New Research States Brain Is An Interface

[dt1]

As part of a scientific investigation into the design and covert usage of radio-based neural interfaces, a spin-off series of articles has been created that examines the structure of the brain in the context of computation and communications theory.

 

The series is revealing that processing, data transfer, storage and logical constructs are not present in the biological structure of the brain. Further, the second article begins to decompose the structure of the neuron itself and reveals that it is nothing more than an electromechanical switch. The second articles examines the function of the action potential and reveals it role and how that relates to thermodynamics.

 

These articles are concise and require the reader to have a solid familiarty with physics, computational science and logical analysis of complex systems. If you are able to follow the work, it is a real eye-opener.

 

[links removed]

Edited February 5, 2013 by hypervalent_iodine
Advertising links removed.

[SamBridge]

As part of a scientific investigation into the design and covert usage of radio-based neural interfaces, a spin-off series of articles has been created that examines the structure of the brain in the context of computation and communications theory.

 

The series is revealing that processing, data transfer, storage and logical constructs are not present in the biological structure of the brain. Further, the second article begins to decompose the structure of the neuron itself and reveals that it is nothing more than an electromechanical switch. The second articles examines the function of the action potential and reveals it role and how that relates to thermodynamics.

 

These articles are concise and require the reader to have a solid familiarty with physics, computational science and logical analysis of complex systems. If you are able to follow the work, it is a real eye-opener.

 

[links removed]

So...what did you want to discuss exactly? What are you inquiring about? This is new information? Scientists were not aware of these things before? Because I thought they were.

Edited February 5, 2013 by hypervalent_iodine

[hypervalent_iodine]

!

Moderator Note

dt1,

 

Please do not create posts for the purpose of advertising or otherwise attempt to drive traffic to external sites. If you wish to discusss something, please explain what that is or this thread will be closed.

[dt1]

I wanted to discuss the content of the articles. I don't think there would be much in the way of traffic from this site. Could you restore the links? There is also a third article here that discusses how tasers work and reveals the specific mechanism.

 

[link removed]

Edited February 6, 2013 by hypervalent_iodine

[hypervalent_iodine]

!

Moderator Note

Then discuss them. We usually only allow links in threads if they are there to support the content of the post of provide supplementary information. This means you first have to make a substantial post.

[dt1]

Well, that seems reasonable.

 

In the first article, the neuron is demonstrated to be nothing more than a switch. A complex network of switches in a neural net fashion, is nothing more than routing or classification. Classification is not memory or processing. Finally, it is argued that no data can be found.

 

My question are, how do those involved in neuronscience feel about these statements? How does current neuroscience resolve this issue?

 

The full argument can be found here:

http://deepthought.newsvine.com/_news/2013/01/18/16585884-neural-research-a-modern-view-part-1

 

 

The second article delves deeper into the mechanics of the neuron and describes the role of the action potential. At the end of the article there is a statement that the electrical sensivity of the neuron would require the brain to instigate structural changes due to widespread electromagnetic interference. This assertion is based on the laws of thermodynamics and noise suppression.

 

What is the current thinking on this?

 

The full argument can be found here:

http://deepthought.newsvine.com/_news/2013/02/04/16839714-neural-research-a-modern-view-part-2

 

Finally, medical science has been unable to explain the exact mechanism behind the taser. An explanation is put forward that the radio waves generated by the taser disrupt the electromechanical switch-like behavior of the motor neuron resulting in a temporary loss of coordinated muscle activity.

 

Does neuroscience have another explanation?

 

The full argument can be found here:

http://deepthought.newsvine.com/_news/2013/02/05/16857625-neural-research-a-modern-view-part-3

[Ringer]

I got through part of the first article and got to a few things that were blatantly wrong and logic dictates that starting from a false premise usually results in a false conclusion.

 

It states that the axon hillock is an interface point for radiowaves and each hillock selectively receives certain frequencies and each has its own frequency. This is totally and completely incorrect. First, the axon hillock is and interface point but only for ionic concentrations that alter membrane potential. This is a chemical interaction between potentials and is completely non-specific. Second the only specificity can be found on membrane proteins that are selectively permeable to chemicals, but there are not anywhere close to as many types of protein gates as there are neurons. There are only 3 major ions that play roles in these potentials.

I can trivially show it to be incorrect by showing that a single axon can branch to multiple dendrites or cell bodies releasing only one type of neurotransmitter. This shows that each neuron does not have a novel anything it reacts to.

