further discussion below.
"KP-PC" <k.p.collins at worldnet.att.net%remove%> wrote in message
news:026ma.58008$ja4.3786072 at bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
| METHOD proposal below.
|| "KP-PC" <k.p.collins at worldnet.att.net%remove%> wrote in message
| news:Qj3ma.26220$cO3.1906450 at bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...| | Hi Didier.
| | "Didier A. Depireux" <didier at tango.isr.umd.edu> wrote in message
| | news:b79jlr$c5a$1 at grapevine.wam.umd.edu...| | | r norman <rsnorman_ at _comcast.net> wrote:
| | | > On Thu, 10 Apr 2003 15:44:25 +0000 (UTC), "Didier A.
| | | > <didier at rai.isr.umd.edu> wrote:
| | |
| | | > [...]
| | | > Certainly there are specific cases
| | | > where timing of nerve activity,
| | | > even to the sub-millisecond level, is critical.
| | |
| | | That is true, and typically it's periferal.
| | | For instance, fibers of the auditory nerve
| | | can code pure tones' phase up to about
| | | 2 kHz (more or less depending on who
| | | you read). This implies an accuracy in
| | | firing time in the 100 microsec range.
| | | By the time you get to cortex, though
| | | (which I thought was the original question),
| | | things are a lot more sluggish and noisy.
| | | Present the same stimulus 20 times and
| | | you will never get 20 times the same
| | | response, in most parts of cortex.
| | The same thing never happens in the
| | [global] nervous system twice
| | because mocroscopic trophic
| | modifications occur as a result of the
| | activation that occurs within nervous
| | systems. Via ongoing convergence
| | upon TD E/I-minimization the global
| | system is =always= 'learning' - analyses
| | must converge upon rigor with respect
| | to such. When this is accomplished,
| | the cortical activation differentials that
| | you point out will become a [the?]
| | primary means of describing the
| | underpinning "micro-mods" - that is,
| | activation differentials will be
| | referred back to neural Topology
| | differentials [including the
| | "supersystem configuration" dynamics
| | that are discussed in AoK, Ap5].
|| This's a 'hard' problem, but it's long seemed to me that everything
| necessary to =begin= making significant progress towards its
| resolution has been available.
|| It does require substantial computing capacity, however, and, in
| addition, requires the development of non-destructive, but
| nevertheless, invasive experimental techniques.
|| The research program entails the use of such non-destructive
| [electrode-implantation, etc.] techniques, and long-term use of
| scanning [PET, fMRI, 2-DG, etc.] in conjunction with =simultaneous=
| electrode-recording and synchronized video, audio, treadle, etc.,
| recording of behaviora; functioning. Synchronizization of all
| recording 'tracks' is of =paramount= importance.
|| The other experimental-design consideration is to establish a
| controlled experimental environment [literally a self-contained,
| 'playing field' - the richer the better, and, of course, as
| with sensors to the max practical degree] for the subjects to
| manifest behavior
|| All interaction with the subject animals must be optimized with
| respect to prolonging the survival of the subjects in as 'normal' a
| way as is possible. With respect to such, it'd be nice to have the
| electrode data transmitted by small worn transmitters, which'd free
| the subjects from being 'tethered' by the recording data wires
| [caveat: can such transmitters, and their batteries, be constructed
| small enough to actually allow some degree of 'normalcy' in the
| subjects' behaviors?] Such 'telemetry' would, for instance, allow
| subjects to negotiate tub mazes, to burrow, bass under and through
| features of the experimental 'playing field", and,
| =interact= with other subjects - all while their data streams are
| being recorded and archived.
|| After assuring that the electrode implants are functional, and that
| all of the apparatus is properly synchronized, experimenters want
| =just= let the subjects manifest 'normal' behavior in interaction
| with the experimental environment.
|| The goal is to 'just' record and archive the synchronized
| that the experiment yields - so, the longer each 'trial' the
|| There are, therefore, three main 'phases' in this experimental
|| 1. Design of the 'playing-field' - as rich as possible - gathering
| the 'sensors' - as rich as possible - and developing methods to
| assure their synchronization. Multiple instances of each type of
| recording device must be incorporated, both to guard against device
| failure, and to allow for 'normal' service [cassette and battery
| replacement, etc.] A protocol must be developed to handle changing
| the batteries in the transmitters if subject telemetry is used -
| rigorously-standardised [well=practiced] procedures. This'll
| extraneous impacts of 'handling' within the data streams that are
| being recorded.
|| 2. Implantation decisions and implementation.
|| 3. This's where the 'Treasure' will be mined. In-depth data
| of each synchronized data trace with respect to every other data
| trace. Yhis can be done long-term, over and over again with respect
| to various questions, etc. The data are a 'world' of their own,
| which researchers can 'enter' enduringly.
|| This method has the advantage that the data it produces is
| and sharable - just think of the worth inherent in such. Data from
| any trial could be made available to other researchers.
|| Prediction: TD E/I-minimization traces extracted from the data will
| be observable, and will cross-correlate the variability to which
| Didier referred in his prior post, quoted above.
