regularity of spike series

k p Collins kpaulc at [----------]earthlink.net
Sun Jan 25 01:28:14 EST 2004


Hi Matthew,

"mat" <mats_trash at hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:43525ce3.0401240447.4bbbfab0 at posting.google.com...
> > It's completely non-sensical to 'analyze'
> > any 'spike train' without having, first,
> > done such preliminary neural-topological
> > analysis.
> >
>
> So how do I do it?

Caveat: While I used to read the Literature
pertaining to 'abnormal' conditions [such as
your simulated 'epillepsy'], I tended, strongly,
to focus upon learning 'normal' functionality.

This, because, once 'abnormality' is imposed,
to the degree of that, =everything= one is look-
ing at is rendered, commensurately, 'abnormal.

An abstraction of the problem.

We've all been in airports, train, or bus,
stations. These places are analogous to
the 'zones' from which data is recorded in
the neural case.

If one looks at the "arrivals and departures"
board, one is able to discern little about
the purposes of the travelers, but, in the
neural case, that is exactly what is neces-
sary to do.

That is, in the neural case, an impulse does-
n't just 'arive' at the recording 'zone'. It
arrives there with a purpose, and, if one is
to actually discern what's in one's recorded
data, one must work at the 'level' of the 'pur-
poses' of the activation that's been recorded.

The only way that this can be done is through
analysis of the global neural Topology.

Returning to the 'airport' analogy, one sees that
there are a lot of sub-dynamics that support
the purposes of the travelers. There are sub-
processes that pertain to baggage-handling,
sub-processes that pertain to flight-path-
transitions [to which the baggage-handling
sub-process is necessarily coupled], there
are airplane-fueling sub-processes. There are
airport-concession sub-processes. There are
sub-processes that pertain to airport-ground
destination transportation-extensions [taxis,
limos, busses, etc]. There are hotel, and other
housing sub-processes. There are business
or pleasure sub-processes. And so forth.

If one stands in the midst of all of these sub-
processes, in various 'states' of 'completion',
in the midst of an airport, without separating
them, one can discern very-little about the
purposes of the travelers. [It doesn't do to
'question' the travelers, because [as I dis-
cussed in another post, recently, folks can
just Lie - make-up disinformation with re-
spect to the actual purposes of their travel.]

This is roughly-analogous to the neural case
in which one just sees the data recorded
from a particular 'zone'.

But, if one =separates= the actions of the
travelers, with respect to their correlates
in all of the sub-processes, in doing so,
one can gain an understanding of the tra-
velers' purposes. So, since it's the only
way in which discerning the travelers'
purposes can, in fact, be discerned, the
first 'step' in analyzing airport 'zone' data
must be the separation of the data with
respect to sub-process.

In the neural case, one does this, simply,
but arduously, be cross-correlating data
with respect to its global ramifications.

This's the way I worked while developing
NDT.

I haven't done it since prior to 26 years ago.
It's straightforward, but 'arduous'.

Say you have a 'trace' that conforms to data
collected via an array of electrodes.

My first 'step' was to exhaustively search the
Literature for all known projections into, and
out of, the 'zone' that's recorded from, while
also [of course] studying the 3-D neural archi-
tecture of the 'zone' that's recorded from, in-
cluding any discussions of recorded data that
I come across with respect to these 'far-flung'
loci. My purpose, here, is to discern the
purpose of the activation that this or that 'zone'
is sending into the 'zone' that's been recorded-
from.

This work was on-going, and cumulative. It's
'arduous' because the relays have to be fol-
lowed globally. So any such effort is actually
a study of the globally-integrated neural Top-
ology - which is why such efforts are, neces-
sarily, cumulative. One learns the neural Top-
ology over a course of 'years'. [Doing so took
me 9 'years', during which I gradually accum-
ulated insights into how activation that occurs
in one 'zone' is 'coupled' to activation that oc-
curs in any other 'zone'.]

I'll demonstrate, if you, or anyone else, selects
a non-trivial subject paper for me to analyze.
[Please don't do such 'casually'. The work in-
volved is =arduous=, and will require me to
devote my attention to doing it completely,
which, if the work entailed will just be "ho-
hummed", will leave me 'devastated'. You
know - Respect the work entailed.]

