electromagnetic/brain waves

Zamanlf zamanlf at aol.com
Sat Mar 30 15:22:01 EST 1996


	Of course it (an electromagnetic account of nervous function) has
no meaning for you, because you have no understanding of it, nor do you
want any, which is why you reject it out of hand. The essentially hostile
nature of your postings is clear. The phrase “electromagnetic account,” as
the words clearly imply, refers to an explanation of the nervous system
that is based on the principles of electromagnetic field theory. If you
want to understand something with which you have had no prior experience,
you need to start asking questions, rather than throwing out a lot of one
or two line barbs. Given the nature of your education, it is possible that
you are incapable of giving serious consideration to anything other than
that with which you have been previously indoctrinated.

	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. It has nothing to do with the
scientific facts that have been accumulated to this date. It has to do
with the dogma with which the facts have been interpreted. It is
metaphysics, pure and simple. The real question, the one that should
concern true scientists, is how well can such a theory explain the
empirical evidence. If you will bother to actually study the theory and
see how well it does in this regard, you will find that it does a far
better job than anything else now available. But of course, if all you
ever do is continue with your Abbot and Costello routine, you will never
find that out. So be it.

	The concept of an “inner self” has never been defined in terms
that are acceptable to science, til now. That is what an electromagnetic
account of mind and brain is all about. If you truly want clarification,
stop the barbs and start communicating. Ask questions about the things you
don’t understand, rather than making continual accusations about
vagueness. Your vagueness is not the problem of the theory, it is because
you don’t understand the theory, and seemingly will make no effort to
understand it.

	If you bother to make an effort to understand, you will know that
the well know fact “that PSPs rather than spikes contribute to the
generation of the EEG” is not contested, rather it is one of the
elementary facts that the theory is founded on.

	You say you have no knowledge of, therefore no taste for, one way
or the other, Verzeano’s work. It obviously is true that you have no
knowledge of his work, but the rest of your statement is simply not true.
That is clear from your earlier statement regarding the impossibility of
explaining the complex relations between the EEG and the generating cells.
Verzeano’s research is telling us that such an explanation in fact is
possible. So the idea that you can consider his work without bias is

	I have already briefly stated what the statistical relationship is
between multiunit axon discharge and the EEG wave. If you want more
detailed information regarding this relationship I refer you to (1)
Verzeano’s work, which I am sure you can find in the library, (2) my paper
which will be available soon. The first gives the experimental evidence of
this relationship, and the second will give for the first time a
description of a mechanism that can account for the relationship.

	Most things are simple once understood. I can explain things
forever, but if you do not want to understand, then the simplicity will
never be apparent.

	The field of Neuroscience is not entirely deluded. Check the
research of Verzeano for a first step in the reduction of the “complex
relations” between the EEG and the generating cells to a simpler model. A
further simplification, and even greater generalization, will be found in
an electromagnetic account of his work. Interested? I’ll bet not. Your
main interest seems to be suppressing any possible outbreak of inspiration
in neuroscience theory.

	As you have indicated, there indeed is a clear relationship
between the probabality of axon spike discharge and the amplitude of the
extracellular potential. Fox and Obrien made that very clear in 1965.
Verzeano also made it even more clear, in several decades of research,
that there also is a relationship between the probablity of axon spike
discharge and the slope or rate-of-change of the extracellular potential.
So how does one resolve what seems to be an irreconcilable contradiction
in the research. Your approach, and that of the so-called “deluded
Neuroscience” (your term, not mine), has been to simply ignore Verzeano’s
research. WRONG! NOT ACCEPTABLE! Scientists, those that are true
scientists, do not ignore contradictory evidence. They seek to explain it,
to reconcile the data. That is what an electrodynamic approach to nervous
function can do. Again, you seem to think that, even though you have no
knowledge of Verzeano’s work, you can engage in intelligent criticism
concerning a theory that explains his work. WRONG! Your confusion is the
result of your presuming to understand far more than you do.

	It seems unlikely that you will ever be grateful for anything that
invalidates what you presently hold to be true.

	My insulting remarks are simply a reply in kind to your insulting
remarks. Any time you want to drop the hostile attitude and start
communicating on a more friendly basis, I will be more than willing to
reciprocate. Otherwise, I guess we can continue on the present basis.

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



More information about the Neur-sci mailing list