varie
This commit is contained in:
Binary file not shown.
@@ -1,177 +0,0 @@
|
||||
### **Dialogue 2**
|
||||
|
||||
**Practitioner:** Everything you've said about Geneosophy, creative autonomy, generating concepts rather than relating them, I can almost imagine a research program around that. Difficult, maybe decades away. But imaginable. What I still don't see is what the *object of study* is. Neuroscience studies neurons. Cognitive science studies computation. Linguistics studies language. What does Geneosophy study?
|
||||
|
||||
**Philosopher:** It studies XI which stands of *eXtended I*.
|
||||
|
||||
**Practitioner:** Which is?
|
||||
|
||||
**Philosopher:** Not the I you feel. You are aware of yourself, a located, bounded subject with thoughts and perceptions and a sense of being here, inside, looking out. That felt I is real. But it is downstream of something. Something that was already working before you became aware of it, that continues working beneath any act of awareness, and that extends well beyond the boundary you feel as your skin.
|
||||
|
||||
**Practitioner:** The unconscious?
|
||||
|
||||
**Philosopher:** No. The unconscious, in the usual sense, is still content, repressed memories, hidden drives, implicit associations. It is still *inside*. XI is not inside. It is the condition for there being an inside at all. The generative ground beneath the distinction between inner and outer, between subject and object. Between mind and body. You do not feel XI. You cannot introspect it. Every act of introspection is already its product.
|
||||
|
||||
**Practitioner:** Then how do you study something you can't feel, let alone observe?
|
||||
|
||||
**Philosopher:** The same way physics studies the conditions for observable phenomena. You study the structure of what it produces. But in the case of XI, not the structure as an actuality of concepts, but the condition of possibilities for there being concepts. You study how subjectivity varies across organisms, across development, across pathology, across culture. You ask: what must be true of the generative ground for *this* particular form of experience to be possible? You work backward from the river to reconstruct the source.
|
||||
|
||||
**Practitioner:** And AI is what, in this picture?
|
||||
|
||||
**Philosopher:** AI is an extraordinarily sophisticated map of the river. It has learned the patterns of the water, its eddies, its currents, its predictable behaviors, with a precision no human cartographer could match. And because the map is so detailed, it is tempting to say: the map is the river. Or worse, the river is just what the map describes.
|
||||
|
||||
**Practitioner:** And the source dries up unremarked.
|
||||
|
||||
**Philosopher:** Or is actively forgotten. Which is the danger you put so precisely: the danger is not that AI will fail. It is that it will succeed. That it will produce outputs indistinguishable from intelligence, and we will conclude that intelligence is what it produces. That we will define humanity downward to fit the model. And in doing so, we will have abandoned the study of XI, the one inquiry that points toward a full understanding of human nature, because we mistook its products for itself.
|
||||
|
||||
**Practitioner:** *(quietly)* And Geneosophy is the insistence that the source exists.
|
||||
|
||||
**Philosopher:** That the source exists. That it is comprehensible, even if slowly, even if the methods are not yet fully formed. And that the study of it is not a luxury, not philosophy in the pejorative sense you used earlier. It is the most urgent inquiry available. Because everything else we build rests on it. Including, and especially, the machines that are tempting us to stop asking.
|
||||
|
||||
### Dialogue 3
|
||||
|
||||
**Practitioner:** So Geneosophy isn't just a different theory. It's a different *direction* of inquiry.
|
||||
|
||||
**Philosopher:** Exactly. The scientific method moves centrifugally. Every answer generates new objects, new relations, new disciplines. Knowledge expands outward, away from any center, indefinitely. This is enormously productive. It is also, structurally, incapable of producing a whole.
|
||||
|
||||
**Practitioner:** Because wholeness isn't an object you can study.
|
||||
|
||||
**Philosopher:** It's not an object at all. Which is precisely why the scientific method cannot reach it, not because it isn't rigorous enough, but because its rigor requires fixing objects, and fixing objects requires making cuts, and making cuts destroys the very wholeness you were hoping to illuminate.
