nm_fournier at ns.sympatico.ca
Wed Mar 10 01:19:14 EST 2004
> With large-diameter axons, all of this procedes
> in a 'burning-fuse' way that constitutes 'ramped'-
> consistency that can be discerned within the other
> activation that does not have commensurate
> large-fiber [long-fiber] 'ramping'.
> It's just a data-filtering problem that is completely-
> defined in the 'ramps' [the 'differentials'].
> I thought that, when you said you didn't see any-
> thing new in what I'd discussed, that you were
> saying that this large-fiber 'differential'-followning
> was 'already being done'.
Yes with respect to measuring these fibers contribution at the level of
cortex it has been done. This has been shown since the 1970's. These
somatosensory evoked potentials have been recorded and the differentiation
between large and small diameter fibers have been done. Katz has done a lot
of work on this subject. The problem is the resolution. Until you invent a
better method for recording these potentials, the resolution will still
> So, since it's flat-out doable, there's obviously
> this benefit in the stuff I've discussed.
> And this method can be greatly [and easily] re-
> fined] to enable the 'seeing' of progressively-
> smaller action-potentials.
I agree, totally with you. The problem is that the technology has not been
yet invented. That is what I meant by "magical world". These interesting
theories will remain theory with little empirical backbone until
instrumentation can actually observe the phenonmena at the proper
resolution. Evoked potentials can give interesting data regarding the
dynamics and time-course of changes in neuronal activity associated with
cognitive processes; however, the spatial localiation is relatively poor and
is limited to the built-in physics of the equipment. Moreover, techniques
that use fMRI combined with ERPs provide significant insight regarding both
the dynamic and localization of these signals, the problem is that the
sample rates are quite different between these two instruments (EEG vs.
fMRI). Thus, these approaches are all limited.
> And it can be used to 'range', at will, to focus
> within 'the depths' of the neural Topology.
> I really can see no end to what can be done
> with it - and some Work, and some patience,
> and some endurance.
> You've 'rejected' without actually understanding
> it - probably because you're doing the Maths-
> preservation stuff that I discussed in my prior
> post, instead of using Maths to allow you to
Well you need to give us the mathematical proofs. I am by no means an
expert in this area of research. However, I have many colleagues who work
in this field and I've seen there data and I have seen there mathematical
approaches. They are more convincing at the moment.
> You're losing-me, Neil. There's no 'magic' in any-
> thing that I've been discussing. It's all 'just' the
> "nonlinearity of perspective" stuff that's been dis-
> cussed in AoK, Ap6 all along, applied to EEG
> data analysis.
Ken, it's "magical" until the data and results are shown. Unless you have
analysed data in these chapters and applied mathematical and statistical
measures, then it will remain in the area of theory. End of discussion.
Sorry. You will never convince me otherwise. Oh well.
> > The issue is that this doesn't validate anything
> > you have been previously saying. If a complete
> > paradigm shift and technological revolution is
> > required in order for your theory to be acceptable
> > then fine. But basing such arguments on "what
> > if's" doens't make them verifiable, nor do they
> > make them false. They just remain as interesting
> > ideas for arm chair thinking and the occassional pub
> > discussion.
> Are you Serious? :-]
Yes. It's like quantum mechanical approaches to brain function. They are
interesting to read and think about, but at the end of the day what has it
provided? Generally nothing. When the theories can be measured, then
reliability and accuracy can be assessed. Otherwise, there really is no way
to verify the validity of such approaches.
> If it's 'ambiguous', all you have to do is use AoK
> as a guide while studying in a Good Neuroanatomy
AoK is not provided anywhere for access.
> > I don't agree that every single neuron will be mapped
> > regarding one specific directional mapping within
> > neurotopology. The problem with this, at least in my
> > opinion, is that theoretically the loss of a single unit (if i
> > n an appropriate or critical location) can cause the
> > potential break down in the organization and function-
> > ality of the remaining aggregates.
> Your "opinion" has zero correlation to anything that
> I've discussed, or to the detailed Neuroanatomy.
