oscillations RETRACTION & CLARIFICATION of the PRIOR 'retraction'

Kenneth Collins k.p.collins at worldnet.att.net
Wed Aug 7 18:03:03 EST 2002

I RETRACT the imediately-prior 'retraction'.

Synchrony implies 'cross-correlation' =BUT=, what's
'cross-correlated' can include anti-correlation.

This's what's discussed in my response to Peter in another thread,
today, and is what I was getting-at, but failed to say, in my earlier
posts with respect to the "oscillations" stuff.

As a result, particularly with respect to information-content,
'synchrony' is flat-out nothing.

'Synchrony' can be 'engineered', at all 'levels' of human interactive
dynamics, from international group-wise dynamics, through
individuals, and within an individual nervous system, in the form of
"prefrontal constellations" [AoK, Ap7].

It's how 'deception' happens within nervous systems.

Deceptive 'synchrony' is comonplace war-'time' practice.

Camofalge [sp? ;-] is a vision-based form of environmental

The 'funny'-numbers accounting practices that I've spoken-out against
are more of the environmentally-implemented Same-Stuff.

Etc., etc., etc.

Therefore, 'synchrony' is does not imply 'cross-correlation', not
even 'momentarily', because, as is discussed in AoK, Ap6, via TD
E/I-minimization, all that's relatively quiescent is just as
tightly-integrated as is all that's 'momentarily' active.

The 'percept' =always= occurs at the supersystem 'level' - all of it,
not just what's 'momentarily', and fleetingly-dynamically, 'active'.

If what's inhibited were not inhibited, the 'percept' would be
different, so what's 'quiescent' is in-there.

And, anyway, there's always simultaneous correlation and
anti-correlation within the fleetingly-dynamic convergence that's
mediated via TD E/I-minimization, so the 'synchrony' is as I
described it earlier, in the Traub ref? thread - a 'shadow' of TD
E/I-minimization - an artifact of TD E/I-minimization. Absent all the
TD directionality, as it's correlated to the body-environment
interface, the 'synchrony', itself, is devoid of meaning.

And it's not even 'synchrony'.

There is convergence, within a "U"-shaped 'well', and that can be
termed "oscillation", but it's better described as damped-harmonic
'motion' [with respect to TD E/I, not like a tuning fork dunked in a
viscous liquid], so the harmonics just demonstrate that TD
E/I-minimization is happening.

They are an artifact of TD E/I-minimization.

I Apologize for the way in which I've thought-the-problem-through,
publicly, in your electronic 'presence', but perhaps there's 'worth'
in-it to folks who 'wonder', "Who is Ken Collins" :-]

I'd worked all this stuff through back in the 'Terrible Times', and
have, in fact, discussed it all, repeatedly, in the past. My
'problem', with respect to this discussion is that I was 'tuned' with
respect to way-different stuff that I was working-through.

Had to 'deflate' with respect to what I was working on, and 'pump-up'
with respect to this stuff [See my earlier discussion of the role of
neuralglia, if it's still on the board. This has been a case in-point
re. that discussion.]

My other 'excuse' is that I'm just 'tired' physically, 'tired' of
'living' in this 'suspended'-'state', 'tired' of being alone, 'tired'
of not being able to find employment, and 'tired' of folks 'caging'
me then 'poking-sticks' in-there.

