electromagnetic/brain waves

Paul Bush paul at phy.ucsf.edu
Tue Apr 2 14:30:59 EST 1996

In article <4jk559$82s at newsbf02.news.aol.com>, zamanlf at aol.com (Zamanlf) writes:

|> <opening contentless diatribe deleted, as are all following instances>
|> 	Your opinion, that any theory which is consistent with the idea
|> that there is an “inner self” within each of us “is in trouble,” is the
|> conventional attitude of neuroscience.

You're getting confused here Fred. As I said before, the phrase you used was 
'little men or women in the brain'. I reiterate: Any theory involving such a 
concept, beyond the sensorimotor homunculus, is in trouble in my opinion.

|> 	The concept of an “inner self” has never been defined in terms
|> that are acceptable to science, til now.

'Til now'? Please post your definition. I think that would clear up the
misunderstanding. Unless of course you don't have one.

|> 	I have already briefly stated what the statistical relationship is
|> between multiunit axon discharge and the EEG wave.

I missed it, please post it again. I think you are confusing the local field
potential and the EEG. You said:

'a statistical relationship between axon spike discharge and the slope or 
rate-of-change of the locally-generated gross potential clearly exists'
and then:

'These researchers found a different relationship, between the probability of 
axon spike discharge and the amplitude of the extracellular gross potential'
Both of these terms describe the local field potential, recorded close to the
generating cells. I think it was Gauss who produced a theorem showing that
locating the internal sources of the potential on a sphere (EEG) was an ill-posed
problem. You claim, in essence, to have solved this problem (identified a
statistical relationship between the spiking of the generating cells and the
derivative/amplitude of the EEG). Please summarize your solution
and post it here. Unless of course you don't have such a solution.

|> 	My view of sociology is far more complex and detailed than you can
|> imagine. Again, another of your assumptions of knowledge that far exeeds
|> reality.

You cannot imagine what I can imagine. Your view of sociology as posted here is
simplistic and naive.


More information about the Neur-sci mailing list