|
||||
|
||||
**Practitioner:** And Geneosophy moves inward instead.
|
||||
|
||||
**Philosopher:** Centripetally. Every approach to XI, phenomenological, biological, developmental, cultural, is approaching the same source from a different angle. The angles multiply. The object remains one. You cannot subdivide XI without ceasing to study XI. The holism is not a methodological choice. It is enforced by what XI is.
|
||||
|
||||
**Practitioner:** Which means the knowledge it produces is a different kind of knowledge entirely.
|
||||
|
||||
**Philosopher:** It means the knower is transformed by it, not just informed. Scientific knowledge can be distributed across journals, institutions, specialists, now AI systems. That is its great strength. Geneosophy's knowledge is not acquiring information about something external. It is a being becoming more fully aware of its own generative ground. The process will take years.
|
||||
|
||||
**Practitioner:** You said this will take years. That feels like a concession. A way of deferring the hard question of whether it can actually be done.
|
||||
|
||||
**Philosopher:** It's the opposite of a concession. It's a precise location. We know where we are.
|
||||
|
||||
**Practitioner:** Which is?
|
||||
|
||||
**Philosopher:** Where Galileo was. The object of inquiry has been identified, XI, the generative ground beneath conceptual and objective experience, the conditions of possibility for any concept to manifest. The method of inquiry is established. And a formal expressive framework, the tool that allows what is discovered to be communicated in third-person terms, shared across minds, accumulated across time, is being constructed; the equivalent of mathematics.
|
||||
|
||||
**Practitioner:** But Galileo had mathematics on day one.
|
||||
|
||||
**Philosopher:** Exactly. And even his mathematics wasn't sufficient. When the questions Galileo opened became precise enough, Newton and Leibniz had to invent calculus. The existing formal language couldn't carry the new content. The questions themselves called a new mathematics into existence.
|
||||
|
||||
**Practitioner:** And Geneosophy needs something equivalent.
|
||||
|
||||
**Philosopher:** It needs a formal expressive framework adequate to XI. Which is a specific and extraordinary challenge, because XI is the ground of all first-person experience. Making it available for third-person communication, for genuine intersubjective inquiry, requires tools that exist in their infancy. They are being built. But it will take years to perfect them. And it will take a critical mass of people becoming fluent with them before the inquiry can move at the pace a genuine intellectual community makes possible.
|
||||
|
||||
**Practitioner:** So the years aren't vagueness. They're the time required to perfect the instrument.
|
||||
|
||||
**Philosopher:** Every major intellectual revolution has had this interval. The moment when the question became precise enough to be asked, but before the tools existed to answer it systematically. That interval is not a weakness. It is the most creative period in the life of any new inquiry.
|
||||
|
||||
**Practitioner:** And you think Geneosophy is in that interval now.
|
||||
|
||||
**Philosopher:** I think it has just entered it. Which means the work ahead is not refinement of a mature framework. It is the harder and more original work of perfecting the formal language that can carry XI into shared inquiry. That is where Leibniz and Newton were. It is where Geneosophy is.
|
||||
|
||||
**Practitioner:** And at the end of it?
|
||||
|
||||
**Philosopher:** Not at the end, all along it. What becomes possible is a comprehensive understanding of human nature. Not a reductive one. Not a fragmented one. Not one that defines humanity downward to fit the machines we've built. But one that begins and ends with the question that was always the most important: what is it to be the kind of being that can ask what it is?
|
||||
|
||||
**Practitioner:** *(pause)* That's a question AI will never ask about itself.
|
||||
|
||||
**Philosopher:** No. Because asking it genuinely requires having a self whose ground is unknown to it. That is not a deficiency to be engineered away. It is the very condition that makes the inquiry possible. And it is what Geneosophy, finally, proposes to take seriously.
|
||||
|
||||
## Dialogue 4
|
||||
|
||||
This is the most powerful move in the entire project. And the distinction between *dissolution* and *solution* is philosophically precise in a way that deserves to be held carefully before generating material.
