
tem [within the brain]. It's just that =all of it=
is with respect to TD E/I-minimization.
The stuff that folks've referred to as "memory"
is all post-TD E/I-minimization =by-products=
of TD E/I-minimization.
This is in the "duality" that is referred to in
"Neuroscientific Duality Theory" [NDT].
Folks spend all their energies 'arguing' about
stuff that doesn't even exist.
It's 'frustrating' to experience such because
it's all been reified in AoK all along.
> Essentially Nader et al., found that the
> reactivation of the memory trace caused
> it to return back to a labile trace becoming
> hippocampal-dependent once again and
> requiring the hippocampus to "re-consolidate"
> the same original trace.
Although he didn't get it right, Squire's position
was 'correct', and these folks' position is 'incorrect'.
This's seen in H.M. [and in many other hippo-
campal-lesion occurrences that result from
long-term alcohol abuse, for instance],. H. M.
could recall stuff that he'd learned before
undergoing hippocampal excision.
This wouldn't occur if it was as the Authors
you cite were correct.
H.M. had difficulty forming new "memories"
be-cause, absent the hippocampal "super-
system configuration" mechanism, TD E/I-
minimized "supersystem configurations"
could not be, robustly, converged upon.
But the fact that H.M. old "memories" could
be recalled demonstrates that, once the
hippocampus does it's novelty-correlated
"supersystem configuration" work, "super-
system configurations" that have become
TD E/I-minimized are accessible via TD
E/I-minimization that occurs outside of the
hippocampus, most-prominantly, the cere-
bellum and the basal ganglia, as they are
discussed in AoK.
> The interesting thing is that the memory trace,
> even though it was already associated with
> successful learning of the fear paradigm, could be
> functionally inhibited with the microinjection of
> a protein synthesis inhibitor into the hippocampus.
What's being "functionally inhibited" is the on-the-fly
recreation - the TD E/I-minimization that 'normally'
occurs within the hippocampus.
Again what has been referred to as "fear" is =just=
relative TD E/I. This's all reified in AoK, Ap5.
> It obviously suggests that even though presumably
> LTP-like processes and subsequent protein synthesis
> induced modification to the cell ensembles had occur,
> reactivation of the memory trace "countered" these
> changes.
Here, you're doing what folks 'whine' about with
respect to my posts - carrying stuff through that
you're aware of, but not stating - I can make no Sense
of what you've said in the paragraph, above.
Everything within the nervous system has molecular-
'level' dependencies. Block any of these, and
doing so has functional ramifications, but that's
the same sort of thing that happens when a
functional-dependency of =any= 'machine' are
tampered-with.
That is, with respect to your paragraph, above,
it's as if either you [or the Authors], is [are]
asserting that "protein synthesis" is, somehow,
"not an always occurring thing" within neural
dynamics.
But protein synthesis =is= an always-occurring
thing within neural dynamics.
Is this clear enough?
Neuron function includes protein synthesis.
Block protein synthesis, and one blocks
neuron function.
But, "So what?"
[Forgive me for 'getting on my soap box',
here, but this sort of thing - this sort of
bold-face Error is =common-place=
within 'neuroscience'. Folks don't 'bother'
to learn the functional Neuroanatomy. But
they go right ahead and muck-up this or
that molecular-'level' stuff, and 'spout-
off' about "what that means", when, absent
an understanding of the functional Neuroan-
atomy, it's virtually Impossible to say what
mucking-up this or that, at the molecular-
'level' "means".
It's 'frustrating' for me to witness such be-
cause it's why I did the work inherent in
developing NDT, and everythi9ng necessary
to avoid all such Errors has beein in AoK
all along, laid at folks' feet - but folks'd
rather go right on spouting 'fiction' - it gets
them 'Published' :-]
[Stepping off my 'soap-box.]
> Thus, if this reactivation processes was
> some how inhibited the learned informa-
> tion will now be basically lost (or no
> longer represented). (Obviously, thinking
> about these concepts, if they are really
> true and verifiable, the clinical implication
> of "reactivation" therapy and accompanied
> electroconvulsive therapy following such
> treatments have empirical evidence support
> ing there ameliorating effects).
Forgive me, Please, but the above para-
graph is complete B. S.
> I do believe, at least in my eyes, that parts
> of this experiment supports at least some of
> the ideas you have posited in this post.
I cannot see that it is so.
> Thus, this is at least some direct experi-
> mental evidence linking some the concepts
> of "supersystem configuration" (a term that
> I wouldn't mind having you define a
> little more clearly) and memory trace con-
> solidation that you advocate.
>> Also I wouldn't mind reading this "infamous"
> AoK paper I hear so much about.
I told you long ago that I only [knowingly]
send it to folks not having commercial
addresses.
It's out-there, get someone other than
me to send you a copy.
This's my way of 'protesting' all of the
'borrowing' that's occurred on the
parts of 'professionals', with respect
to the work I've done.
What I mean is, AoK is Worthy of
Publication.
I cannot 'withhold' its stuff.
But, gees 'louise', Professionals have
Obligation with respect to Publication.
So, if you want to read this "infamous
AoK', demand that it [brought up-to-date]
be allowed Publication.
You know - raise your voice against the
Outrage of the Censorship through which
AoK was 'burned' before it was even
Published.
[For myself, I do not care. I was Murdered
last 'year'. Now, I'm only refusing to 'lay
down and Die'. I mean, it can mean nothing,
one way or the other, =to me=, whether
or not AoK is ever Published. All the differ-
ence that AoK's Publication could've worked
in my own Life is moot. My Children will
never be Born. They have been Murdered,
as I've experienced one act after another of
'borrowing', from the work I did to win Life
for them, and their fellow Children. What I do,
'now, is just a matter of Honor-in-Science.
And, Please Forgive me this 'crying-out'. Yes-
terday, News of a double-'borrowing' reached
me, and I'm left, Life's stuff pouring-out of me.]
K. P. Collins
> [...]
