Consciousness, Causality and the Faraday Law -Reply

Fred Zaman zamanf at SOFTWARE.HILL.AF.MIL
Mon Jul 8 17:08:54 EST 1996

	Ron Blue has the basic idea of the paper Consciousness,
Causality and the Faraday Law discussed in earlier postings. Also, this
paper does affirm and support his concept (which is mine as well) that
consciousness is composed of neurophysiologically-mediated
electromagnetic wave oscillations or patterns. And it provides (at least
potentially) a physical basis for understanding the underlying
neurodynamics of these oscillations (which some research suggests
may predominate in the 40-Hz range). Consciousness, Causality and the
Faraday law tried to cover too much, however, and at the same say too
little about what was covered. It therefore has been broken up into the
four papers described below:

	The first paper (CMA I below) establishes the basic
neurophysiology of this approach by linking the research and theoretical
proposals of W.J. Freeman and M. Verzeano into a single point of view
that is based on a multicellular elaboration of the dendritic cable model.
This approach--in part suggested to me by Dr. Freeman--establishes (in
terms of a new synthesis of pre-existent research) the
neurophysiological base for the electromagnetic paradigm of neural mass
action described in the follow-on papers II and III. This was a major point
of confusion in the earlier thread on my paper, because I failed to clearly
explain the pre-existent research underlying this approach (which is only
gradually becoming clear to myself), much of which seems to be neither
widely known nor well understood.

	The second paper (CMA II) then links the concept of circulatory
mass action resulting from the above synthesis with the MEG field
produced by the dendritic current of neocortical pyramidal cells, which
encircles the circulatory mass activation waves described by the first
paper. In this model axon discharge is a discrete analog (quantum) of the
magnetic current concept used sometimes in electromagnetic engineering
models. Thus understood, the flow of multiunit axon discharge through
the cortex is related to the intracortical EEG and MEG traveling waves as
a closed loop magnetic current that follows the MEG field lines (magnetic
monopoles thus are not needed).

	The third paper described below (CMA III) goes on to consider
what evolutionary purpose the unitary axon discharge may serve in an
electromagnetic paradigm of brain wave dynamics. The idea proposed is
that unit axon discharge constitutes a ?nonconserved particle? whose
circulation between neighboring neurons neurophysiologically mediates
the aformentioned MEG field (the ?magnetic force? of neural mass
action). This model of axon discharge thus is an elementary analog and
neurophysiological extension of some of the basic concepts of fields,
particles, and their interaction. It suggests that the basic principles
governing fields and particles at the lowest levels of physical reality
have somehow been propagated by evolution upward in systems of
ever increasing complexity, perhaps to reach and thereby determine
even the highest levels of biological organization.

	However, I intend to first publish the fourth paper described
below on Transformer Magnetic Current. This paper will show that the
concept of magnetic current is more than just a useful paradigm for
biological electromagnetics, however, because it also is implicated in one
of the most basic forms of electromagnetic induction--the simple
transformer. The basis of this supposition is an elementary analysis of
the superposition principle for force fields as it applies to the
transformer?s superposed magnetic-induced and winding
surface-charge fields. The electromagnetic induction resulting from this
change in theory, I believe, ultimately will permit the brain?s time-changing
EEG and MEG fields to be explained in electromagnetic terms, though this
possibility is not addressed in the Transformer Magnetic Current paper. I
am writing all four papers more or less conconcurrently, with the paper
on Transformer Magnetic Current hopefully ready first sometime in

	I believe that the time is now ripe for a new, more physically
rigorous approach to explaining macroscopic brain dynamics (and
perhaps the macroscopic dynamics of other biological systems as well)
in terms of basic partial differential equations. If there are any willing to
contribute to this ?cause royale? in neuroscience, please publish your
comments and ideas in this forum. The Royal Society of London greately
facilitated the spread of science during the days of Issac Newton by
informally encouraging and even physically facilitating letter
communications between scientists on a broad range of subjects. The
internet could play the same role today concerning the application of
basic physical principles to high-level biological organization, if those
willing to entertain new and speculative ideas on this subject will join
together in public discussion. My email addresses for private
correspondence are:

	work: zamanf at
	home: zamanlf at

Circulatory Mass Action I:
A Multicellular Cable Model

L. Frederick Zaman III
Neural Engineering Research and Development,
Ogden Air Logistics Center/TISAD, Hill AFB, Utah 84056-5205,
and 746 West  3400 South, Bountiful, Utah 84010-8333.

