electromagnetic/brain waves

Zamanlf zamanlf at aol.com
Wed Apr 3 11:46:22 EST 1996


Dear Kevin,

	RIGHT ON! Whether or not induction is a mechanism of information
processing in the nervous system indeed is THE CRITICAL ISSUE I am
addressing. Thank you for clarifying that point. I believe that
consciousness and the concept of an inner self  are valid issues in
neuroscience, when properly addressed, but the paradigm of  information
processing (without addressing the issue of who or what is doing the
information processing) is equally valid for those who are uncomfortable
with such ideas.
	Electrophysiologists, in their experimental studies, have
concluded that there is no induction in electrophysiological fields. This
conclusion is based on studies of the induction of externally-generated or
exogenous fields, however. That is not the real issue, as I see it. The
real issue is whether the spatiotemporal relations of the
internally-generated or endogenous fields can be explained in terms of
induction. That is where I am coming from, and the existing
electrophysiological studies shed no light on this very important issue.
	The concept of induction I am proposing, however, is based on an
analysis of the ideal inductor which shows that Faraday’s law, as
presently constituted, gives a logically inconsistent account of cause and
effect. I do not question the validity of the empirical correlations
specified by this law, just the account of cause and effect relations
between the terms that the law presently provides. When the law is
modified in order to make it causally consistent, which requires a new
term in Faraday’s law for an electrostatic source of curl, it becomes
possible to understand neuronal information processing in terms of
electromagnetic induction.
	One of the strong points of this approach, and I believe there are
many, is that time now becomes an explicit theoretical quantity. Space and
time, in terms of the rates-of-change of the EEG and MEG information
processing variables, are both included in this approach. Also, it seems
to provide a comprehensive account of the flow of neuronal multiunit spike
activity in both space and time, which appears to be the basic currency of
neural information processing. The cytoarchitecture of the nervous system,
from this point of view, is fundamentally an electromagnetic architecture,
with the design and organization of the different kinds of nerve cells
directed towards facilitating the electromagnetic, field theoretic
processing of information.
	One of my concerns about modernity (which I expressed some concern
about earlier in this thread) is that modern humanism seems to be based on
the premise that the individual (conscious self) is the only thing that
counts, while modern science is directed toward proving that the
individual (conscious self) in fact does not exist. Taking them together,
we come up with the defacto modernist philosophy that the only thing that
counts doesn’t really exist. It is for this reason, to combat the
anti-ethical modernist philosophy that nothing (or nothingness) is
important, that I endeavour to scientifically address the issues of
consciousness and self. Should not 20th-century science stand for
something more than the endeavour to prove that the achievements of
mankind in modern science, technology, and business all add up to nothing?
Is the crowning achievement of science in the 20th century to be the proof
that no individual or corporate “achievment” is actually possible, because
there is only the evolution and operation of vacuous life forms in which
no one is at home?  Are you there? I am here. Perhaps together we can
prove, scientifically, that our “selves” do physically exist within the
nervous system. Would that not be a fine accomplishment? (I’m not really
asking for your answers to these questions. They are all rhetorical.)


Sincerely, Fred Zaman




More information about the Neur-sci mailing list