 

 

I also read part of the taser one, it's been known for a long time how they work. Muscle contraction is similar to action potentials in that it works by membrane potential. The difference is muscles don't have a true refractory period (period they cannot be stimulated) so repeated change in membrane potential to threshold will cause repeated contractions. If the threshold is reached fast enough by repeatedly shocking someone (which tasers do) the muscles will go into a state called tetany and no longer be able to relax until Ca++ is no longer available (Ca++ causes the contractions). So all they do is contract muscle so fast they get no time to relax.

[dt1]

I got through part of the first article and got to a few things that were blatantly wrong and logic dictates that starting from a false premise usually results in a false conclusion.

 

It states that the axon hillock is an interface point for radiowaves and each hillock selectively receives certain frequencies and each has its own frequency. This is totally and completely incorrect. First, the axon hillock is and interface point but only for ionic concentrations that alter membrane potential. This is a chemical interaction between potentials and is completely non-specific. Second the only specificity can be found on membrane proteins that are selectively permeable to chemicals, but there are not anywhere close to as many types of protein gates as there are neurons. There are only 3 major ions that play roles in these potentials.

I can trivially show it to be incorrect by showing that a single axon can branch to multiple dendrites or cell bodies releasing only one type of neurotransmitter. This shows that each neuron does not have a novel anything it reacts to.

 

 

I also read part of the taser one, it's been known for a long time how they work. Muscle contraction is similar to action potentials in that it works by membrane potential. The difference is muscles don't have a true refractory period (period they cannot be stimulated) so repeated change in membrane potential to threshold will cause repeated contractions. If the threshold is reached fast enough by repeatedly shocking someone (which tasers do) the muscles will go into a state called tetany and no longer be able to relax until Ca++ is no longer available (Ca++ causes the contractions). So all they do is contract muscle so fast they get no time to relax.

 

It seems that point about not understanding electromagnetics is indeed correct. You stated "the axon hillock is and interface point but only for ionic concentrations that alter membrane potential". I totally agree with this statement, however, you are missing one important fact. This is also a plasma antenna.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plasma_antenna

 

The ionic concentrations that you mention can be modulated by a radio wave which changes the membrane potential. You will need to brush up on plasma physics to understand this fully, but the mechanism is valid.

 

In reference to your point in regards to tasers, again I fully agree with you, however, you have ignored how the membrane potential is changed. The mechanism is a radio signal, not the current.

 

I feel that we need to combine our knowledge to provide a fully accurate scientific picture of the chain of events.

[Ringer]

It seems that point about not understanding electromagnetics is indeed correct. You stated "the axon hillock is and interface point but only for ionic concentrations that alter membrane potential". I totally agree with this statement, however, you are missing one important fact. This is also a plasma antenna.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plasma_antenna

 

The ionic concentrations that you mention can be modulated by a radio wave which changes the membrane potential. You will need to brush up on plasma physics to understand this fully, but the mechanism is valid.

The mechanism may be valid in theory, but it is not used in practice. Axon hillocks do not have plasma antennas, unless you can show the protein that could have the ability to act as an antenna and then show how they function with plasma not dissolving into the fluid that is everywhere. Then figure out how the strongly ionized gases don't have a strong impact on local membrane potential.

In reference to your point in regards to tasers, again I fully agree with you, however, you have ignored how the membrane potential is changed. The mechanism is a radio signal, not the current.

 

I feel that we need to combine our knowledge to provide a fully accurate scientific picture of the chain of events.

I didn't ignore how membrane potential is changed, and it's not radio signal. If it was I could tase people with a radio by varying the frequency. We know how membrane potential is changed, how releases Ca++ and how that causes contraction. If it were a radio signal there would be no reason for localization of skeletal muscle tetany, so why are the only things strongly affected those areas that carry charges most easily instead of seeing instantaneous depolarization of virtually every cell with a threshold?

[dt1]

 

The mechanism may be valid in theory, but it is not used in practice. Axon hillocks do not have plasma antennas, unless you can show the protein that could have the ability to act as an antenna and then show how they function with plasma not dissolving into the fluid that is everywhere. Then figure out how the strongly ionized gases don't have a strong impact on local membrane potential.

 

Again, I feel that you have misunderstood the physics. This area contains densely packed ions. That is the plasma antenna, it does not require a protein. It does not matter that they are in fluid, rather than being a hot gas. The membrane potential is an Electric field, that means the axon hillock is in essense a biological form of capacitor. As the radio wave passes through the axon hillock, it will charge the capacitor. It does this by redistributing the ions on either side of the membrane.

