Treat this post the same as you would one of the dump posts for now, I’m just spitballing (what a weird idiom) integration of ideas from the past year to see if we can come up with new approaches to current questions. This is going to be edited in place so I’ll start with outlines and fill in more details as they pop into my head. If anyone has questions, please ask because I need questions (particularly those originating outside myself) more than anything else.
First, and probably going for unnecessary controversy off the bat, I’d like to separate from the construct of trauma being a “negative” or “adverse” event, and instead refer to the general conceit as a highly valenced set of engrams which are “significantly branched”.
Stepping back from the “adverse” necessity allows us to experiment with “trauma” mechanics in a less harmful manner, by exploring “(conducive?)” constructions and applying that to the full set of constructions where consistent.
I recognize the argument that “adverse” engrams are weighted or invoked “differently” than “normal” experiences, I just don’t think the evidence supports it.
“Memory/Behavior” is stored and expressed in discrete chunks, along a pattern that the evidence isn’t clear on yet (what is the quanta of information storage?). The strength of the valence determines how “process intensive” or how many branches a particular engram “creates”.
“Memories” are a sequential hierarchy of engrams, computed real time in other regions of the nervous system. Because of the sequential and hierarchical nature of construction, the order which engrams are stapled/bound together has a tremendous impact on the overall presentation of associated memories.
For most people, memories require at least a foundational engram to store new data, it requires an extra-ordinary amount of valence to instantiate an engram without a differential from an existing engram.
This mechanic allows nervous systems to create increasingly distinct data by calving off differentials into new quanta.
For example, imagine a concept inception of “ball” (a red bouncy ball), and all roughly similar stimuli are ball. As social training and stimuli experience kicks in, we are exposed to similar but different stimuli, and a differential gets created – round like “ball”, bouncy like “ball”, but “orange”. A basketball.
Later, another differential gets created, – round like “ball”, bouncy like “ball”, but “green”, also (second level differential which re-associates the ball chain) “small” – “tennis ball”. The nervous system carves out another differential for “size” along with “color” (FU Brits and Canucks, stop adding extra letters) from the existing engrams.
A differential is created when a metabolic breakpoint is reached for recall/write requirements. For example, as “ball” grows to contain an ever larger set of stimuli, it differentiates off data so it doesn’t need to spend the energy to write/recall a mega engram every time it needs “ball”. For most individuals, this means that the earliest learned memories have foundational properties because they form the basis from which our “ball” is created, and everything afterward is evaluated first in the concept of that “ball”.
Before I get too far, “ball” is not a quanta, it’s still a way higher level of association, along with all the other constructs like “color” and “size”. The important thing to understand is that most brains store and create information in this manner, and that the specific associative chain along with the order of association produce significantly different “memories” and subsequent behavior.
These associations are evaluated by astrocytes, which through metabolic comparisons determine whether the associations are “correct” or not. If not, it signals microglia to come in and prune. “Correct” just means that there’s a low metabolic necessity between the connections, higher metabolic requirements indicate “error” and are more likely to be pruned (depending on how long this gets, this will become relevant for dementia, particularly AD and other metabolically cranked conditions).
Have to run right now so quick thoughts so I can pick up later.
- Can we modify valence on “core” engrams? (Is this dangerous?)
- Can we modify the association chain to include a “bit flip” mechanic? (Is this dangerous?)
- Can we nuke valence consideration all together?
- Can we re-associate the chain?
- Can we “transfer” the root engram up the chain and degrade the former base?
- Can we induce mild acidosis during reprogramming to “encourage” oligo desheathing/microglial pruning?
- Can we metabolically manipulate CO2 levels in a region/expression specific manner? MAB targerting?