193 lines
13 KiB
Markdown
193 lines
13 KiB
Markdown
# The Unexpressed Objects — v1
|
||
|
||
*The objects the mechanism implies but never expresses. The pseudocode has PRE, POST,
|
||
ASTROSYNAPSE — three components, each running its own local loop. It has no `synapse`: no variable
|
||
holds one, no line makes one act. Yet we speak of the synapse constantly. This document is about what
|
||
kind of thing "the synapse" is, given that it is nowhere in the mechanism — and the answer, worked
|
||
out below, is that an object is a name we lay over an aggregation of behaviours, each behaviour read
|
||
at a chosen cut.*
|
||
|
||
## The machinery — expression, cut, behaviours, and the name
|
||
|
||
Three things, in a fixed relation:
|
||
|
||
**The expression is possibility.** The components express the *possibility* of verifying behaviours
|
||
in time, space, and quantity. Nowhere is a frequency, a flow, a duration expressed directly — only
|
||
the latent possibility of reading them. Time, space, and quantity are never *in* the expression; they
|
||
become readable only when we cut.
|
||
|
||
**A cut is a choice of level.** To read anything, we choose a level on each axis — time (ms · sec ·
|
||
min · hr), space (channel · synapse · branch · cell · territory), quantity (single quantum · occupancy
|
||
· total) — plus a scope (day · night). The cut is the grain at which we verify; nothing more. It is
|
||
what makes behaviours *actually* verifiable, out of the possibility the expression laid down.
|
||
|
||
**Behaviours are what a cut lets us read.** Put the expression through a cut and you get behaviours —
|
||
just behaviours, read at that level. This is the whole verification act:
|
||
|
||
```
|
||
expression → cut → behaviours
|
||
```
|
||
|
||
and it runs once per cut. The same expression, through a different cut, yields different behaviours.
|
||
|
||
**An object is a name over a set of these results.** "The synapse" is not a step in the chain, not an
|
||
input, not an output. It is the name we lay over a *collection* of chains —
|
||
|
||
```
|
||
the synapse = name over { expression→cut₁→behaviours A,
|
||
expression→cut₂→behaviours B,
|
||
expression→cut₃→behaviours C, ... }
|
||
```
|
||
|
||
— a grouping we perform across many cuts and label with one stable word. The object contributes
|
||
nothing to what is read; behaviours are all there is on the mechanism's side. "Synapse" adds no
|
||
behaviour and no verification — it adds only a grouping in our account. This is the cleanest form of
|
||
*verified but not expressed*: the object is not even verified; **behaviours** are verified, at cuts,
|
||
and the object is just the name over a chosen set of them.
|
||
|
||
**The name is one; the cuts are many.** Because "synapse" names the collection, it stays fixed
|
||
whichever cuts the collection gathers — synapse at ms, synapse at night, synapse as third party to
|
||
pre and post. These are not different objects; they are the same name, read at different cuts. It is
|
||
*always the synapse* — but always the synapse *at a cut*. The name gives stability (we can speak of
|
||
one thing across contexts); the cut gives specificity (we know which of its behaviours are in view).
|
||
Neither alone suffices: a name with no cut is vague (which behaviours?), a cut with no name is
|
||
unanchored (behaviours of what?).
|
||
|
||
## Orthogonal to classical reduction
|
||
|
||
This runs perpendicular to the habit classical physics trained into us. The reductive default
|
||
isolates a system at a **static object-boundary** — this mass, that charge, this cell — treats the
|
||
object as a persisting thing with fixed identity, and explains behaviour by **cause and effect
|
||
between such objects**: A strikes B, B moves. The object comes first and is real; behaviours are its
|
||
properties; causation runs between objects.
|
||
|
||
Here the order is inverted. **Behaviours come first** — read at cuts — and the object comes last, as
|
||
a name over some of them. There is no privileged object, not because we must choose among many
|
||
objects, but because objects were never on the mechanism's side at all: only behaviours are, and
|
||
"object" is our bookkeeping. Ask "what is the neuron trying to achieve," and any answer is partial —
|
||
the neuron is part of an assembly it cannot see, part of an organ, part of an organism, with no top
|
||
where the question closes, and made of synapses and channels, with no bottom either. The question
|
||
presumes a privileged object; there is none. This is the descriptive face of the model's founding
|
||
principle (logic_principles, Part I): as there is no global state and no privileged actor *inside*
|
||
the system, there is no privileged *object* from which to *describe* it. A name-over-cuts is to
|
||
description what one history is to simulation — the only tractable thing, necessarily partial,
|
||
honestly chosen.