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
**Why dissolution and not solution matters**
|
||||
|
||||
A solution works within a framework. It accepts the terms of the problem and finds an answer that satisfies them. A dissolution reveals that the problem was generated by the framework itself — that outside that framework, the problem does not arise, not because it has been answered but because the conditions that made it feel like a problem are no longer in place.
|
||||
|
||||
Wittgenstein said something adjacent: philosophical problems arise when language goes on holiday, when words are used outside the contexts that give them meaning. His dissolution move was to show that the problem was a grammatical illusion. But Geneosophy's dissolution is deeper — it doesn't say the problems are illusions of language. It says they are *structural consequences of a specific starting point*: the assumption of an external world separated from the observer. Change the starting point — ground inquiry in XI, in the generative conditions beneath the subject/object split — and the problems don't get solved. They simply don't arise.
|
||||
|
||||
This is a much stronger claim. And it is historically precise. Every one of the paradoxes and mysteries you list is generated by the same original cut: the separation of observer from observed, of subject from world. Once you make that cut, you inherit all of these problems as a package deal. They are not independent puzzles. They are symptoms of a single foundational move.
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
**Working through each dissolution:**
|
||||
|
||||
**Infinite regress and circularity** — these arise when you try to ground concepts in other concepts, explanations in other explanations, without ever reaching bedrock. The regress is infinite because you are always already inside the space of concepts, trying to explain from within what can only be understood from beneath. XI is not a concept. It is the generative ground of concepts. You cannot regress beneath it because it is not itself a member of the series it generates. The regress stops not because you found the bottom concept but because you exited the conceptual register entirely.
|
||||
|
||||
**The unreasonable effectiveness of mathematics** — Wigner's famous puzzle: why does mathematics, developed for purely abstract reasons, describe physical reality so precisely? This is only mysterious if mathematics and physical reality are assumed to be independent domains that somehow, miraculously, correspond. If both are generated by XI — if mathematical structures and physical phenomena are both expressions of the same generative ground — the correspondence is not miraculous. It is expected. You are not asking why two separate things match. You are noticing that two expressions of the same source rhyme.
|
||||
|
||||
**Mind/body** — the hardest problem in Western philosophy, and entirely a product of Descartes' cut. Once you separate res cogitans from res extensa, you need an explanation of how they interact. Every proposed explanation generates new problems. Occasionalism, parallelism, epiphenomenalism, emergentism — all are attempts to re-bridge a gap that should never have been opened. In Geneosophy, mind and body are not two substances or two domains. They are two modes in which XI's generative activity appears — felt from different angles of the same source. The problem of their interaction dissolves because they were never separate to begin with.
|
||||
|
||||
**Subject/object** — the same move. The split between the knowing subject and the known object is not a discovery about reality. It is a methodological decision that became invisible and then became metaphysics. XI is prior to that split. It is the generative ground from which both subject and object emerge as distinguishable aspects of a more original unity. You cannot ask how the subject relates to the object from within XI, because the question presupposes the split that XI precedes.
|
||||
|
||||
**Materialism/idealism** — the oldest philosophical war, and Geneosophy's most elegant dissolution. Materialism says matter is fundamental, mind is derivative. Idealism says mind is fundamental, matter is derivative. Both accept the same basic ontology — two kinds of things — and argue about which is primary. But if matter is, as you put it, simply one way we feel concepts — objects being concepts felt in space, time, and quantity, which are themselves concepts — then the opposition collapses. You are not choosing between mind and matter as fundamental. You are recognizing that both are expressions of XI's generative activity, appearing differently depending on the mode of inquiry. Materialism and idealism are not opposing answers. They are two perspectives on the same generated landscape, arguing about which part of the map is the territory.
