Colin, You have described regenerative operation, which is a near-field sort of thing and not capable of sensing small things at a distance where signals drop off as r^2, HOWEVER, I just realized that the field from a line (rather than a small dipole) source, like from an axon rather than an ion channel, drops off LINEARLY with distance. Hence, at distances that are short compared with axon length, regeneration might be enough to work.
I just didn't see any need to stick with a purely regenerative model, when SR completely sidesteps the limits of regeneration AND there is plenty of evidence of SR in neurons. Regarding the past tense of grok - it becomes past tense when you can no longer grok - like when you get Alzheimer's or die. Until then it is an active sort of thing, like your fields, and so remains in the present. Steve On Mon, May 11, 2015 at 8:09 PM, colin hales <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Steve, > The fields originate in a dissipative evanescent dipole that exists as > long as the action potential transmembrane current exists. EM field > feedback is in modulation of distant network signal timing and propagation > phenomena. Positive, negative whatever. It emerges at a higher > organizational level that has nothing to do with the physics originating > the fields. > > The magnetic field comes from a brief transmembrane current. The electric > field is a result of a battle between diffusion and electromigration in the > immediate vicinity of the ends of the very same transmembrane current. If > the transmembrane current is large and long enough (requiring lots of > collocated ion channels)... Then this causes a depletion of ion charge on > one side and accretion on the other....dipole big enough to contribute to > signaling at distance. It exists as a dissipative cascade that is > momentary, stops and then equilibrium is chemically restored. Think of it > as a capacitor discharge, stop, recharge. In the EM field feedback the > moment of discharge is determined in part by impinging E field from > elsewhere in the tissue. That may constitute a positive feedback from > distances a long way away. > > Positive feedback also exists within the longitudinal propagation of the > action potential. That is regenerative. Models usually depict this as > resulting from potentials and currents. I suspect that it's actually the > magnetic field that is very strong at distances of um. That magnetic field > tickles distant ion channels located in the same membrane (because the > magnetic field is strongest in the plane of the membrane) into the > conformation change that causes the next transmembrane current that > then..... But that magnetic field role something I'm speculating ...doing > simulation over the coming months. Regardless of how you think is positive > feedback involved in action potentials. > > So there's 2 kinds of +ve feedback. One in action potential propagation > down the membrane, one impacting timing transversely through the tissue at > the speed of light. > > I hope one day to make hardware that does both in the same way the brain > does it. > > Lots of + feedback. Right there. > > I already have this in the design. So where does this lack of positive > feedback issue come from? I can't see it. > > There's pencils standing up and falling down in vast numbers in the design > already. So to speak. SR is just not telling me anything I need, at least > in early replication efforts. > > Are we grokked yet? And is that the past tense of grok? > > Cheers > Colin > ------------------------------ > From: Steve Richfield <[email protected]> > Sent: 10/05/2015 6:34 AM > To: AGI <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [agi] Re: Starting to Define Algorithms that are More > Powerfulthan Narrow AI > > Colin, > > Here you have made exactly the same point I was trying to convey in my > immediately-preceding posting on SR... > > On Sat, May 9, 2015 at 3:08 AM, colin hales <[email protected]> wrote: > > <snip> > > >> Replicating voltages is _not_ replicating fields. Gauge invariance makes >> the relationship degenerate. An infinity of different field systems can >> produce the same voltages. That very degeneracy is the reason why electric >> circuit theory exists! >> > > This SAME gauge-invariance would doom your ion-channel theory UNLESS there > is some sort positive-feedback mechanism at work to extract the INFORMATION > from the EM field. If not SR, then WHAT? > >> >> I am rather excited by the recognition of something that is so obvious >> and whose lack fits the failure etiology of half a century perfectly, >> including the lack of the actual empirical test that is needed to justify >> neglecting the fields as essential physics. Neglecting the fields is >> entirely accidental. >> > > I agree. > > Steve > > >> >> >>> >> >> > *AGI* | Archives <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now> > <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/11721311-f886df0a> | > Modify <https://www.listbox.com/member/?&;> Your Subscription > <http://www.listbox.com> > *AGI* | Archives <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now> > <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/10443978-6f4c28ac> | > Modify > <https://www.listbox.com/member/?&;> > Your Subscription <http://www.listbox.com> > -- Full employment can be had with the stoke of a pen. Simply institute a six hour workday. That will easily create enough new jobs to bring back full employment. ------------------------------------------- AGI Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/21088071-f452e424 Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=21088071&id_secret=21088071-58d57657 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
