there was an article in the "Science Times" section of todays' _New York
Times_, "New Way Of Looking At Diseases Of the Brain", reported by S.
Blakeslee, pD1.
the article reports on work being presented at SFN meeting in Florida... work
done by R. Liinas, NYU Medical School, with respect to how 'simple'
electrode-implantation within thalamus can 'fix' (my term) various 'disease'
conditions.
this's NQI ('not quite it').
all that can be done via such simple electrode implantation (which is not a
necessarily unuseful thing) is to artificially create internal 'noise' that's
topologically-distributed, specifically.
what 'normally' occurs within thalamus is =not= the sort of 'type I
synchronization' (like soldiers marching; see AoK, Ap5) that's referred to in
the _NYT_ article, but 'type II synchronization' (like gears in a clock; ibid).
because the 'activation' that they impart to the supersystem does not recreate
the details of the 'type II' synchronization that 'normally' occurs, all the
electrode activation amounts to, at the level of cortex', is 'just' more
'stochastic' activation, in addition to that which is 'normally' generated by
the 'Reticular System' (AoK, Ap3, Ap5).
if there actually is any 'amelioration' (my term) of the symptoms of 'disease'
conditions, it's be-cause this artificially-introduced 'stochastic' activation
provides a cortical TD E/I(up) 'background' that enables the TD
E/I-minimization
mechanisms to 'whittle' (AoK, Ap5) the overall activation 'state' down in ways
that, because of the
'disease' condition, they could not do.
with regard to such 'whittling', if it's the case that there are thalamic
lesions, then it's the case that this TD E/I-minimization 'whittling' probably
occurs via a route that's somewhat-longer than is 'normally' the case, because
it can only occur via other, fully-functional, neural architecture, that
'extends' its functionality with respect to the TD E/I(up) inherent in the
artificially generated 'stochastic' activation. this should be detectable in
sensitive before-and-after implant EEGs and other scans, =and= behaviorally,
relative to the behavior of 'normal', non-lesioned, subjects.
this approach to understanding is quite-different from the approach that's
described in the _NYT_ article.
which is =not= to say that the implantation technique is not useful...
anything, otherwise ethical,
that shows promise must be explored.
it's 'just' to say that the analysis reported in the _NYT_ article is wrong,
and needs to be ammended in the article submitted for publication in the
_Proceedings of the National Academy_.
K. P. Collins
[BTW, Liinas is one of my Heroes, so don't read anything 'untoward' into the
stuff of this msg. it's 'just' that a Scientist must do Science. that's what
i've done, here, in the only way that's open to me. (in an earlier version of
this msg, i included an additional 'deliberately'-derrogatory comment. i do
this because, when i'm 'hurting', it's the only way i can keep my resolve to
Guard Free Will... to just allow folks to do whatever it is that they will do,
while preserving my ability to just do what needs to be done. i'm =always=
Wrong when i when such becomes deliberately-hurtful. I Apologize. but put your
index finger a smidgeon away from your thumb... that's how close i am to being
'out on the street. things 'get-intense' when i see that so much could be lost
so recklessly. and i'm left 'wondering' if i'm to spend more decades 'out in
the cold'... that 'gets my attention', and i 'gear-up' for all it entails. my
Survival depends upon my doing so successfully. it's my view that folks should
understand all of this by now.) KPC]