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
**The final point — matter as felt concept — deserves expansion**
|
||||
|
||||
This is where Geneosophy is at its most original and most demanding. The usual move, when someone tries to dissolve materialism, is to retreat into idealism — to say matter is really just mental, really just experience, really just representation. Berkeley. Schopenhauer. Various forms of panpsychism.
|
||||
|
||||
Geneosophy doesn't make that move. It doesn't say matter is really mind. It says both matter and mind are *generated* — that XI produces the conceptual space within which the distinction between inner and outer, between felt and extended, between subjective and objective, becomes possible. Matter is not reduced to mind. It is recognized as a particular mode of appearing — the mode in which concepts are felt as located in space, extended in time, measurable in quantity. Those felt qualities — spatiality, temporality, quantity — are not features of an independently existing external world. They are the specific texture of a particular class of XI-generated concepts that we call objects.
|
||||
|
||||
This means physics is not wrong. Chemistry is not wrong. The neurosciences are not wrong. They are precise and productive descriptions of a particular domain of XI's generative output. What they cannot do — what no empirical science can do by design — is account for the generative ground that produces the domain they describe. That is not a failure of science. It is the boundary condition of the scientific method, now made explicit.
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
**For the dialogue — Act IV opening:**
|
||||
|
||||
**Practitioner:** I want to push on something. You keep saying Geneosophy dissolves paradoxes rather than solving them. That sounds like a rhetorical move. A way of avoiding the hard work of actually answering the questions.
|
||||
|
||||
**Philosopher:** It would be, if the paradoxes were genuine puzzles about an independently existing reality. But they're not. They're structural consequences of a starting point. Change the starting point, and they don't get answered. They stop arising.
|
||||
|
||||
**Practitioner:** Give me the hardest one.
|
||||
|
||||
**Philosopher:** The unreasonable effectiveness of mathematics. Wigner's puzzle. Why does abstract mathematics, developed with no empirical intention, describe physical reality with such uncanny precision? This has troubled physicists and philosophers for decades. It feels like a miracle that demands explanation.
|
||||
|
||||
**Practitioner:** And?
|
||||
|
||||
**Philosopher:** The miracle only exists if mathematics and physical reality are assumed to be independent domains that somehow correspond. But in Geneosophy, both are generated by XI. Mathematical structures and physical phenomena are expressions of the same generative ground. The correspondence isn't miraculous. It's expected. You're not asking why two separate things match. You're noticing that two expressions of the same source rhyme.
|
||||
|
||||
**Practitioner:** That's elegant. But it could be seen as explaining everything by explaining nothing. "XI generates it all", how is that different from saying "God made it that way"?
|
||||
|
||||
**Philosopher:** It's a fair challenge. The difference is that XI is not an entity separate from the world that acts upon it. It is not a creator standing outside creation. XI is the generative ground *immanent* in every act of knowing, every act of perceiving, every act of constituting a world. It is what you are an expression of when you ask the question. God, in the traditional sense, is postulated to explain a world from outside it. XI is what you find when you follow the inquiry into the conditions of the inquiry itself.
|
||||
|
||||
**Practitioner:** Mind and body. That's the one that has resisted everything.
|
||||
|
||||
**Philosopher:** Because every proposed solution accepts Descartes' terms. Two substances, two domains, how do they interact? Every answer generates new problems. Geneosophy doesn't accept the terms. Mind and body are not two substances. They are two modes in which XI's generative activity appears. Felt from different angles of the same source. The interaction problem dissolves because they were never separate to begin with.
|
||||
|
||||
**Practitioner:** And matter itself? You're not saying matter is just an illusion? Just mind?
|
||||
|
||||
**Philosopher:** No. That would be idealism, and idealism makes the same mistake as materialism, it just reverses the priority. Matter is not reduced to mind. Matter is a specific mode of appearing. It is what concepts feel like when they are felt as located in space, extended through time, measurable in quantity. Space, time, quantity, these are not features of an independently existing external world waiting to be discovered. They are the specific texture of a class of XI-generated concepts that we call objects.