This isn't my opinion. You stated earlier, "directionality mapping". It
was unclear what you meant with respect to neuronal aggregates. Are these
specific maps that are statically set. (Your comment below says, "No". My
comment was a clarification question and is now irrelevant). If so, it
contradicts histomorphological data and results ascertained through
multifocal lesioning approaches. I suggest you read my comment in the entire
> > Furthermore, what will be mapped within the topology
> > will be at any given moment will be influenced by the
> > activity of all the aggregates within the brain space at
> > that single moment in time. I don't think the directionally
> > mapping is fixated or static, but would rather be dynamic.
> > (I may misunderstand what you are saying; however,
> > this is what the data suggests and what my own work
> > seems to verify).
> The neural Topology is dynamic, within 'time'-correlated
> intervals - from 'instantaneous', all the way up to the massive
> plasticity that's observed in the "phantom limb" phenomenon.
Then what we are saying is not different in the slightest. Read the
paragraph before you comment. My confusion was from your statements. What
I stated above is exactly what you just stated. Both aspects are dynamic
and the emergence of such aggregate conditions would be correlated with the
on-going activity at the moment the measurement is made. Obviously these
conditions are influenced by both intrinsic and extrinsic factors (my data
shows this. Your theory may state otherwise. It can. But to employ one of
your common sayings, "I stand on what I posted" :)
> But, during a 'typical' EEG 'interval', it's relatively static.
> There's relatively-little trophic stuff happening in-there.
I would suggest looking at an EEG output. It isn't really that static.
> What is dynamic in the 'typical' EEG 'interval' is the
> 'momentary' "supersystem configuration" [AoK, Ap5,
> which, as I've commented in a prior post with respect
> to "stage II 'spindling'", is the stuff that got me started
> discussing the "simultaneoys differential EEG" stuff that
> I've been discussing - be-cause it's obvious to me that
> the "stage II 'spindling'" is probably correlated to "super-
> system configuration" dynamics that actually occur in
> 3-D - and, since I'd Love to see them in 3-D, I'm telling
> folks how to go about seeing them in 3-D.]
I agree with you.
> > Well I don't know what to say. Until I see your own
> > mathematical approach, I will remain skeptical.
> You've 'seen' it without Seeing it. I described it
Ken, the rest of the scientific community is used to seeing things presented
a specific way. With clear quantitative assessement of the phenomena.
Perhaps you think the method is wrong, but it works. Perhaps you have a
theory that explains nervous system functionality but you have know clue how
to mathematically verify it. That's perfectly fine and many breakthrough
concepts and ideas have had similar histories.
> > >
> > > I don't know what, if anything, it'd yield, but I'd
> > > also like to investigate using electrodes that're
> > > suspended at distances separating them from
> > > the brain. I'd want to look for another usable
> > > energy-gradient - another 'ramp' - another 'dif-
> > > ferential'. Superficially, it'd be even more 'foggy',
> > > but that's just-it - a relative-'fog' 'differential' is
> > > Useful in sorting-out what's 'foggy', but less-
> > > 'foggy'.
> When I was writing the 'disappeared' msg, I was
> going to discuss another type of electrode - one
> that would, itself, move in periodic motion - like
> "sacades" in the visual system, which, as is discus-
> sed in AoK, Ap6, would =greatly= enhance SDEEG's
> 'differential' analysis [of course, requiring the 'over-
> head' of keeping track of the relative motions of
> the moving electrodes]. This's relatively-easy to
> do, BTW, once a moving-electrode design is imp-
> limented. [Fringe benefit: This moving-electrode
> EEG would feed-back into vision Research, Usefully.]
Moving electrodes. No!!!!! (Do you mean actually moving electrodes??? Like
physically within space, or moving with specific reference to the activation
of recording from stationary electrodes. Big difference. If they are
physically moving, then sorry, "No." The noise would be much greater than
> > Interesting concept. The data has suggested that
> > the time-varying magnetic fields generated by the
> > brain that are most important in mediating processes
> > involved with consciousness
> Gees 'louise'! Where'd you get that? It's B. S.
> If it were so, one couldn't walk across the ground
> while being Conscious - Earth's 'magnetic' field
> would completely overwhelm the tiny 'magnetic'
> fields that occur in the brain.
