"groan..."
mat wrote in message
<43525ce3.0208060308.6b5c6b62 at posting.google.com>...
>> As in "Oscillations"?
>>well I couldn't resist the opportunity.
>>You claim that you succesfully wiped the test to your theory posed
in
>my question about oscillations (even though it was not intended as
>such - I actually wanted someone to explain it to me - thanks Matt
>Jones)
>>However in your reply there are some true gems which highlight your
>total lack of understanding
>>>e.g. 1:
>> what gives the appearance of there being 'oscillations' are
>> fleetingly-dynamic actions of the TD E/I-minimization mechanisms
[see AoK,
>> and the refs cited in AoK]
>>right, so you eliminate any apparent contradictions between your
>theory and experiment by just dismissing the conclusion of the guy
who
>actually did the work. very 'scientific'.
the conclusions drawn by the researchers are False.
What do you want me to say?
>>e.g. 2
>> think about it. would you want some 'crystal'-controlled frequency
in-there
>> while you were trying to think a 'point' through?
>>> "hmmmmmm..."
>>> "bzzzzzzzzzz..."
>>> Nope.
>>this is a real nugget! you are suggesting that if oscillations did
>occur they would be annoying becuase they buzzed and hummed??
what i was actually addressing is that, to the degree that there's
'steady-state' stuff in-there, such'd controvert the possibility of
information-processing.
One of the reasons why Von Neumann architectured-computers are
flat-out Dumb, relative to nervous systems, is that they invoke
'steady-state' stuff in a way that predetermines everything that the
computers can do.
>oscillations would not be a distraction to thinking, they would BE
>thinking!
You 'think'? :-)
> If oscillation is the fundamental operation of neural
>circuits it wouldn't interfere with functions such as cognition
>becuase it would be those very operations that gave rise to higher
>function.
If a ball is blue, then a ball is blue, but does the ball bounce?
>Its as dumb as saying I can see atoms, when the very
>apparatus (eyes/brain) that allows me to see is also made up of
atoms.
> Its worse than wrong.
I Agree - worst than Wrong.
It's not the eyes that See, See?
>>Anyway, why should what you/I/anyone want make a difference? I
don't
>want to have eyes only in the front of my head, doesn't mean I've
got
>them in the back too.
I'd tell you to 'give-up', but, instead, I'll challenge you to find
anything in AoK that doesn't reduce to the proven experimental
results.
Now, I'll tell you to give-up, 'cause there's non-such.
In other words, I don't say what I 'want'.
I say only what derives in experiment.
It's not a 'trap', but it's clear that you don't yet get-it, so have
a go at it.
BTW, it's a fact of existence on opposite 'sides' of the ZOR - to the
degree that they actually interact, folks're either achieving
"finitizing" [AoK, Ap4] via 'moving toward' or "finitizing" via
'moving away from' what's often relatively the Same-Stuff - TD
E/I-minimization.
So, I suggest you ponder the short discussion in AoK, Ap10, that
discusses how 'moving away from' NDT before NDT is comprehended
substantiates NDT.
>>>> >Where you do make suggestions about cells you state
>> >that one single mechanism is responsible for the whole diversity
of
>> >brain function.
>>>> Yup, I do. It's 'just' that you've never 'bothered' to come to
terms
>> with what's in "TD" "topologically-distributed".
>>>> Energy-flow is, itself, topologically-distributed.
>>Do you actually know what topology means?
Yup. And there's currently a paper offered, here in
bionet.neuroscience that discusses it with respect to dendritic
trees. [It's 'funny how that happens :-]
>>>> The directedness, inherent, constitutes the information that
enables
>> neurons to 'know' how and why to undergo microscopic trophic
>> modification with specific respect to neural activation that
actually
>> occurs, thereby, by-producing "biological mass" which,
subsequently,
>> exerts physically-real inertia within neuronal
information-processing
>> dynamics.
>>>>what are these trophic changes?
You mean, 'What is Neurophysiology'?
> it might be something verifiable by
>experiment but I guess you're somehow going to get out of stating
>anything concrete as always
As far as I'm concerned, the discussion of "microscopic trophic
modification" in AoK is sufficient. The purpose of AoK is to be an
integrative-guide with respect to what's in the Literature, not to
'say it all'.
But the stuff discussed in AoK holds all the way down to the 'level'
of ionic conductances.
>> >You claim the natural tendency of neural tissue is to
>> >minimize excitation, whereas in fact quite the opposite is true
(see
>> >the work of Traub et al.).