 

We actually use the same structure in basic radios. It is called a "tank circuit":

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LC_circuit

 

The inductor (L) in the LC circuit is replaced by the plasma. This circuit is known as a "tuned circuit", that is it resonates at a particular frequency. In short, its like "tuning your radio" to a particular station. It defines a unique frequency for that axon hillock.

 

This is a well studied phenomenon and numerous papers have been published exploiting this fact using widely varying frequencies and waveform types:

 

Extremely Low Frequency

 

Chaos control and synchronization of two neurons exposed to ELF external electric field

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0960077906003134

 

Unidirectional synchronization of Hodgkin–Huxley neurons exposed to ELF electric field

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S096007790700392X

 

Fire patterns of modified HH neuron under external sinusoidal ELF stimulus

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0960077908003688

 

Modeling the effect of an external electric field on the velocity of spike propagation in a nerve fiber

http://pre.aps.org/abstract/PRE/v60/i5/p5918_1

 

Transmembrane potential generated by a magnetically induced transverse electric field in a cylindrical axonal model

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21063912

 

High Frequency and Microwave

 

The Effect of Microwaves on the Central Nervous System

http://media.withtank.com/0cf2f05d55/german_ford_motor_company_the_effect_of_microwaves_on_the_central_nervous_system.pdf

 

 

I didn't ignore how membrane potential is changed, and it's not radio signal. If it was I could tase people with a radio by varying the

frequency.

 

It can be done, there are a number of complications to overcome.

 

 

We know how membrane potential is changed, how releases Ca++ and how that causes contraction. If it were a radio signal there would be no reason for localization of skeletal muscle tetany, so why are the only things strongly affected those areas that carry charges most easily instead of seeing instantaneous depolarization of virtually every cell with a threshold?

 

High frequency current would only flow across the surface between the electrodes in the most electrically direct route. In such an event, it would only effect the muscle between the electrodes. Tasers have a full body effect.

 

As you now know, each axon hillock is "tuned" to a particular frequency, so only a certain percentage are responding to the 50Khz radio signal generated inside the body. They are also only absorbing a certain amount of energy.

 

I have just released a full article on this as I realised it was missing from the series.

 

http://deepthought.newsvine.com/_news/2013/02/09/16905519-neural-research-a-modern-view-part-4

 

This should explain the mechanism better.

[CharonY]

I only skimmed the posts and the provided links, but to me it appears to be a simple recasting of what we know about neurons using different terms from a different context (at best). I would have to do a proper read to ascertain whether there are errors made during the "translation", but to be honest, I do not (yet) see how this really adds to what we know about neuronal functions.

There are some inherent problems with these approaches, although sometimes they can actually be useful. Both viewpoints (again, assuming that the premises of the articles are not wrong), would represent a different framing of our model on how axons work and which one is being more useful or accurate could very well be dependent on the context of the discussion.

[dt1]

I would agree with your comment to a certain extent, although I honestly feel that you should have read the material in full before commenting. You have made a number of assumptions in relation to the content and developed an inaccurate picture as a result.

 

We are both examining the same system, so there will be a certain amount of "recasting". The articles present neuroscience from a computational and electrical perspective. This does add to the field as it clarifies a range of issues and demonstrates the physics behind particular mechanisms.

 

Such information is available nowhere else and not previously understood in full. Thus, it is highly important and neuroscience cannot develop without it.

 

As I mentioned before, I feel that this material requires integration with current understandings and mechanisms in biology to provide a fuller picture of events.

[CharonY]

While this is a fair comment, there are several reason why I was discouraged to reading further(lack of clarity on the article side and lack of time on mine being the dominant ones). The only reason why I actually commented is my personal experience in collaboration with non-biologists who in most cases just try to invent the wheel and call it something else. It takes considerable effort to condense that little (but important) piece of novelty out of it. The recasting that I mentioned do not reflect well what is going on within a neuron and yet this discrepancies are glossed over. At this point I am inclined to side with Ringer, who clearly spent more time in trying to understand what the article is trying to say.

 

For starters this appears to be a central premise:

 

Now that we understand that a neuron merely selects a route based upon the nature of the input, we can clearly see that no matter how complex this arrangement becomes, it will be always doing the same thing. The selection of a route based upon an input is a form of classification. Thus, there is no memory present in this system. Classical experiments have suggested memories are encoded at synapses, but have ignored the fact that they effectively cutting off a route along which energy flows. As such, the memory can be located at any point after.

