I discussed what I'll discuss in this post years ago, but it didn't
seem to 'ring any bells, so I want to give it another try now.
One fun thinking-'exercise' that I've found useful with respect to
this thread's stuff [and the stuff I've been discussing in the
"reversal potential" thread] is to 'view TV' through one of thsse
'wavy-glass' 'bricks' with which folks construct walls that allow
light to pass through while retaining some privacy because the
'bricks'' 'waviness' crazily-refracts [lenses] the paths if light
that passes through the 'bricks'.
When one looks at stuff through such a wavy-glass 'brick', one sees
the 'same' image repeated in many stretched and distorted ways.
This is somewhat analogous to one 'instant' within the brain - as the
TD E/I-minimization mechanisms take sensory inputs and distribute
them within the brain, as necessary, with respect to achieving global
Wiggle the 'brick' a little, and what one sees is somewhat analogous
to looking into the 3-D energydynamics at various loci within the
brain - and some dynamicism that's somewhat analogous to the
dynamicism inherent in the 3-D energydynamics.
'Viewing V' through such a 'brick' adds some input dynamicism.
It's =just= a thinking-'exercise'. I'm not saying that the brain is
'like a wavy-glass brick'.
I'm saying that this thinking-'exercise' does help in getting a
handle on the stuff I've been discussing in the "reversal potential"
thread, and with respect to the stuff I've discussed in former posts,
and in Didier's comments, quoted below.
Folks who want to try this thinking-'exercise' can purchase a
wavy-glass 'brick' at their local building-supply outlets.
Then play with it, and go further with respect to seeing how the 3-D
energydynamics occur within the neural Topology of nervous systems in
your own good noggin' labs :-]
[To do it well, one, of course, has to know the Neuroanatomy. Then
one can just morph the wavy-glass 'brick's refractory dynamicism
right into the functional Neuroanatomy.
When one gets 'hot' into this stuff, one can see how to implement a
lsimulated-ight-'computer', without bothering with lasers and such -
just have to dynamically 'lens' simulated-light in accord with TD
E/I-minimization to direct the simulated-light's intensity in accord
with 'appropriate' effector-activation intensities. 'Course, to do it
effectively, you have to turn the light 'outside-in, upside-down, and
backward' in accord with the "special topological homeomorphism of
central nervous systems" [in order to maintain external-internal
directionality synergy; AoK, "Short Paper", Ap3, 5, 6 & 7], but, by
now, we all know how to do that, right?
Start with simple simulated dynamic-lens set-ups, and add necessary
complexity as you go.
This's =literally= how the brain does it - sans 'simulation'.
There's no 'little man in-there watching a viewing screen'.
When we experience 'vision' [audition, etc.], we are =literally=
experiencing the ambient external 3-D energy and its dynamics. All of
the neural architecture that's correlated to 'vision' ['audition',
etc.] is in-there =just= to 'grasp' the ambient external energy-flow,
turn it 'outside-in, upside-down, and backward', and achieve TD
E/I-minimization with respect to it.
We =don't= 'see' "in" the brain. The brain 'just' 'grasps' the
ambient external energy-flow - the 'image' actually exists =only=
externally. All that happens internally is our 'response' to the
external 3-D energydynamics as such is 'merged' with formerly
conctructed "biological mass" ["biological mass" is =literally=
For instance, the rods' color selectivities and the cones' greyscale
responses are =just= energy-'grasping' implementations - the images
that we 'see' are =not= 'in our brains'. The images that we 'see'
are, literally, where they are in the external energy-flow.
This's the Solution to what I think(?) is referred to "the hard
problem", or "the binding problem", or something like that.
The "neural Topology" is =literally= 'just' energy. The "neural
architecture" comprises the dynamic 'lenses' that 'grasp' the 3-D
energydynamics and 'steer' it [turning them 'outside-in, upside-down,
and backward'] in rigorous accord with the simple TD E/I-minimization
Brains are 'just' wonderful engines of energy-refraction.
The only non-trivial part of a simulated-light-'computer' is that,
its 'lenses' must alter in rigorous accord with the energy that
passes-through them as such is governed by TD E/I-minimization.
Lenses simulated within conventional digital computers 'easily'
accomplish all of this.
Just have to alter index of refraction 'appropriately' [with respect
to globally-integrated TD E/I-minimization.
The 'blueprint' for this sort of 'computer' has been in AoK all
And in the stuff of every =Good= Neuroanatomy Text that I've ever
studied. To see it, one needs a copy of AoK to study while one
studies the Neuroanatomy Text.
I'll be happy to show folks who want to build a
simulated-light-'computer' how to do so [as a Consultant - gotta feed
and shelter myself somehow - I'd rather do it in a University
setting, though - a place that understands my propensity for
And I'd rather just continue doing Neuroscience.
K. P. Collins
| We are finding out that a good part of the brain
| (by which I assume you mean cortex) is
| multisensory. People tend to call an area visual
| if they record from it and find responses to visual
| stimuli, but typically, recordings are hard enough
| and money scarce enough (and experiments
| complex enough) that rarely does one lab study
| an area with respect to different modalities
| (visual, somatosensory, vestibular, auditory, etc).
| So using the above number you mention, 50% of
| the brain is visual, 50% is auditory, 50% is motor,
| 50 % is somatosensory, and about 90% is vestibular.
"Schmitd! Schmitd! Ve vill build a Shapel!"