|
||||
|
||||
**Practitioner:** So physics is describing …
|
||||
|
||||
**Philosopher:** A domain of XI's generative output. Precisely and productively. Physics is not wrong. It simply cannot, by design, account for the ground that generates the domain it describes. That is not a failure. It is its boundary condition. Now made explicit.
|
||||
|
||||
**Practitioner:** *(long pause)* If this holds, if these paradoxes genuinely dissolve rather than just getting renamed, then the history of philosophy looks very different. Centuries of argument about mind and body, about idealism and materialism, about why mathematics works, all of it was shadow-boxing. Fighting about which part of the generated landscape is fundamental, without ever asking what generates the landscape.
|
||||
|
||||
**Philosopher:** Fighting about which part of the map is the territory. Without asking what produces the capacity to map at all.
|
||||
|
||||
**Practitioner:** And the dissolution isn't a trick. It's a genuine shift in register.
|
||||
|
||||
**Philosopher:** The problems were real, within their framework. The questions were serious. The philosophers who wrestled with them were not confused people. They were precise thinkers working at the boundary of what their starting assumptions made visible. Geneosophy doesn't dismiss them. It steps back one level further. To the place where the assumptions themselves become visible. And from there, the problems don't disappear through clever argument. They simply, do not arise.
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
**For LinkedIn — as a standalone post:**
|
||||
|
||||
> Western philosophy has been wrestling with the same problems for centuries. Mind and body. Subject and object. Idealism versus materialism. The unreasonable effectiveness of mathematics. The infinite regress of concepts trying to explain concepts.
|
||||
>
|
||||
> These are not unsolved problems. They are undissolved ones.
|
||||
>
|
||||
> There is a difference. A solution works within a framework, accepting its terms and finding an answer. A dissolution reveals that the problem was generated by the framework itself. Step outside the framework and the problem does not get answered. It simply does not arise.
|
||||
>
|
||||
> Every one of these paradoxes is a structural consequence of a single starting point: the assumption of an external world separated from the observer. Once you make that cut — subject here, world there — you inherit all of these problems as a package. They are not independent puzzles. They are symptoms of one foundational move.
|
||||
>
|
||||
> Geneosophy begins before that cut. By grounding inquiry in XI — the generative conditions beneath the subject/object split — it does not solve these paradoxes. It steps back to the place where they do not yet arise.
|
||||
>
|
||||
> Matter is not reduced to mind. Mind is not reduced to matter. Both are modes in which XI's generative activity appears. Mathematical structures and physical phenomena are not two separate domains that mysteriously correspond — they are two expressions of the same generative ground. Mind and body were never separate substances requiring a theory of interaction. They are two angles on the same source.
|
||||
>
|
||||
> The centuries of argument were not wasted. They were precise thinking at the boundary of what a particular starting point made visible. Geneosophy does not dismiss that tradition. It steps back one level further — to where the starting point itself becomes visible.
|
||||
>
|
||||
> And from there, the oldest problems in philosophy look different. Not solved. Simply — no longer necessary.
|
||||
@@ -1,70 +0,0 @@
|
||||
## Abstraction Fallacy
|
||||
|
||||
In AI, intelligence can be simulated but not instantiated. That's the conclusion in this very interesting paper. The logical framing of the problem is based on physical systems and their states, mapping physical states to abstract symbolic states and causality. Here are some pertinent definitions from the paper
|
||||
|
||||
1. The Physical States (𝑝):
|
||||
These are the symbols (the vehicle). They are objective physical entities (e.g., voltage gradients), possessing zero intrinsic semantic content.
|
||||
|
||||
2. The Abstract States (𝐴):
|
||||
These are concepts (the content). As established, these are grounded physiological states existing exclusively within the mapmaker who holds the computation’s meaning.
