electromagnetic/brain waves

Zamanlf zamanlf at aol.com
Sat Mar 23 18:14:21 EST 1996


Stephan,

	The origin of the resistance is other than you suppose. The avenue
of research that I am exploring is one that others apparently want to
studiously avoid. It has to do with the research of M. Verzeano, who
demonstrated that rates-of-change, as it pertains to the flow of multiunit
spike activity through the nervous system, are a fundamental aspect of
nervous system statistical dynamics. “The Synaptic Organization of the
Brain” by Shepard does not addressess this question. The chapter on
dendritic electrotonus and synaptic Integration in particular has nothing
to do with this line of research. The basic question I address in fact has
nothing to do with electrotonus. That is another matter altogether, and if
you will bother to study my work, you will understand that.

	The problem that I am facing is that people are passing judgement
on work that they actually have no understanding of. They think they do,
but they do not. If you and others want to pass judgement on it, then
become familiar with Verzeano’s research first, for that is what the paper
is about. The paper is fundamentally not about little men or women in the
brain. It just happens that it is consistent with such a perspective.
Whether you choose to accept or reject such a proposition is of course up
to you, but the validity of the relationship of the MEG, EEG, and flow of
mutiunit spike activity through the cortex is in no way determined by this
attitude.

	The “understanding” that you have about the brain’s
“electrochemical signaling,” if you feel that it in some way has disproved
the existence of “self,” is in fact a metaphysics that you impose on your
theorizing about the brain. It actually is not science at all. It is a
philosophical doctrine that you use to interpret the evidence. Anytime
someone talks about cause and effect in nauture (in this case whether in
terms of “self” or “electrochemical signaling”), the discussion is
metaphysics because it can never be proved experimentally. Causality in
any system, even within such basic entities as the electromagnetic field,
is metaphysics.

	My thinking on this subject DOES NOT indicate that I am unaware of
the larger systems of cortical organization, and the fact that you think I
am simply shows that you have no understanding of my thinking. What I am
doing in fact shows how the larger systems may actually be functioning--in
terms of rates-of-change that can be understood in electrodynamic terms.
You think that, because my thinking is so different from yours, that I
must have no understanding of what is presently going on, but this is not
so. What I see is that present theories simply are not dealing with a
fundamental aspect of the the central nervous system--the statistical
dynamics of the flow of multiunit spike activity and the relationship this
activity has with the rates-of-change and/or amplitude of the EEG and MEG.
These indeed are big issues, but they should not be avoided simply because
they are big issues, as present theories do.

 	If I have overlooked something in this area (statistical dynamics
of multiunit spike activity and associated rates of change of the EEG or
MEG), I am sorry. Please inform me about any theories or research that
bear on this subject, but as far as I can tell, this avenue of research is
no longer being pursued. The questions raised by this important avenue of
research are simply ignored. Where would physics and engineering be today
if the subject of rates-of-change were so studiously avoided as they are
today in the neurobiology of multiunit axon spike discharge? Physics would
today still be trying to fathom gravitation and the laws of motion. And
that is precisely where neurobiology is today. It is essentially a
pre-Newtonian discipline that studiously avoids coming to terms with
whatever principles govern the macroscopic rates-of-change that
characterize nervous system dynamics.

	I have a far better grasp of the hard problems involved in
relating brain dynamics and consciousness than you imagine. Whatever
rightness I feel about what I am doing comes out of some 40,000 hours of
study on the subject. I have read more and studied more on the subject
than you could possible imagine. Perhaps instead of condemning outright
what I am doing, even before having any real understanding about it, you
could start by first asking a few questions about what I am doing.


Sincerely, Fred






More information about the Neur-sci mailing list