It's not really 'fair' for me to call the above a "prediction"
because I've already done the experiment thousands of times, and I
=Know= that the 'predicted' results are as it is.
This work was done during the 'Terrible Times', back in the 1970s and
the first couple of years in the 1980s. I've repeatedly how this
'experimentation' was accomplished. I had no Lab. I did the
'experiments' in my head - the ol' noggin lab.
You know? How do folks think I was able to assign functional stuff to
this or that 'portion' of the neural Topology as it's assigned in
I did it all via a noggin' lab version of the experimental design
that I discussed in the prior post [quoted in this 'addendum' post.
It was =Hard= Work, which is why I refer to thse years as the
'Terrible Times'. To do what needed to be done, I pushed myself
I had no fancy experimental setup, so I had to study the Literature -
mostly single-unit recording studies. I'd reread papers 10, 20, 100
times - until I could hold their stuff in my 'mind's most flexible
'state' - then I worked to merge all the experimental results that
I'd 'memorized, cross-correlating and integrating in detail.
Simultaneously, I observed behavior in 'normal' settings just as
There were five theoretical approaches [listed in AoK, Ap10]. I'd
work in all five ways simultaneously. When I was stymied in one
perspective, I worked on the analogous sub-problem in one of the
other four perspectives [it's out of this that I designed the machine
that I've discussed in former posts]. In the end, though, everything
had to be stated in terms of the functional neural Topology, with
tight correlation to all of the experimental results with which I
worked, and all tightly integrated - with no internal contradictions.
I found that working in this way was like solving a giant 3-D jigsaw
puzzle - local reifications 'whispered' to me about things peripjeral
to them in a 'spreading' way. When everything 'spread' into
everything else, I Knew I'd nailed it.
My rule was, if I observed it, I had to locate its sellspring and
dynamics within the neural Topology. This's the analog of the "video"
recording 'step' in the experimental design of the prior msg.
Because I =had to= I can do all of this in the ol' noggin' lab, but I
was simultaneously developing formalized the computer analysis
methods, which are what I refer to in the 3rd 'step' in the prior
I developed strong Maths and Computer-analysis techniques along the
way, which I use in myriad ways outside of my work in Neuroscience -
in my Physics [the Isotopes Analysis that's on my web page, and a
g'zillion other things in Physics], in my analyses of international
events, in my analyses of U. S. cultrual dynamics [as in Affirmative
action], in the analyses I perform on Stock Market data, etc.
In all of these analyses, the same rules which govern the
Neuroscience endeavor also govern whatever it is that I'm working on.
The method is quite robust, and I'd like to teach it, too.
I only posted the 'experimental design' because, since it seems that,
for whatever reason, folks'll not 'take my word for it', and since it
does look like I'm about to begin Dying, it's best that I formally
show folks how to do the same stuff themselves.
Of course, there's trememdous Waste inherent because all the work is
already accomplished, and the energy-flow inherent in replicating
what's already accomplished could, otherwise, be put to much better
Honestly, it's not been obvious to me that folks 'did not'
comprehend - all of this stuff has been in AoK all along.
Although it's discussed in AoK, I've come to understand the 'problem'
in Fullness. It is that grad students never =Master= Fundamental
stuff like the Neuroanatomy - they don't 'do battle' with it - they
just 'skim' it to get a grade, because it's, supposedly,
'old-fashioned' - so that they can move on to the 'modern' molecular
'way' - but, in Truth, the Fundamentals - right there in Carpenter
and Sutin - are almost everything.
'Skip' almost everything, and one ends up with almost nothing.
Today, I Grieve right to the core of my Being - it's a =Hard= way to
I still don't accept that I 'must' Die.
I still don't accept that I 'cannot' be allowed a place within the
Tradition of Science.
"Still it moves."
| The subjects won't even have to be 'sacrificed' because, as
| experience develops with this experimental approach, it will be
| realized that electrode-placement can be read directly from the
| synchronized data streams :-]
|| NDT of NDT ["Non-Destructive-Testing' of "Neuroscientific Duality
| Theory" :-]
|| Cheers, K. P. Collins