k. p. collins

Kenneth Collins wrote in message ...
>Kenneth Collins wrote in message ...
>>Hi Dr. Jones,
>>Your post is Beautiful, and I've no problem with anything that's
>>in-it except with respect to the final sentence.
>Your post is Beautiful, in its entirety.
>I've 'called-myself-to-task', and, while I stand on what I've
>elsewhere in the NG, 'agree' that "synchrony implies
>I'll even admit that, =macroscopically=, there's "oscilation"
>in-there. It occurs in the form of convergrnce upon TD E/I(min)
>'states' - in which TD E/I traverses, 'back-and-forth', a 'U'-shaped
>range of values, until TD E/I(min) occurs.
>At more-detalied 'levels', though, there's nothing that's
>Part of =my= 'problem' is that I use the term "oscilation" to
>'steady-state' periodicity, and refer to what actually happens
>the 'brain' as [Topologically-Distributed [arrayed]] "damped
>motion". Others use "oscilations" without any explaining the
>convergence-mediating "damping" that's =always= in-there. Within the
>'brain', the 'damping' is 'just' TD E/I-minimization. When it's
>maximized, convergence is maximized. The 'brain' is
>relatively-precisely-"tuned", but everything is still 100%-dynamic.
>Loop-circuits running-their-relays.
>A lot that's in my disagreement derives, mostly, in my 'rebellion'
>against the oft-occurring 'band-wagon' stuff in which
>relatively-small subsets of what goes on in the nervous system are
>held to 'determine-everything', when =everything= in the nervous
>system is responsible. My 'rebellion' is with respect to the way
>folks 'ignore' great-gobs of what actually underpins this or that
>that they're attributing to a small-'subset'. The rest of my 'angst'
>with respect to the way "oscillations" are invoked is related, but
>has to do with the way folks 'equate' this or that 'subset' stuff
>[ie. "oscillation"] with "Eureka!", without explaining all that
>underpins the formation of "oscilations" [as above].
>Just, "Oscillations!", and "that's the end" of having to explain
>anything else.
>Doing so is like, if an alien came to Earth, picked up a
>capacitive-discharg ignition circuit, and called it a "car".
>The other thing is that all of what's in the "oscillations" stuff,
>and much-more, has been reified in AoK for the better part of two
>decades. Yet, although, such hasn't been acknowledged [I've never
>encountered a footnote, for instance], it's been flat-out Obvious,
>for decades, that it's NDT that underpins convergence within all of
>So, when I encounter stuff like this "oscillations" stuff there's
>appearance of its 'gist' having been 'borrowed' from the work I've
>done, and its having been 'gussied-up' with 'fancy' nomenclature,
>'experiment', so that the same thing that's been in NDT all along
>'can be said', without crediting the work I've done.
>Of course, this Assertion is gravely-serious, but it's what has
>underpinned my Choice to seek a hearing in some small group, and
>what has underpinned the fact that I've pretty-much refrained from
>public discussion of experimental results.
>Since a couple of years after beginning to work online, I've gone,
>time after time, to collect papers in the Neuroscience stacks, to
>collect refs for discussion in this or that online 'place'. I did so
>the other day. But I've always refrained from discussing refs I
>select because my trips to the Library have become
>Like the other day. I didn't do any searches. I just went to the
>Neuroscience stacks, picked-up two issues of one Journal, and found
>50 pages of stuff that was all reified, and discussed in AoK, all
>It's been like this for nearly two decades.
>So, since, if I discuss such refs online, what's going-on will be
>obvious to everyone, not wanting to provoke 'scandal', I've
>from discussing refs.
>And I get-'hammered' for wanting to 'hold the door open' to folks.
>And it's seemed that no one will meet with me in-person because
>know what's going on, and are co-operating within such.
>With respect to myself, such 'hurts', but I can
>'take-it-on-the-chin'. I did the work of my own volition, after all.
>But how can I not CryOut! on behalf of the folks who Siffer-Greatly
>be-cause NDT's understanding has been actively withheld from them,
>even as it has so obviously been 'borrowed' by folks operating under
>the 'publish-or-perish' 'Gun'?
>And, what's really awful, is that I can See-Right-Through all the
>'obfuscation' that's been heaped-up against the possibility of
>Lay-folks' understanding what's been going-on.
>So, I've said it.
>If anyone demands that I Verify what's here, I will, in-person,
>before Fair Witnesses, in a place nearby a good Neuroscience
>'Lock the doors', nobody leaves until the dust settles.
>K. P. Collins
>>While what's being referred to as 'synchrony' does reflect
>>'cross-correlation' with respect to activation [of course], it
>>doesn't reflect anything with respect to specific
>>information-content, so 'synchrony' says nothing about 'percept'
>>other than the trivial fact that, yeah, 'thought' happens.
>>In the future, as monitoring techniques continue to become
>>more-precise, folks'll see that everything is, in fact,
>>fleetingly-dynamic, energy-flow gradients.
>>My 'point' is subtle, and I don't expect anyone to agree, but the
>>that 'oscillations' have come to be routinely invoked makes me want
>>to 'throw-up', because of the 'herd-mentality' inherent, and the
>>it gives short-shrift to almost all of what's in the functional
>>It's been a 'pet-peeve' of mine. I'm Sorry  that such has
>>'rubbed'-against you.
>>Cheers, k. p. collins
>>Matt Jones wrote in message ...
>>>mats_trash at hotmail.com (mat) wrote in message
>>news:<43525ce3.0207240235.5989ab74 at posting.google.com>...
>>>> Im  reading around the literature on nerual oscillations given