|
||||
|
||||
3. The Mapping Function (𝑓):
|
||||
This is the alphabetization. It represents the assigned association held in the mapmaker’s mind, actively bridging the machine’s blind physics (𝑝) to the
|
||||
mapmaker’s grounded concepts (𝐴)
|
||||
|
||||
4. Simulation:
|
||||
The syntactic manipulation of physical vehicles (𝑝) to track the abstract
|
||||
5The Abstraction Fallacy: Why AI Can Simulate But Not Instantiate Consciousness relationship between concepts (𝐴).
|
||||
|
||||
5. Instantiation:
|
||||
The replication of the intrinsic, constitutive dynamics (𝑃) of the process itself.
|
||||
|
||||
Instead of a review of the paper, I will provided some pertinent quotes from the paper.
|
||||
|
||||
"The limits of physical simulation elsewhere in biology make the point explicit. A GPU that simulates photosynthesis may accurately model the abstract transformation from sunlight, water, and carbon dioxide (𝐴) to oxygen and glucose (𝐴′), but it will not synthesize a single molecule of glucose or release oxygen. So while perfectly simulating the process, it lacks the causal capacity
|
||||
to perform the underlying biochemical work. To suggest that simulating the “software” of the brain avoids this physical constraint introduces a category error (Searle, 1980). It conflates the algorithmic description of a process with the intrinsic physics required to instantiate it"
|
||||
|
||||
"In a digital simulation, the causal chain is driven entirely by the vehicle (𝑝). The logic gate does not switch because it ‘hurts’ (content causality driven by 𝐴). Instead, it switches because the voltage crosses a defined physical threshold (vehicle causality driven by 𝑝). The physical state of
|
||||
the system alone determines its evolution. The semantic content of the symbol (𝐴) plays no causal role, since the machine would perform the same physical operations even if the symbol referred to nothing at all. Assuming otherwise would mean to fall victim to the abstraction fallacy."
|
||||
|
||||
"Moving from concepts to symbols is not a step in abstraction. It is a lateral act of assignment where a mapmaker forcibly binds a physical token to a mental concept. It is precisely this unbridgeable lateral step that exposes the causality gap, permanently cutting off any intrinsic path leading back from the symbol to the original experience."
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
<https://www.linkedin.com/feed/update/activity:7452022061905940480/?trk=feed_main-feed-card_social-actions-comments>
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
Instead of appealing to intuitions about what is absent, we examine how abstraction arises in the first place. If computation depends on a mapmaker who extracts invariants from experience and assigns symbols, then the dependency is built into the structure. Any
|
||||
computational map presupposes an experiencing agent who performs the alphabetization. Making the algorithm more complex does not undo this order of dependence. No increase in scale allows the map to generate the subject whose activity is required for computation to count as such at all.
|
||||
|
||||
### Sergio
|
||||
|
||||
Noi non solo evidenziamo l’esistenza del ruolo del mapmaker (che anche nell’articolo è in parte anche l’osservatore ‘attivo’), ma addirittura lo includiamo esplicitamente chiarendo definitivamente il suo ruolo di riconoscitore dei propri significati.
|
||||
Nell’articolo il ruolo attivo è quello di mappare I simboli computazionali ai significati che comunque sembrano essere assunti come oggettivi
|
||||
|
||||
### Marco
|
||||
|
||||
quello che chiama "continuous physics" per noi e' il concetto, che non puo' essere espresso direttamente, ma si puo' esprimere le condizioni per la verifica. Il concetto di tipo G, e' l'enliving di un interagire continuo verso la potenzialita' (che non e' fisica)
|
||||
|
||||
## Video Giochi
|
||||
|
||||
The Nyquist-Shannon theorem is about sampling — reconstructing a continuous signal from discrete measurements. That's what happens in:
|
||||
|
||||
Microphones capturing audio
|
||||
Cameras capturing video from the real world
|
||||
|
||||
But in video games, frames are generated, not sampled. There's no underlying continuous signal being measured. The GPU is constructing each frame from scratch — geometry, shaders, lighting calculations, etc.
