Kenneth Collins k.p.collins at worldnet.att.net
Sat Aug 3 07:09:44 EST 2002

ATTRIBUTION:  it was this msg that caused me to realize that i should
use the "binding problem" nomenclature in trying to get-across that
some significant problems are resolved in NDT.

seems that using the nomenclature has worked, so Thank You, mat.

that i don't, routinely, use commonly-accepted nomenclature reflects
the way i approached the development of NDT. i worked from
First-Principles - the raw data provided by the Neuroanatomists and
Experimentalists, and deliberately steered-clear of other theoretical
syntheses. The rationale being that, since the problem obviously
remained unresolved, existing approaches were incorrect, and that if
an existing approach was correct, its adherents were in a much-better
position to secure their place than I. [they didn't need help from

I wanted to 'look-elsewhere', because I didn't see anything that
worked, and because, within the confines of my meager means, that's
'where' I could, most-likely, come across stuff through which I could
contribute useful findings.

Anyway, I developed nomenclature as needed.

I've explained all of this in the past, but I've understood that the
unfamiliar nomenclature i use is part of why folks've 'discounted'
the work I've done. [I've persisted-seemingly-invulnerable-to-'hints'
be-cause the nomenclature I developed has some special properties,
and because I saw, in all of this, that I could communicate an
important 'lesson' with respect to 'short-shrift'-ing on the basis of
'nomenclature', and with respect to thinking beneath the 'language'

Anyone who looks can see that the nomenclature i use is all
direction-stuff [Geometry], that's interptetable in a generic Maths
way. That's the rationale that underpins the nomenclature I use. It's
wide-usage-'buzz-word'-free, generically-interpretable,
Maths-integrated, and maps directly into the Neuroanatomy, the
special topological homeomorphism, the internal frame of reference,
behavior, affect, cognition and consciousness, all while
rigorously-perserving 'DIRECTIONALITY'.

The nomenclature is 'difficult' =only= because it has been
relatively-unfamiliar. As I've discussed in the past, I'm not averse
to further nomenclaturial-development [as long as any new
nomenclature preserves the generic-Maths [Geometry;
DIRECTIONAL-mapping] foundation, which is Critical.

if folks offer other widely-used nomenclature, I'll point out it's
direction-generic correlates in NDT's nomenclature.

k. p. collins

mat wrote in message
<43525ce3.0207240235.5989ab74 at posting.google.com>...
>Im  reading around the literature on nerual oscillations given the
>current vogue for explaining many aspects of function (binding
>problem, consciousness) through them.  However, I'm a little
>as to what is actually referred to by 'oscillation' (i.e. what is
>oscillating?).  Is it the fluctuation of resting membrane potentials
>or is it more about the sequential firing of spatially distributed
>certain frequencies.  i.e. given neurons A, B Is the oscillation
>Cheers for any explanations or refs to that effect.

More information about the Neur-sci mailing list