What's going-on in Neil's Experiment [was Re: Differential EEG]

[ken]

"ken" <kpaulc at earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:0GP4c.19569$%06.17207 at newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> [...]
> "ken" <kpaulc at earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:0vl4c.17026$%06.10590 at newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> > [...]
> > "ken" <kpaulc at earthlink.net> wrote in message
> > news:B7k4c.16747$%06.3303 at newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> > > "ken" <kpaulc at earthlink.net> wrote in message
> > > news:cJg4c.16577$%06.13651 at newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> > > > [...]
> > > [...]
> [...]

I've discussed Neil's experiment only at a
macrosciopic 'level', but, if Neil describes
the 'wave'-form precisely, to the degree of
such precision, I can discuss it at all scales
of the neural Topology, right into sub-ionic
'levels' [which I've already done in my prior
'nuclear spin' discussion].

Here, I'll provide another macroscopic an-
alogue, in the hope that it'll assist folks see-
ing.

Set up a piano wire that's driven in simple har-
monic motion by a vibrating-driver.

Now, stand at a distance with one of those
'bb-machine-guns' that folks shoot paper
targets with when they visit traveling car-
navals :-]

As you sweep the spray of bb's back and
forth across the vibrating piano wire, "ping",
"ping", "ping"... bb's will sporadically contact
the piano wire, and each such contact will im-
pose a bit of disorder within the piano wire's
harmonics, and, with each such imposition of
disorder, the tone emitted by the piano wire
will alter.

Although the 'wave'-form that sweeps-
through the brain in Neil's experiment is not(?)
pulsed, because it intersects the neural Top-
ology in a way that is not conformed-to the
neural Topology, its effect within the 3-D
energydynamics is analogous to the 'sporadi-
city' of the bbs' interaction with the vibrating-
piano wire.

Along an axon, for instance, the sweeping
'wave'-form will induce ionic-conductance
variations, which will alter the progression
of action potentials [which, superficially, is
'no big-deal', because the 'same' thing hap-
pens, routinely, within neuron<->glia inter-
action dynamics, but, in Neil's experimental
set-up, it is a Big-Deal, be-cause, while the
neuron-glia interaction dynamics 'know' and
'understand' the neural Topology, the ionic-
conductance-variations that are 'induced' by
the sweeping 'wave'-form are 'oblivious' to
the neural Topology - so the result of their
action is that action potentials 'flow' in a way
that's disordered relative to 'normal', TD E/I-
minimization-governed 3-D energydynamics.

Folks who've read AoK, Ap7 know that
PFCx 'normally' functions in ways that assert
disorder back upon the rest of the brain dur-
ing "meta-phase" highest-'level' information-
processing dynamics, and do so in ways that
are Functional with respect to long-term TD
E/I-minimization.

Folks who've read AoK, Ap8 know how
this impacts subjective-'time'.

It's not only action-potential 'flow' that's
sproadically-altered in Neil's experiment. The
disorder becomes 'magnified' to the degree
that ionic conductances are altered, be-cause
neuron->neuron<-neuron interactions will
shift-away from TD E/I-minimized 'states',
and this will impose disorder within cortical
and sub-cortical loop-circuits.

The Reason that there's the rotational-inver-
sion of the subjective-'time' observable is
as I've discussed. When dominant PFCx is
approached in one direction, the 'wave'-
form sweeps through it =without= it's having
swept-through non-dominant PFCx immed-
iately-prior. When it sweeps through non-
dominant PFCx first, the non-'executive'
nature of non-dominant PFCx 'passes-off'
the disordered activation to the rest of the
brain because it's too-distant from dom-
inant PFCx and the lower-'level' TD E/I-
minimization mechanisms [AoK, Ap5], and
because the disorder is induced in an out-
ward->in direction, which is just the opposite
of the 'normal' inward->out TD E/I-minimiz-
ation directionality.

This is the main Cause of the rotationally-
correlated difference in the observables.

That is, the main 'differential' derives in the
difference of the 'wave'-form's interaction
with respect to both dominant and non-dom-
inant PFCx - when non-dominant PFCx is
swept first, there's a building of disorder that
is set-up, and communicated to dominant PFCx
as dominant PFCx is swept-2nd, and which
will compound the imposition of disorder within
dominant PFCx.

But, with rotation in the dominant->non-dom-
inant-PFCx direction, because non-dominant
PFCx is not 'executive', although the build-up
still occurs, non-dominant PFCx 'handles' it
'quietly' [as far as subjective-'time' is concerned,
but there =must= be a correlated 'observable'
that has not yet been recognized - non-dominant
PFCx does not 'sit-there', 'without-purpose' -
gee, since the experiments were done, I would've
liked to have interviewed the subjects [I'm Keen
with respect to such 'normally'-'invisible' stuff
[forgive me, Please], but, since I now know that
the experiment does have lasting effects, I can't
participate - unless it's done only in-animals. It's
probably possible to 'tease'-out the non-dominant
PFCx correlates via other experimental-compound-
ing, but I'd have to do some reading of the current
PFCx Literature to be sure].

Anyway, the 'same' Analysis can be carried-
through at =all= scales.

Because the 'wave'-form is such a 'square-peg' in
in the all-a-roundness of TD E/I-minimization-with-
in-the-neural-Topology, Neil's experiment is Rich
with respect to NDT's position.

[I need to do some self-nurturing, so, if I'm not post-
ing anything for a while, that's what I'll be doing.
"Award"-seasons always 'rip-my-heart-out' because
of my Promise that was for-not, but which, neverthe-
less, must be Kept.]

ken [k. p. collins]