|
||
|
||
Two riders. First, ordinary cause and effect still holds *within a single cut* (at the ms synapse
|
||
cut, this release causes that response); what has no clean analogue is cause/effect *between the
|
||
named objects* — the synapse does not cause its parts, it is a name over their behaviours. Second,
|
||
the useful cuts are not arbitrary: they fall at the **joints**, where the system's own coupling is
|
||
denser inside than across (a synapse's three components interact more with each other than with the
|
||
next synapse). We prefer these because they carve where the coupling already is — but they remain
|
||
cuts, still level-choices, still partial. There are affinities here with the scale-relative frontier
|
||
of physics — the renormalization group, non-equilibrium thermodynamics — which also make description
|
||
depend on the scale of the cut; but as the simulation argument showed, those point in the direction
|
||
without solving this system. They tell us cut-relative description is legitimate physics; they do not
|
||
hand us the object.
|
||
|
||
*The pseudocode is itself the finest cut* — it reads behaviours at the single-component level and
|
||
treats every larger whole as context arriving at the boundary (dopamine, the day/night context, the
|
||
renormalization are the organism and the hypothalamus reduced to inputs). This document lays names
|
||
over *coarser* collections of cuts in the same web.
|
||
|
||
## How each object is written
|
||
|
||
Given the machinery, each object below has one shape: **the name, then a series of `cut → behaviours`
|
||
entries, then the note that the name is simply the collection.** The compound observables — a
|
||
**frequency** (events per time), a **flow** (quantity per time), an **elapsed interval**, an **amount
|
||
at a moment**, a **spatial extent**, a **coincidence** — are just behaviours read along one or more
|
||
axes at a stated cut. Each entry names its cut (the levels on time, space, quantity, and the scope)
|
||
and reads the behaviours that cut makes verifiable. The object is nothing over and above the set.
|
||
|
||
---
|
||
|
||
## Object 1 — The Synapse (constituted by PRE ⇄ POST ⇄ ASTROSYNAPSE)
|
||
|
||
"The synapse" is a name over the behaviours read across the cuts below. Each cut names its levels —
|
||
time, space, quantity, scope — and reads what becomes verifiable there. None of these is more "the
|
||
synapse" than another; the word is the collection. Note in passing how much *one* observable, say
|
||
frequency, fractures across cuts: frequency of what, at what grain, in which scope — each a different
|
||
behaviour, all called "the synapse's."
|
||
|
||
**Cut — ms · single-component space · per-quantum · day.** At the finest time grain, cutting the
|
||
space at one component and the quantity at single events, the readable behaviours are the raw rates:
|
||
the **frequency of NT emission** (PRE's release events, read as PRE's fast-trace level), the
|
||
**frequency of channel opening** in POST (its fast trace), the **elapsed interval** since the last
|
||
release (how far a trace has decayed), the **quantity** of a single release (occupancy × drive). Each
|
||
is one component's behaviour; nothing joint yet.
|
||
|
||
**Cut — ms · cleft space · concentration · day.** Widen the spatial level from one component to the
|
||
cleft, keep time at ms. Now the readable behaviour is the **flow of NT out of the cleft** and its
|
||
**persistence** — the dwell time, set by the astrosynapse's clearance. This is a behaviour no single
|
||
component has; it lives at the cleft level, and the astrosynapse is where its shadow is held. "How
|
||
long transmitter stays" is a synapse behaviour only at *this* cut.
|
||
|
||
**Cut — ms · three-component space · joint · day (the third-party cut).** Cut the space to include
|
||
all three components at once and read their *joint* behaviour. Now a new behaviour is verifiable that
|
||
none of the previous cuts could reach: the **coincidence** — glutamate and depolarisation and
|
||
D-serine present together — read at POST's NMDA, which holds none of the three inputs but is where
|
||
their shadows overlap. At this cut the three axes have three owners (PRE: quantity; astrosynapse:
|
||
timing and space; POST: recombination), so the coincidence reads as *how much, how sharply timed, how
|
||
contained*. This is the cut at which "the synapse detects coincidence" is true — and it is true only
|
||
here, because coincidence is a joint behaviour and only a three-component space cut makes it
|
||
verifiable. (This is the tripartite decomposition of logic_principles §2, now located as one cut
|
||
among the synapse's many.)
