I have a question - CLARIFICATION

Kenneth Collins k.p.collins at worldnet.att.net
Thu Feb 20 05:29:36 EST 2003


CLARIFICATION below

"Kenneth 'pawl' Collins" <k.p.collins at worldnet.att.net> wrote in
message
news:CBQ4a.42020$rq4.3432736 at bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
| The visual system's response latencies vary from femto-seconds
| [10^-18s - chemoreceptors in the eye] to seconds [inclusive, or
| prolonged-'latencies'] within the visual cortex, as in easily
| observed chromatic after-effects.

"[inclusive, or prolonged-'latencies']" - by this, I was referring to
network 'reverberatory latencies', not response latencies of
individual neurons, and "latency" is probably the wrong term. I used
it to connote the "enduringness" of activation within the network of
neurons, which is not, to my understanding, the proper use of
"latency" - which I 'understand' as referring to "response delay". I
do this sort of thing quite often in my discussions because I'm
'self-educated', and I understand that it is one of the things that
makes the work I've doe 'difficult' [or humorous] to others who've
had the 'benefit' of a more 'coercive' refinement of nomenclature.
With this clarification, I stand on what I posted above.

| Within this range, there exists nothing like what your're looking
| for.
|
| If there were such, any organism that could 'time' it's attack with
| respect to such 'inherent frequency' would quickly become
universally
| dominant [which is what happened during evolution with respect to
the
| stuff of your question].
|
| In mamalian visual systems, there's a 'sliding' range of visual
| coordination in which images "overlay" and with respect to which
| 'attention' can be [selectively]-tuned via many different routes.

The following needs a =lot= of clarification. I realized, after
posting it, that the reality to which I was referring is vastly
dissimilar to what I posted.

| Back when I worked on older CRTs [early 1980s], I could actually
see
| all of this - the pixels showed a 'flowing-wave-like' 'winking'

The CRTs to which I referred were, then, state-of-the-art IBM[tm]
color 'dumb terminals' connected to a group of mainframes. The
"`winking`" to which I referred was not observed across the whole
CRT, but only in relatively-small portions of the CRT in which there
was some technical symbol displayed in reverse color [a symbol shown
in absence of activation upon an active, rectangular background].

I didn't point the phenomenon out to any of my coworkers, and now
wish that I had. [This was back just prior to my first attempts to
write a 'comprehensive' paper discussing what was to become NDT, and
I was still working mostly privately, telling only my Family and a
few close friends that I was doing the research - so I didn't discuss
such stuff as a matter of course during everyday affairs [except in
very-general ways with respect to why I couldn't 'hang out' with my
coworkers after-hours] - just took note of it and stuffed it into my
brain so it could be 'chewed-upon', along with millions [literally -
compounded, further, in permutating amongst the millions] of other
bits and pieces of information - it was my analysis with respect to
this non-prejudged, see-everything-that-I-could-see, info-'stuffing',
BTW, that, during the same 'time' frame [within a year] precipitated
my reification of the mechanism of volition as it's discussed in
AoK.]

| that obviously could not, in any way, be correlated to the CRT's
| refresh rate.

The phrase, immediately above, is where my prior post 'flew off the
handle'. I realized, after posting it, that, because I did not seek
independent confirmation, I could not justify my statement, quoted
above. It might not've been the characteristics of the CRT's
=scanning= that I was observing. It might've been some other
characteristic, inherent in the now-relatively-old CRT technology,
that I was observing.

The stuff I observed was roughly analogous to fluid-suspended
particulate "Brownian motion", and it clearly showed a collectiive,
wave-like 'coherence', which 'coherence' is what I was referring to
in my prior post - it's unlikely that the engineers who designed the
CRT had deliberately engineered-in the 'wave' dynamics that I
observed, so that interpretation was in my brain - I found the
phenomenon particularly fascinating and, therefore, in the "thinking"
'moments' during which I was not actively typing in computer code, I
routinely observed it. I recall my thought, "You'll understand
cortical functioning when you've explained it at the level of this
sort of wave-like flowing." And that's where my prior post lacked
sufficient clarity, as I'll discuss below.

| What I was looking at is the compound-'flowing' of activation
| within my own visual system - quite a delightful realization, which
| I've never seen mentioned in print, but which is of immense
| importance in the understanding of "vision", and, from there, to
the
| whole nervous system. [For those who have AoK, this stuff is
| incorporated in Ap6.]

I misspoke when I said the above. Because I failed to get independent
confirmation, I just cannot say. The reality was more like that I
'saw' the enormous power that analogous wave-like dynamics would have
with respect to understanding cortical function. I was prepared to
see this because I'd studied the "protopathic system's" [AoK, Ap 3,
4, 5, 6, 7, 8] injection of stochastic activation, which corresponded
to the "Brownian motion" characteristics of the CRT phenomenon.

So the reality was more like that I used the CRT phenomenon that I
observed as a 'model' which I explored, fruitfully integrating a
g'zillion other scraps of information garnered during my reading of
the Neuroscience experimental results, back then, at the UCON Medical
School Library, within the stuff that's discussed in AoK, and, in
particular, Ap6.

I wish I could go back and observe one of those old CRTs once again.

I Apologize for not stating things with sufficient clarity in my
prior post. [It was ancient history to me, and I had to 'reconfigure'
my nervous system, overnight, in order to carry my self back to it.]

K. P. Collins

|[,,,]

| "jakob ashtar" <bamsefarogkyllingen at mailer.dk> wrote in message
| news:3e42e735$0$2550$ba624c82 at nntp04.dk.telia.net...
| | the frequency i am talking about is the frequency in time as
| | in how many "images" the brain is able to process and interpret
per
| second..
| |
| | the reason for my question is that if the human brain
| | processes and interprets images perceived thru
| | the human eye at a certain time-frequency, then
| | the "reality" observed by this eye might look
| | different if the brain operated at another frequency...
| |
| | example:
| |
| | if an object rotates around an observer at a certain frequency
and
| this
| | observer always looks in the
| | same direction, then the observer will either see no object or he
| will see
| | the object standing still in mid air...
| |
| | or am I wrong?
| |
| | the point im trying to make is that the "reality" we observe
| | depends on the frequency at which our brain is able
| | to process and interpret the input we get thru our
| | senses...
| |
| | this leads to the idea that the "reality" can have many
| | forms and the one reality that we as humans see might
| | be just one out of many realities...
| |
| | sincerely
| |
| | jakob
| |
| | ---------------
| | the observer
| | "Dag Stenberg" <dag.stenberg at nospam.helsinki.fi.invalid> wrote in
| message
| | news:b1unds$e1e$1 at oravannahka.helsinki.fi...
| | > "smølf" <bamsefarogkyllingen at mailer.dk> wrote:
| | > > Does the human brain interpret and process visual input
| | > > at a certain frequency?
| | > >
| | > > How is this frequency measured?
| | >
| | >
| | > "Frequency" can mean different things. There is frequency in
| time,
| | > angular frequency etc. Please specify your question.
| | >
| | > Dag Stenberg
| |
| |
|
|





More information about the Neur-sci mailing list