>>>> 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
>>>> oscillating?).  Is it the fluctuation of resting membrane
>>>> or is it more about the sequential firing of spatially
>>>> certain frequencies.  i.e. given neurons A, B Is the oscillation
>>>> A-B-A-B-A-B
>>>> Cheers for any explanations or refs to that effect.
>>>Hi mats,
>>>When people talk about oscillations in the brain, they essentially
>>>mean rhythmic activity that can be detected at the EEG level. The
>>>(electroencephalogram) works by recording synchronous activity
>>>fairly large populations of neurons.
>>>As you know, neural electrical activity is comprised of changes in
>>>membrane conductance of individual neurons. When ion channels open
>>>(e.g., during synaptic transmission or during an action
>>>current flows across the membrane. This has two related effects:
>>>changes the cells membrane potential, and 2) it causes a small
>>>in the distribution of charges inside and outside the cell.  If
>>>perform a "single unit" recording in a living animal, what you are
>>>doing is placing a small wire -outside- a neuron. Since you're
>>>outside, you can't see small changes in membrane potential the way
>>>could if you were making an intracellular recording. But you -can-
>>>detect the small change in extracellular charge distribution that
>>>occurs when the neuron fires a spike. This is because during a
>>>a truly huge number of ion channels are doing the same thing all
>>>the same time. The tiny local effects of each channel all sum up
>>>together to give a just-barely-detectable change in the
>>>charge. This change in charge results in a small, quick change in
>>>local voltage, and if your electrode is near enough (i.e., a few
>>>microns), you can measure it.
>>>However, the small local voltage change from a single cell, even
>>>during a spike, is too small to be seen with the EEG, which is
>>>an array of electrodes farther away in the tissue, or most often,
>>>the surface of the scalp. But if you can get -many- neurons to
>>>spikes at the same time, then the local extracellular potentials
>>>add up together, and you can detect it. This change in potential
>>>many synchronous individual neurons goes by many names: local
>>>potential (LFP), event-related potential (ERP), or
>>>electroencephalogram (EEG).  The core idea is that you are
>>>simultaneous (but not necesserily rhythmic) activity from many
>>>usually hundreds, thousands, or millions in the case of the scalp
>>>Now, oscillations:  During many different behaviors, it turns out
>>>the EEG does in fact display some rhythmic behavior. That is, if
>>>look at it, you can actually see repeating wiggles at certain
>>>frequencies. In practice, you would take the wiggly signal and
>>>through a spectrum analyzer or FFT, and note where the peaks
>>>For example, during exploration in rats, the EEG recorded near the
>>>hippocampus develops a prominent peak around 4-14 Hz (so called
>>>rhythm). During certain other behaviors (usually involving that
>>>"binding" thingy), the prominent rhythm in various parts of cortex
>>>around 20-80 Hz (so called gamma rhythm). There's a bunch of other
>>>greek letter rhythms too, but I forget when and where they occur.
>>>What these rhythms signify is that lots and lots of neurons are
>>>whatever they're doing in a roughly synchronous concerted manner.
>>>pretty sure that what EEG, ERP and LFP are most often measuring is
>>>-not- spike firing, but rather the slower subthreshold potentials
>>>associated with synaptic potentials. In a "single-unit" recording,
>>>can also see these synaptic potentials from large numbers of
>>>but typically one is interested in the spikes, so one high-pass
>>>filters out anything slower than spikes. It is possible to get
>>>the spike infrmation and the LFP information by passing the same
>>>signal throu two different filters.
>>>OK, so that's what people -really- mean when they talk about
>>>oscillations. But nowadays, people are always talking about
>>>synchronous spiking in the same way that they talk about
>>>so what's up with that?  Well it turns out that you can try and
>>>determine whether two neurons (possibly in different regions of
>>>brain) are participating in oscillations with the same frequency
>>>phase, by analyzing the crosscorrelation between their
>>>The idea is that if the two spike trains are crosscorrelated with
>>>other, one way of getting such a crosscorrelation (xcorr) would be
>>>they were both firing spikes at approximately the same times. This
>>>shows up as a peak near zero milliseconds in the xcorr.  If you
>>>such a peak, you might be tempted to shout from the rooftops that
>>>these two cells were spiking together, and since one is in the
>>>auditory system and the other one is in the visual system (for
>>>example), you might conclude that they were both encoding part of
>>>same complex "percept" (e.g., the sound of screeching tires and
>>>image of a rapidly approaching truck). This is the idea behind the
>>>whole business of synchrony, oscillations, and the "binding"
>>>And maybe this is indeed what's going on.
>>>However, there are also other possibilities. For example, there
>>>other ways of getting two spiketrains to be correlated besides
>>>synchronizing the spikes between two neurons. One way is to simply
>>>have both neurons -start- firing at the same time, but fire each
>>>randomly (i.e., correlated latency, without synchrony). Another
>>>to have both neurons fire at random times but have their mean
>>>rates be correlated. So crosscorrelataion does not imply synchrony
>>>(which is in fact the title of a very nice paper on the subject by
>>>Carlos Brody - do a medline search on him for more info on the
>>>issues). On the other hand, I believe synchrony -does- strongly

More information about the Neur-sci mailing list