>>>> I'll look it up.
>>>> But expect it's just be another "Oscillations"-type
>> denouement.
> lol
>>Actually its to do with epilepsy, when the proclivity of cortical
>circuits to excitation due to richly interconnected pyramidal cells
is
>revealed. Annals of Neurology (2000)
Way to go!
Cite malfunction and call it 'function' :-]
>> It's all discussed in AoK, If it were the case that excitation
were
>> not relatively-minimized, then, for instance, instead of striking
a
>> particular key, as one types this or that verbal symbol, if one's
>> hands got near the keyboard, which would be improbable, one's
fingers
>> would strike keys in a relatively-random order, producing only
>> 'garbage'. [There's a lead-in for you :-]
>>What?? this is absolute gibberish.
Nope.
>how do you know this? experimental data?
Yup.
See Salthouse, T. A., "The Skill of Typing", Scientific American, vol
250, # 2, Feb., 1984, p128.
I wrote to the Author, providing him with enhancements to his
experimental design, and making predictions with respect to the
results that the enhanced design would yield. . I think he called,
but hung up when I answered the phone, "Ken's computer Center". [I'd
just gotten my first computer, and the Joy of having achieved a crude
implementation of Information Calculus just happened to be, then, "my
cup runneth over" stuff :-]
The enhancements entailed butting orthadontal rubber-bands around the
fingers in a way that would alter tendon-force.
This abrupt departure from what's 'normal' induces relatively-novel
activation to the Golgi tendon apparatus, which would result in the
occurrence of TD E/I(up) at higher-'levels', which would be
detectable in the 'time'-courses of the TD E/I-minimization inherent
in the act of typing, which 'time'-courses would be observable, along
with correlated error-counts, relative to the pre- and
post-enhancement experimental designs.
And, if you can't find that ref, just look at the Same-Stuff as it
exists within my own typing, with respect to correlates of
sleep-deprivation [which can be calculated from my msgs posting
'times'].
tiredness(up)-->typos(up) :-]
See, the thing is, mat, Experiment Exists everywhere.
One cannot breathe without doing Experiment.
'course, most-often, all such 'just' gets tossed-out because folks're
busy Caring for their Families, paying their mortgages, etc.
So I do this stuff for folks.
Which seems to 'piss-you-off', which, as far as I'm concerned, is
'two'-mean-spirited-to-take-seriously.
>you've injected glutamate into the motor cortex
>and seen the effect on typing?!?
No, but I've read the reports written by those who have.
The kainic acid stuff I've discussed here in bionet.neuroscience is
correlated.
I don't have a Lab-lab.
I've just got a Noggin'-lab.
I do what can be done, using it, to knit-together the work of the
Experimentalists.
>just supposition after supposition.
Again, get thee before a mirror with your saying :-]
>How is any motor action to occur without excitation?
How is it that you can get such out of what's in TD E/I-minimization
as it's discussed in AoK?
Don't have AoK?
I went over the cruxt of it in my last reply to you.
How can you get such out of what's in my last reply to you, which was
'snipped' out of this reply of yours?
If one doesn't like it, 'snip-it'? :-]
> not only do you
>dismiss data/conclusions that do not suit you, you provide no
evidence
>of your own or anyone else's in favour of your ideas.
No, that's what you do, mat.
I've been fairly begging that you select something from experiment
through which to challenge NDT.
I got some articles in the Library yesterday, and I'm going to
discuss their stuff.
So you can just sit-back, and 'relax'.
I'll do a bit of what's necessary for you.
>>>> Doesn't come much-more 'humble' than that.
Here, you've unethically stripped the grabbing-TSEOTS context.
>>did you or did you not say you had made the most important discovery
>in the history of science?
NDT's reification of the phenomenon of decussation is the
most-significant result that's ever been produced by Science.
It 'unlocks' the 'brain'.
The "brain's" being 'unlocked' Transforms all things 'human',
enabling the Human-ness that's been in-there all along.
It also Transforms all of Science, and even all of Maths, because it
'unlocks', and discloses, how Maths happens.
So, yeah, but if you care to know, the fact that it does is just more
'groaning'-stuff to me.
Thrusts me into 'grist-mills' such as yours, when all I'm doing is
doing what needs to be done.
><snip a load of self pity>
You've gone-balistically-ad-hominem.
I've got about a 'week' left befor I'll have to log-off.
Are you determined to impose yourself within such to the degree that
the whole 'week' is taken from me?
What good would such accomplish?
k. p. collins
