The topic is "acon collaterals", not "consciousness".
As far as "oscillations" are concerned, if you do
a Groups Google, you'll discover that, as I discussed
in my prevous reply, it stands proven that all of the
stuff to which you refer to as "oscillation" occurs as
non-information-containing artifacts of the golbal-
integration dynamics that I discussed in my previous
reply.
So I stand on what I posted.
So do you :-]
K. P. Collins
"Doktor DynaSoar" <targeting at OMCL.mil> wrote in message
news:rh06uv8enqnvje3aolh34eac9382lj6op9 at 4ax.com...
> On Fri, 19 Dec 2003 04:13:27 GMT, "k p Collins"
> <kpaulc@[----------]earthlink.net> wrote:
>> } "Doktor DynaSoar" <targeting at OMCL.mil> wrote in message
> } news:oue4uvsgfdqn37503bqc38f23ueh680b1p at 4ax.com...> } > On Thu, 18 Dec 2003 11:21:22 -0500, r norman <rsn_ at _comcast.net>
> } > wrote:
> } >
> } > } On Thu, 18 Dec 2003 12:49:39 GMT, "Glen M. Sizemore"
> } > } <gmsizemore2 at yahoo.com> wrote:
> } > } [...]
> }
> } > My money says the autapses are a tuning mechanism which makes the cell
> } > tend to fire at a certain rate in the absence of other input. Think of
> } > the "resting" oscillations of visual alpha, motor mu, auditory tau,
> } > etc. I think this would probably be most evident in the GABAergic
> } > interneurons that drive the 40 Hz "binding" (used here in the sense of
> } > functional Hebbian assemblies, not that of experiential gestalt).
> } > Something tunes them very tightly, and all the work trying to pin this
> } > on some characteristic inherent in the cell membrane has been
> } > unsatisfying.
> }
> } Complete tuning cannot occur at the cellular 'level' because that'd
> } render global integration [unified consciousness] 'impossible'.
>> As I said, I was speaking to activation of functional Hebbian
> assemblies, not experiential gestalt, which refers to both the binding
> of disparate perceptual and cognitive functions into a seeming unified
> whole, as well as the fuzzy wuzzy playground where philosophically
> inclined cognitive science wannabes collect and poke words at their
> favorite self-imposed conundrum that they call consciousness.
>> I canceled my charter subscription to the Journal of Consciousness
> Studies after vol. 3 #2, when they came out with an entire issue on
> "zombies" and not a one of them could tell me where I could get one to
> test in the laboratory.
>> You see, I stick wires in things. I'm a laboratory scientist. To date,
> no one has pointed at anything I could stick a wire into in order to
> measure the presence or lack of "consciousness". And to date, every
> "definition" of counsciousness (I put definition in quotes because a
> defnition should be a reduction in abstraction, and all exhortations
> of consciousness have been quite the opposite) has failed to encompass
> non-conscious actions of a conscious mind (para-attentional processes)
> and the effects on the conscious mind of information acquired
> non-consciously (learning under anesthesia).
>> I *can*, however, demonstrate intrinsic oscillatory activity in
> neurons, demonstrate that various cytoarchitectural populations have
> different intrinsic oscillation rates, and that they can vary their
> rates under different processing loads. Furthermore, I can make a darn
> good argument why the hypotheses regarding both membrane
> characteristics and neural network models are insufficient to explain
> the robustness of the state attractor for the various oscillatory
> processes.
>> } In other words, if it were so, then every neuron would have to
> } possess the ful functionality of the entire nervous system, which,
> } then, instantiates the larger 'problem' of explaining why more than
> } a single neuron is necessary.
>> Since it is so that such tuning occurs (keep in mind, I was suggesting
> autapses as a mechanism for it; the existence of the phenomenon is not
> in question), then obviously your assertion is incorrect. However, it
> becomes clearer and clearer you had no intention of even addressing
> it, but rather were merely looking for an opening for an entirely
> dissociated rant. To wit:
>> } [But, please Forgive me for pinning this essay to your post. It just
> } needed to be worked-in somewhere, and your post constituted
> } an opportunity to do that. I'm actually addressing my comments
> } to folks who've had access to a much larger discussion that's
> } occurred here in b.n over the course of the last decade+.]
>> You addressed your comments initially to mine, and you were wrong.
>> Here's something to wash down the above with: 40 Hz gamma
> synchronization occurs preceedingly processing by populations of
> cortical neurons. This is the electrophysiological signal so beloved
> by the JCS folks as candidate for "consciousness". Yet it seems to be
> one of the most evolutionarily ancient of neural processing signals.
> It occurs in nearly every multicellular processing assembly above the
> direct-connect ganglion level. It occurs in flies' eyes. It occurs in
> locusts' probiscus. And to quote my mentor, Karl Pribram, "It's going
> on in your butt right this second. You don't think your butt is
> conscious, do you?"
>