Who is Ken Collins?
mats_trash at hotmail.com
Tue Aug 6 06:08:40 EST 2002
> As in "Oscillations"?
well I couldn't resist the opportunity.
You claim that you succesfully wiped the test to your theory posed in
my question about oscillations (even though it was not intended as
such - I actually wanted someone to explain it to me - thanks Matt
However in your reply there are some true gems which highlight your
total lack of understanding
> what gives the appearance of there being 'oscillations' are
> fleetingly-dynamic actions of the TD E/I-minimization mechanisms [see AoK,
> and the refs cited in AoK]
right, so you eliminate any apparent contradictions between your
theory and experiment by just dismissing the conclusion of the guy who
actually did the work. very 'scientific'.
> think about it. would you want some 'crystal'-controlled frequency in-there
> while you were trying to think a 'point' through?
this is a real nugget! you are suggesting that if oscillations did
occur they would be annoying becuase they buzzed and hummed??
oscillations would not be a distraction to thinking, they would BE
thinking! If oscillation is the fundamental operation of neural
circuits it wouldn't interfere with functions such as cognition
becuase it would be those very operations that gave rise to higher
function. Its as dumb as saying I can see atoms, when the very
apparatus (eyes/brain) that allows me to see is also made up of atoms.
Its worse than wrong.
Anyway, why should what you/I/anyone want make a difference? I don't
want to have eyes only in the front of my head, doesn't mean I've got
them in the back too.
> >Where you do make suggestions about cells you state
> >that one single mechanism is responsible for the whole diversity of
> >brain function.
> Yup, I do. It's 'just' that you've never 'bothered' to come to terms
> with what's in "TD" "topologically-distributed".
> Energy-flow is, itself, topologically-distributed.
Do you actually know what topology means?
> The directedness, inherent, constitutes the information that enables
> neurons to 'know' how and why to undergo microscopic trophic
> modification with specific respect to neural activation that actually
> occurs, thereby, by-producing "biological mass" which, subsequently,
> exerts physically-real inertia within neuronal information-processing
what are these trophic changes? it might be something verifiable by
experiment but I guess you're somehow going to get out of stating
anything concrete as always
> >You claim the natural tendency of neural tissue is to
> >minimize excitation, whereas in fact quite the opposite is true (see
> >the work of Traub et al.).
> I'll look it up.
> But expect it's just be another "Oscillations"-type
Actually its to do with epilepsy, when the proclivity of cortical
circuits to excitation due to richly interconnected pyramidal cells is
revealed. Annals of Neurology (2000)
> It's all discussed in AoK, If it were the case that excitation were
> not relatively-minimized, then, for instance, instead of striking a
> particular key, as one types this or that verbal symbol, if one's
> hands got near the keyboard, which would be improbable, one's fingers
> would strike keys in a relatively-random order, producing only
> 'garbage'. [There's a lead-in for you :-]
What?? this is absolute gibberish. how do you know this?
experimental data? you've injected glutamate into the motor cortex
and seen the effect on typing?!? just supposition after supposition.
How is any motor action to occur without excitation? not only do you
dismiss data/conclusions that do not suit you, you provide no evidence
of your own or anyone else's in favour of your ideas.
> Doesn't come much-more 'humble' than that.
did you or did you not say you had made the most important discovery
in the history of science?
<snip a load of self pity>
More information about the Neur-sci