|
||
|
||
**Cut — tens-to-hundreds of ms · three-component space · burst · day.** Coarsen the time level from
|
||
single spikes to bursts. The readable behaviour is now **train-to-train alignment** — does PRE's
|
||
*burst* fall in POST's depolarised *window* — and the **frequency of pre-post coincidence over a
|
||
train**, not spike by spike. Short-term plasticity is the synapse's behaviour at this cut: the gain
|
||
adjusting so the next burst lands better. Synchronisation here is over multiples of spikes; the
|
||
single-spike cut could not see it.
|
||
|
||
**Cut — minutes · three-component space · running average · day.** Coarsen time further. The
|
||
behaviour is **participation** — is this synapse consistently in the co-active set — read as the
|
||
occupancy and tag trajectories accumulating. "Is this synapse reliably aligned" is verifiable only at
|
||
the minutes cut; below it there are only instantaneous events, no reliability.
|
||
|
||
**Cut — overnight · three-component space · structural · night.** Switch scope to night and the time
|
||
level to the consolidation cycle. The behaviours are **build ⇄ release of structure** — PRE's active
|
||
zone, POST's receptor field, the astrosynapse's coverage — read against the tag and the replayed
|
||
participation. "The synapse consolidates" or "is pruned" is a behaviour of this cut alone: the same
|
||
name, now naming an overnight restructuring rather than a millisecond coincidence.
|
||
|
||
**One cut worth dwelling on — the alignment reading (any of the day cuts, read as motion).** Read the
|
||
day cuts not as snapshots but as a process, and a single compound behaviour appears across them: the
|
||
synapse **aligning along three axes** — PRE and POST tuning the quantity match, the astrosynapse
|
||
tuning the timing and space match — and doing so never bilaterally, since each party belongs to a
|
||
larger whole (PRE's neuron, POST's neuron, the astrocyte's territory). At this reading the synapse
|
||
verifies the *discovered compatibility of three larger rhythms* in when, how much, and where. And
|
||
because alignment costs fuel, it carries two success-conditions at once — **precision** (did the
|
||
alignment land: the strength tag) and **stamina** (could it be held: the endurance need) — the two
|
||
consolidation pathways seen as the two dimensions of one project: be good at coincidence, for as long
|
||
as it takes. This is not a different object; it is the day cuts read as a sustained project rather
|
||
than a series of instants.
|
||
|
||
**The name is the collection.** Synapse-at-ms, synapse-at-the-cleft, synapse-as-third-party,
|
||
synapse-over-a-train, synapse-at-participation, synapse-at-night, synapse-as-alignment — these are
|
||
not different objects, and none is the real one. They are one name laid over behaviours read at
|
||
different cuts. It is always the synapse; it is always the synapse *at a cut*. What the word buys us
|
||
is the ability to move between these cuts without losing the thread — to say "the synapse" and then
|
||
choose, by the cut, which of its behaviours we mean.
|
||
|
||
---
|
||
|
||
## The queue — objects still to build
|
||
|
||
- **The dendritic branch** (constituted by its spines → DEND). The clearest spatial integrator: how
|
||
spatially distributed spine alignments sum into one branch behaviour; how attention (ACh) reweights
|
||
the spatial sum; what "a branch" verifies that no spine does.
|
||
- **The neuron's decision** (constituted by branches → SOMA). Convergence of dendritic integrals into
|
||
one fire/no-fire; where the neuron's own **frequency** (its firing rate) and **flow** (summed input)
|
||
become verifiable; the point at which continuous integration turns into a discrete event.
|
||
- **The astrocytic territory** (constituted by processes → ASTROCYTE). Coincidence one scale up —
|
||
synapse-synapse-synapse co-activity, not pre-post — integrated into the regenerative calcium spike
|
||
and broadcast back; a higher-order unexpressed object detecting a higher-order coincidence.
|
||
- **The pathway loop / assembly** (PRE→POST→DEND→SOMA→AXON→PRE). The largest unexpressed object: how
|
||
a recurrent loop verifies flow and timing around itself, and how the night's replay reads the whole
|
||
loop's coherence as mechanical all-or-nothing (every link primed or the pattern breaks). The
|
||
assembly is the object most purely unexpressed — it is nothing but the coincidence of many primed
|
||
thresholds.
|
||
- **The rhythm** (cross-cutting). Frequency and phase as objects in their own right — what it means
|
||
for the system to verify and align to a rhythm (alpha, the day/night switch) that no component holds.
|