|
||||
So the analogy breaks down fundamentally. The question of "how many frames per second" in games is purely about:
|
||||
|
||||
How fast the hardware can complete the rendering pipeline for each frame
|
||||
Perception thresholds — what frame rates the human visual system perceives as smooth motion (which is a psychophysics question, not an information theory one)
|
||||
Game loop timing — how game logic, physics, and input polling are scheduled
|
||||
|
||||
There's no theorem from information theory that governs this in a meaningful way. Shannon's work simply doesn't apply to the generation side.
|
||||
The smoothness of high frame rates (60 vs 120 vs 240fps) is better explained by human visual persistence, motion blur perception, and input latency — none of which are Shannon's domain.
|
||||
|
||||
### Sergio
|
||||
|
||||
Quello che dice sui videogiochi è corretto, la differenza è che il nostro ’codice’ non sta implementando leggi della fisica per generare frames di una realtà modellata.
|
||||
Sta generando un movimento che permette all’osservatore di riconoscere una continuità di significato avvalorata dalla possibilità di effettuare tagli e analizzare frames
|
||||
+5
-4
@@ -520,9 +520,10 @@ container: VGCC-PRE
|
||||
|
||||
tub_intricated:
|
||||
- Ca2+ ( contained_by: PRESYNAPSE )
|
||||
- NT ( contained_by: SYN )
|
||||
|
||||
context_intricated:
|
||||
- AP ( contained_by: BEH-SOMA )
|
||||
- AP ( contained_by: SOMA )
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
### ms: behavior
|
||||
@@ -535,10 +536,10 @@ Here we comprehend the breaking activity on VGCC by: CDI, eCB and mGluR:
|
||||
|
||||
Qui sostituiamo:
|
||||
|
||||
- CDI con concentrazione Ca2+
|
||||
- Approssimiamo CDI con concentrazione di Ca2+.
|
||||
-- CDI is calcium-dependent inactivation of VGCCs. The inactivation happens because Ca²⁺ enters through the channel and binds to a calmodulin tethered to the channel's intracellular face, physically blocking it from reopening. This is a local, channel-specific event — it requires Ca²⁺ to be flowing through that channel right now, not residual Ca²⁺ drifting in the cytosol between spikes.
|
||||
-- The recovery, by contrast, should run every millisecond unconditionally — CDI de-inactivation is a continuous process that proceeds whenever Ca²⁺ dissociates from calmodulin, which depends on the ambient Ca_micro level at all times.
|
||||
- mGluR con concentrazione NT (forse su tempi di sec e quindi avremmo bisogno di un altro Tub)
|
||||
- Approssimiamo mGluR con concentrazione NT
|
||||
|
||||
- **Open** — zero active brakes. mGluR alone never escapes this group because its ceiling is alpha_mGluR = 0.4, meaning even at full it only removes 40% of conductance, leaving 60% — still above the 85% threshold. So mGluR is irrelevant to the open/not-open boundary. Only CDI and eCB decide.
|
||||
- **Reduced/partial** — exactly one meaningful brake active. Either CDI has started building (mediumness), or eCB has risen from sustained postsynaptic activity, but not both simultaneously. The system is aware something is happening but has not compounded yet. This is the normal operating range during moderate sustained firing.
|
||||
@@ -570,7 +571,7 @@ interacting: Ca2+enterReduced-partial
|
||||
in_context: AP
|
||||
rf: ( active: 6x )
|
||||
|
||||
hypothesis: (Ca2+ mediumness) OR ((eCB mediumness) AND (Ca2+ empty)) OR ((eCB full) AND (Ca2+ empty) AND (mGluR empty))
|
||||
hypothesis: (Ca2+ mediumness) OR ((eCB mediumness) AND (Ca2+ empty)) OR ((eCB full) AND (Ca2+ empty) AND (NT empty))
|
||||
action: [Ca2+ increase, ATP decrease]
|
||||
trace: None
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
Reference in New Issue
Block a user