Man! Things're "scrolling" off the board
fast!
In the "Fluff-er-nutters" portion of a
thread that's scrolled off the board, I
made a 'mis-take' with respect to
"synchronization".
It was a post by Matt Jones:
"jonesmat" <jonesmat at physiology.wisc.edu> wrote in message
news:1103226712.771340.126240 at f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
that caused me to realize that I'd Erred.
Thanks, Matt. What triggered my realiz-
ation was a reference you made to "osc-
illations".
In my 'mis-taken' post, I'd gotten stuck
in a 'tweener' that erroneously 'merged'
"synchronization" and "oscillation".
Here's the specific stuff [from the
"Fluff-er-nutters" portion of the thread
that's scrolled, which was posted Sunday,
December 05, 2004 12:18 AM]:
| We "know" stuff from its "nonlinear-
| perspective [NL-P] signature" [AoK,
| Ap6], and these are all 'just' Dir-
| ectionalities embedded within the
| on-going TD E/I. [Folks who recall
| the fuss I reiteratively made about
| the fact that "synchronization" is not
| the information, I did so be-cause
| the NL-Ps are extremely-dynamic,
| "sliding" amongst one another, so
| "synchronization" is just an artifact
| of on-going TD E/I-minimization
| with respect to the NL-P Direction-
| alities -- because, if "synchronization"
| was anything, then the NL-P "signa-
| tures" would "disappear", and there
| wouldn't be anything with respect
| to achieve TD E/I-minimization.]
Replace "synchronization" with "osc-
illation" in this quoted text and =that's=
what I was thinking but didn't say in
what I posted :-]
I got crossed-up because, as I've
discussed, reiteratively, in long-former
posts [and as has been discussed in
AoK, Ap6 all along], there are two
"types" of "synchronization", "type I",
which is like the synchronized foot-
steps of a marching band, and "type II",
which is like the relative motions of
gears in a clock's works.
"Oscillation" is more like type I syn-
chronization than it is like type II, and,
in nervous system function, except in
cases of epillepsy, occurs only as an
=artifact= of TD E/I-minimization.
When one sorts everything out, instead
of 'seeing oscillation', one sees that what
has been referred to as "oscillation" is
actually just happenstance within ongoing
convergence upon myriad type II synchron-
izations, and this artifactual 'oscillation'
does not encode "information".
On the other hand, type II synchron-
ization is converged-upon via TD E/I-
minimization during all 'normal' nerv-
ous system function, including all seq-
uential-"unfoldings" that cross-syn-
chronize activation that's occurring in
subordinately-coupled areas of the
brain [AoK, Ap5, Ap6 and Ap7],
which, for example, is what underpins
the sequential "unfolding" that underpins
manifestation of "language", and is liter-
ally the embodiment of "Directionality"
as it occurs within the neural Topology
in a way that's analogous to the "direc-
tionality" that's embodied in the motions
of the gears of a clock's works, ex-
cept, within nervous systems, the "gears"
are configured extremely-dynamically,
via the tuning of "loop circuits" via TD
E/I-minimization -- which allows them
to literally calculate anything that can
be experienced in the form of external-
experiential-environment-driven neural
activation [which is commensurate with
the infinite scope of the problems that
nervous systems must solve [AoK,
Ap1]].
I Apologize for not stating this stuff
correctly in the "Fluff-er-nutters" post,
and the confusion that this reckless
error of mine introduced.
So Matt Jones gets a "Star".
[If folks 'wonder', no, I've received
no private communication. Matt 'just'
did-Science right in the light of 'day',
and I saw it :-] I meant to Honor
Matt's doing so long before 'now', but
I got into other things in the interim.
"Better late than never." :-]
Cheers, Matt, ken [k. p. collins]