The pulse probability wave (PPW) produced by the axon discharge of a
single neuron within a mass of neurons whose dynamics is determined
by locally-dense synaptic interactions is a collective property of the
mass dynamics. In this concept of neural ?mass action,? proposed by
W.J. Freeman in 1975, the multi-unit PPW--defined in terms of a pulse
density wave (PDW)--interacts with a locally-generated extracellular
dendritic gross wave (DGW) through neurophysiological wave-to-pulse
(DGW-to-PDW) and pulse-to-wave (PDW-to-DGW) transforms. Earlier
research by M. Verzeano et al. on central sensory systems suggests
that--for many neural masses--these transforms cause the PDW to
circulate closed-loop around the DGW peak, such that the PDW
magnitude at each point along the circulation pathway is related to the
local DGW rate-of-change or ?slope.? It is proposed that the origin of this
relationship is recurrent inhibition directed normal to the circulation
pathway. A multicellular cable and Hopfield ANN model of circulatory
mass action are considered.

Circulatory Mass Action II:
A Neuromagnetic Induction Model

L. Frederick Zaman III
Neural Engineering Research and Development,
Ogden Air Logistics Center/TISAD, Hill AFB, Utah 84056-5205,
and 746 West  3400 South, Bountiful, Utah 84010-8333.

The intracortical MEG fields produced by the dendritic currents of
neocortical pyramidal cells provide an interesting development of
circulatory mass action. Model calculations show that the circulation of
PDWs around locally-generated neocortical DGWs are closely correlated
with--and indeed may be a mirror image of--the local MEG field. This
correlation, modeled using the ?magnetic current? (Mi) formalism of
electromagnetic engineering to represent PDW circulation, is specified in
terms of MEG-to-Mi and Mi-to-EEG transforms. Joined with volume
conduction theory, this model suggests that circulatory mass action is a
quasi-static analog of electromagnetic induction, wherein the vector
source (dendritic multicellular emf) of an EEG wave is quasi-statically
induced by the assumed neuromagnetic current (circulatory PDW).

Circulatory Mass Action III:
A Neuromagnetic Force Model

L. Frederick Zaman III
Neural Engineering Research and Development,
Ogden Air Logistics Center/TISAD, Hill AFB, Utah 84056-5205,
and 746 West  3400 South, Bountiful, Utah 84010-8333.

When the axon all-or-nothing pulses circulating from neuron to neuron
along MEG field lines in the neocortex are treated as ?nonconserved field
particles,? the intracortical MEG can be viewed as a functional
neuromagnetic force in circulatory mass action. Unitary axon discharge
in this view plays essentially the same role that the photon presently is
understood to play in mediating the electric force between two charges.
That is, the unit discharge of the nerve cell is an equivalent,
neuromagnetic ?photon,? whose force--the force responsible for its
?emission? from neuron to neuron--is the aformentioned neuromagnetic
force. The statistical dynamics of neuromagnetic photons, which can be
viewed macroscopically as a cortical ?inner light,? can be specified in
terms of a circulatory neuromagnetic force and momentum. This
approach provides the basis for a neuromagnetic dynamo theory that
can relate the physical and psychological functions of neocortex

Transformer Magnetic Current

L. Frederick Zaman III
Ogden Air Logistics Center/TISAD, Hill AFB, Utah 84056-5205,
and 746 West  3400 South, Bountiful, Utah 84010-8333.

Two different interpretations of force field superposition in
electromagnetics, labeled the total field viewpoint (TFV) and component
field viewpoint (CFV), produce conflicting accounts and predictions
regarding the total electric field induced when the transformer?s
magnetic-induced and winding surface-charge fields are superposed. It
is shown that CFV superposition, rather than TFV superposition,
provides the correct physical account of this field. It also is shown,
however, that CFV superposition requires a new term in Faraday?s law
for magnetic current, to account for the curl of every field component in
the CFV account. Furthermore, the CFV account can be validated
experimentally, which will provide empirical support for the magnetic
current on which CFV superposition depends. Based on this analysis, it
is proposed that a correct and complete explanation of transformer
induction: (1) will include both the magnetic-induced and surface-charge
fields,  (2) will be based on the CFV account of field superposition, and
(3) will include a term in Faraday?s law for magnetic current.


More information about the Neur-sci mailing list