HAHAHA. Well i'm not saying that you would become unconscious. Hence I can
see your concern with the suggestion. However, walking through a high
intensity magnetic field can actually evoke magnetophosphenes due to direct
current induction within horizontal cells of the retina. That has been shown
since the 19th century. However, depending on the intensity of the
electromagnetic field and the proximity, direct current induction can cause
unconsciousness if it is of course a considerable load. This is part of
the basis underlying electroanaethesia, where direct coerced reversal of the
polarity of the brain induces sleep and unconsciousness (see Leduc's famous
experiments on this subject).
The Earth's magnetic field has both a steady state and time-varying
component. (Moreover the intensity of the field is very weak. However,
intensity is really not that big of a critical parameter for interaction
between biogenic processes and electromagnetic fields. For example,
picotelsa intensity pulsed magnetic fields have been shown to mediate
salient biological effects). The time-varying component actually resemebles
the frequency range that is in the same range as the brain. Moreover, there
is something called Schumann resonance, which is generated within the and
through the earth's atmosphere, lithosphere, and ionosphere. The centroid
peak frequency for the fundamental Schumann resonance is approximately 7.8
Hz. The occurence of narrow variations within frequenies around 7.8 Hz
within the earth's spherical wave guide suggests that interaction between
the brains and the geophysical environment are quite possible. (However,
the connection between Schumann resonance and the human
electroencephalographic recordings may be entirely spurious. There has been
continually suggestion that because of one the peak harmonics from the
Schumann resonance is roughly 13 Hz and the fact that endogeneous thalamic
pacemakers oscillate at 13 Hz when no sensory activity is being processed,
then a connection between time-varying component of the earth's magnetic
field and the human brain and physiology is possible. This has been one
theory regarding the potential mechanism underlying the interaction between
the earth's geomagnetic field and biological systems. (There are others).
Moreover, Cole and Graf have suggested an interesting connection between
pulsed electromagnetic fields (around 13 Hz) occuring during Precambrian
Earth and abiogenesis. They have verified many of there hypotheses under
There is considerable evidence showing that geophysical variables and
factors can interact with complex neurohormonal, neurochemical and
neurophysiological processes (you can consult the over fifty years of data
on this subject). Considering that the temporal substrate underlying
consciousness is essentially recreated every 20 msec to 25 msec (based on
the influential work of Llinas and Ribary) and the continual suggestion that
the prominent 40 Hz range may be an important binding substrate of
intracortical activity, then this time window duration (20-25 msec) makes
perfect sense. (i.e. 1/40 = 25 msec).
One of the interesting caveats with above evidence for prominent Schumann
resonance around 7.8 Hz, is that if you calculate first-order, second-order,
third order, and forth-order (lag) differences for the entire range of 1 Hz
to 60 Hz (the major prominent frequency range of the human EEG), then
additional frequency windows can act as additional substrates underlying
consciousness. The time window between 6.5 and 8.5 Hz can also qualify as
potential binding factors that may underlie consciousness. This was shown
earlier by a compelling paper by Michael Persinger. Moreover, my own
calculations have shown that differentiated thalamic input to various layers
of the neocortex within a single cortical column, if the timing occurs at
the same time as the endogeneous reverberation within a cortical column
occurs, time bins completely identical to the calculations by Persinger is
found. Two windows appear that verify the literature suggesting thalamic
activity mediated through the intralaminar structures can elicit the
temporal binding underlying conscious processes. These findings suggest
that cortical activity has an unusual electrical property for generating
time windows that are important for cortical binding. (Not a very unusual
process all that much. However, most people ignore that the additional
temporal substrates can theoretically serve as additional binding
Considering that pulsed magnetic fields within this range (6-8 Hz) can be
found within the environment (because of the complex electronic gadgetry
found within our environment), the possibility of such interactions is
possible. (Of course aspects like sensitivity are important. The
phenonmenon would be, like most phenonema, Gaussian in its shape). So I
completely disagree with your suggestion that environmental interaction
between electromagnetic phenomena and neurogenic processes cannot occur.
Moreover, your refusal that time-varying electromagnetic fields are not
important in mediating complex cognitive processes, like consciousness, is
just wrong. You can interfere with these processes using weak, complex
electromagnetic fields as well as with high intensity electromagnetic
fields. (There has been over thirty years of research in this area).
More information about the Neur-sci