The 'handle' that makes all of this doable is
the way that the globally-integrated neural
Topology is 'anchored' within the nervous
system's "internal frame of reference" [IFR].

The IFR simply maps directionalities with
respect to "be-acted-upon"/"act" in 'normal'
stimulus-response dynamics.

This means that, at any locus within the
nervous system. there is a relationship be-
tween the local neural structure and the IFR.

Discern this, and one, simultaneously [begins]
to discern the purposes of the neural sub-
processes that interact within the 'zone' that
has been recorded from.

This is one of the =main= things that I've been
discussing for more than a decade here in b.n
[and it's a major 'theme' in AoK, too].

Cross-correlate local neural structure to the
overal structure that's discernable within the
IFR. Because it's all literally Topology [which
is 'just' fancy Geometry], there is =always=
only one way that the local neural Topology
can fit into the IFR.

For instance, analyzing any thalamic nucleus'
inputs and outputs just leaves one scratching
one's head - because, although one can see
that there are reciprocal connections with
cortex, and one can see that this or that
cortical 'area' has to be involved in this or
that way, with respect to the IFR, one who
looks at just this or that thalmic nuclei and
it's cortical ramifications, cannot discern
the one way that the thalamic nucleus fits
into the IFR - so one knows that he must
look-elsewhere for other neural topology
that interacts with thalamus in a does, in
fact, establish a one-to-one correlation
between thalamus and the IFR.

This is exactly how I worked-out the fact
that the hippocampus is a "supersystem
configuration" mechanism with respect to
the extremely-robust thalam-cortical re-
ciprocal circuitry.

That is, the hippocampus' function is
necessary with respect to reducing the
ways in which thalamus can be mapped-
into the IFR.

Hippocampal function is a sub-process
with respect to the dynamic mapping of
thalamic activity to the IFR.

The 'point' in this extremely-over-simpli-
fied discussion is that, if one looks at data
recorded from either the thalamus or the
hippocampus, without cross-correlating
it to the functionality of the 'place' that
is not recorded from, one cannot discern
the purpose with respect to the IFR.

It's like one is standing in the airport trying
to 'guess' what the purposes of the travelers
are.

All I'm saying is that it's not necessary to
'guess' [in either case - are 'you' listening
Homeland Security?], if only one analyzes
the sub-processes.

One =cannot= see =anything= in data
that's recorded from any 'zone', and
looking at that data without also looking
at wide-ranging ramifications with respect
to it.

Always, always, always, the globally-int-
egrated neural Topology must be cross-
correlated to the data that is recorded, in
a way that converges upon a one-to-one
relationship between the recorded data
and the IFR.

[Aside:

But, in my experience, outside of my own
work, this has virtually never been the case.
[Remember, I stopped reading in Neuro-
science 26 'years' ago [because it was
already, then, too-'painful' for me to continue -
for reasons that I've =RELUCTANTLY=
discussed.]

And, I expect, it's still the case that no one
is doing it with respect to IFR - and what
'hurts' about that is that I 'sense' that no one
is doing it with respect to IFR 'because'
doing it that way would, necessarily,
reproduce NDT. What's Sorrowful is that
I see, in this, that, while folks've been 'bor-
rowing widely from NDT, folks 'cannot'
go all the way to NDT, because that'd
'spill the beans' with respect to what's
been going-on.

I'm in complete 'Horror' of this because
it 'means' that, because of what's transpired,
folks are forever(?) 'locked-out' of any
public reification of how and why nervous
systems process information via 'blindly'-
automated TD E/I-minimization.]

It's all straightforward, but arduous.

There was sufficient info already Published
=before= I started to work toward the
Formal development of NDT [1971].

If you've read this discussion, Matthew,
Thank You for doing so, and, if you have,
if there's anything that's unclear in it, please
'call me to task' with respect to whatever it
is.

Cheers, ken [k. p. collins]





More information about the Neur-sci mailing list