Of course, if one sticks-an-electrode into a neuron that's participating in a loop-circuit, it'll 'appear' that the neuron is 'oscillating'.
But it ain't.
It's 'just' participating in a loop-circuit, which'll become obvious if the experimental design is enhanced so that the role of the particular neuron, within a newly-converged-upon loop-circuit is different from its role in the prior loop-circuit, during a prior 'trial'.
:-)
individual neurons have extraordinary work to accomplish 'just' remaining ready for the 'call' from the TD E/I-minimization mechanisms, in the midst of their epidritic\protopathic activation 'onslaughts', and in rigorously encoding the activation that they experience within microscopic trophic modifications. this's a lot.
folks should stop tyring to 'stuff-the-whole-brain-into' individual neurons.
k. p. collins
Kenneth Collins wrote in message ...
>"Ron Blue" wrote in message <089e01c23339$ac568920$ce02030a at rblue>...
>>Hutcheon, B. and Yarom, Y. (2000). Resonance, oscillation and the
>intrinsic
>>frequency preferences of neurons. Trends in Neuroscience, vol 23, No.5,
>>216-222.
>>>i won't quote from the paper, mainly because i've little to say that's kind'
>to its stuff. folks who want read it can find it on the net. i found it by
>doing a Google on the complete title.
>>the paper contains occasional 'bridges' to physiological data, but it's is
>written from a simulation perspective, and its emphasis is on facilitation
>of such simulation. a worthy goal, but i found the article's discussion to
>be almost-completely 'disconnected' from biological nervous systems, which
>are the stuff correlated to my prior comments, in this thread, re'
>"oscillations".
>>the 'problem' is that the paper attributes too much decision-making power to
>properties intrinsic to discrete 'neurons', almost completely disregarding
>Global-Network architecture.
>>for instance, it claims that 'eigenfrequencies', more or less intrinsic to
>individual 'neurons', determine when, if, if not, a 'neuron' will
>communicate with other 'neurons'.
>>there is a parenthetical statement in which it's said that the
>'eigenfrequencies' can change, but no mechanism is provided with respect to
>such, and without such a mechanism, the information-processing capacity of a
>'network' comprised of such 'neurons' is extremely-limited, because, without
>a mechanism for varying the eigenfrequency, a 'network' of such 'neurons'
>can only exist as a =relatively= static entity. it's 'neurons' can only
>communicate when the "eigenfrequency's" 'bell' is rung
>>but, if a mechanism for varying the 'eignefrequencies' is incorporated, the
>'eigenfrequencies' cease existence, the allowed-to-vary thing becoming,
>instead, stuff that's determined at the level of the global network.
>>what about physiologically-occurring neuronal-spike variation?
>>can't such be termed "oscillation"?
>>Nope.
>>Why not?
>>because whatever appears to be 'oscillating' exists in the midst of
>continuous-variation-'pressure'. even when there's an appearance of this or
>that neuron "state's" being 'steady, it's being actively 'held'-there
>through the application of ionic-conductance force.
>>the 'problem' inherent in the paper, with respect to such
>physiologically-real ionic force, is that it's discussion resorts to
>'time'-coding of information, when information is encoded within the
>energy-flow in which the ionic force derives. no 'time', so no
>'time'-coding. [it's 'ok' in a simulation, but it just isn't-it with respect
>to physiologically-real nervous systems, 'cause there's no such thing as
>'time' in-there.]
>>as i said in my earlier post in this thread, in physiologically-real nervous
>systems, what has the appearance of "being 'oscillation'" is dynamically
>determined through the actions of the TD E/I-minimization mechanisms.
>>for instance, the "septal rythms [that] 'call cadence' for [the] alternation
>[of stochastic and specific inputs to the hippocampus], do not constitute an
>"oscillation", at least not in any rigorous sense, because the "rythm's"
>'state' is being continuously tuned.
>>the way that such continuous tunning-'pressure' gains it's existence occurs
>at the 'level' of the global network.
>>a simple example is with respect to the setting of the lengths of "loop
>circuits", which exist all over the place within the nervous system.
>>the frequency at which any "loop" will fire occurs as a function of its
>'momentary' loop-length.
>>in cortex, for instance, loop-lengths are converged-upon as a function of TD
>E/I-minimization-delimited injection of stochastic activation provided by
>"protopathic" projections to the cortex [from the reticular formation,
>intralaminar thalamic nuclei, thalamic reticular nuclei, etc. [further
>discussion in AoK, Ap3.]]
>>the stochastic activation is injected. the TD E/I-minimizations eliminate
>what's extraneous, under continuous feed-back from inputs from the
>environment, until convergence upon relatively-minimized loop-circuit
>lengths occurs.
>>everything taps-into such loop-circuits to gain it's tuning information.
>>for instance, loop-circuits that're converged-upon via TD E/I-minimization,
>as is briefly discussed above, determine the activation of the
>motor-pryamidal cells which, then empower the musculature in the
>manifestation of behavior.
>>everything that happens within the nervous system happens like this.
>>it's how, as i've discussed in msgs posted in other threads, everything is
>'translated' into directionalities within the One Internal Frame of
>Reference Geometry 'language', which 'translation' into a single
>directionality-'language', via TD E/I-mi[n]nimization, maps everything
>right-into WDB2T. the result being that all information is simultaneously
>available with respect to all other information, because it all exists in
>the one 'language'.
>>get-it?
>>the only 'time' in which this generalized-information-availability
>'disappears' is when, as i've discussed in other threads, system-outputs
>must be tuned with respect to manifesting specifically-directed external
>force.
>>but the loop-circuits are not 'oscillators', and their activation does not
>constitute 'oscillation'.
>>there're dynamically-tuned periodisities in the loop-circuits' activation,
>but there's nothing that's "oscillating".
>>what there are is dynamically-varying circuit-lengths.
>>such isn't 'oscillation', is it?
>>Nope.
>>all of this stuff has been in AoK all along, although i wanted to point
>folks to "loop circuits" in the ms., but was disappointed to find that there
>was no Index entry for "loop circuits", and i don't have the 'time' to
>reread Ap5, where i think "loop circuits" are discussed, within the
>discussion of the TD E/I-minimization mechanisms.
>>anyway, this global-network way is completely-Substantiated in the proven
>experimental results.
>>its information-processing capacity is Awesomely-Immense because
>=everything= within it is continuously tuned via TD E/I-minimization.
>>it's more of why i've been unable to locate any 'boundaries' with respect to
>the "brain's" [nervous system's] information-processing capacity.
>>there's a huge quantity of continuously-varying stuff in-there, but there're
>no "oscilations" in-there.
>>[unless one wants to call relay stuff 'oscillation', which, coming from a
>background in Physics, is a bit too-far-s-stretch for me. 'atoms'
>"oscillate". "loop-circuits", and all of their correlated neuronal dynamics,
>'get-in-line' and 'run-relays'. =huge= difference.]
>>something i found 'interesting' in the paper was it's 'side discussion' with
>respect to "multiplexing". i expect that the mechanism proposed doesn't
>occur within physiological nervous systems because, if it did, it would
>greatly-diminish nervous-system information-processing capacity [because
>only 'neurons' having the necessary intrinsic [but
>varying-without-a-mechanism to tune such variance] frequency could enter
>into loop-circuits. the way the brain does it suffers no such
>restrictedness.
>>anyway, if 'you' Pray, please Pray for folks in the Middle East. don't 'wait
>'til tomorrow.
>>k. p. collins
>>>>-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://iubio.bio.indiana.edu/bionet/mm/neur-sci/attachments/20020725/6a28717d/attachment.html