This leaves us with a major problem, if the neuron is only classifying input, where is the computation of that input? Where is the memory? Further, where is the "lookup" table that defines what that classified input means?

 

Would you care to describe to which biochemical processes you assign these functions? What precisely do you mean, for instance with route selection? Are you thinking in terms of a single input starting in the neuronal network and working its way towards a specific target? What about iterative signals? Or mechanisms such as LTP?

[dt1]

 

The only reason why I actually commented is my personal experience in collaboration with non-biologists who in most cases just try to invent the wheel and call it something else.

 

I suppose I have a similar experience with biologists having difficulty seeing the woods for the trees. They get lost in the complexity of an object and fail to step back and reduce it to a simple desription of its function. We could write thousands of pages on the intricate archtecture of the neuron, or we could sum it up concisely by stating that it is a switch. In architecture terms, the specifics are quite irrelevent unless they modify a key understanding.

 

 

The recasting that I mentioned do not reflect well what is going on within a neuron and yet this discrepancies are glossed over.

You would need to be more specific here. Also, this term of "recasting" is a bit of a misnomer. At the end of the day, it is all physics and this can only be presented in one way. I feel what you really mean is that you have, until this point, ignored certain aspects of physics to focus on the chemistry alone.

 

 

At this point I am inclined to side with Ringer, who clearly spent more time in trying to understand what the article is trying to say.

 

I feel that comments such as this are little disingenious. How can you possibly side with anything when you have not read the material? I'm a scientist and this is not how we do things. You should know better. My apologises if that is a little rude, but these type of dismissive statements belong in realm of politics.

 

 

Would you care to describe to which biochemical processes you assign these functions?

 

I would not have an intricate knowlege of the full range of biochemical processes, hence my appearance here to gain insight. I do have a solid understanding of what is happening at an architectural point-of-view and design neural networks in software.

 

 

What precisely do you mean, for instance with route selection?

 

The neuron is ultimately a switch. The inputs dictate which outputs occur through a electro-mechanical process.

 

 

Are you thinking in terms of a single input starting in the neuronal network and working its way towards a specific target?

Close. It is more that the order of switching controls where molecules flow to. A complex set of railroad tracks would be a good example of what I mean by routes and the switch-like nature of the neuron is the railroad switch.

 

 

What about iterative signals? Or mechanisms such as LTP?

I am wondering how best to approach this. There is some ground work that needs to be done, but I will attempt to sum it up as best I can. I feel that neuroscience is looking at these processes as the under-pinning mechanics in consciousness, rather than just the mechanics of a particle delivery system. My analysis has demonstrated that the brain does nothing more than deliver particles to specific sites and the mechanics of that is completely irrelevent. It appears to me that specific concepts from computation have been adopted (processing, memory, etc) and applied to the human brain without a valid scientific basis. That is, I cannot locate any form of data in the brain. Without data, there can be no processing, memory or any concept that would have a parallel with computational constructs. Thus, I have begun to look at this entire process differently. If particles are being delivered to specific locations, what exactly are they being delivered to? If the brain is just a delivery network, this would imply that the final destination is beyond the visible neural structure. This then opened questions as to the exact mechanics of how all these physically separate delivery points, were being combined. The interim conclusion is that since there is no data, all these physically separate points are delivering particles to the same thing which is already combined. This is the point I am at now and I am looking at possible quantum solutions and even beyond that.

 

[Ringer]

Again, I feel that you have misunderstood the physics. This area contains densely packed ions. That is the plasma antenna, it does not require a protein. It does not matter that they are in fluid, rather than being a hot gas. The membrane potential is an Electric field, that means the axon hillock is in essense a biological form of capacitor. As the radio wave passes through the axon hillock, it will charge the capacitor. It does this by redistributing the ions on either side of the membrane.

 

We actually use the same structure in basic radios. It is called a "tank circuit":

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LC_circuit

 

The inductor (L) in the LC circuit is replaced by the plasma. This circuit is known as a "tuned circuit", that is it resonates at a particular frequency. In short, its like "tuning your radio" to a particular station. It defines a unique frequency for that axon hillock.

 

This is a well studied phenomenon and numerous papers have been published exploiting this fact using widely varying frequencies and waveform types:

[snipped]

I think part of our problem is misunderstandings on both sides. Now I know that electric and magnetic fields can cause reactions in the brain, in fact we have used this fact for quite a while by stimulating areas of the brain with concentrated magnetic fields. But at the same time they are not at all wavelength specific. If it is strong enough to stimulate a single neuron it will stimulate neighboring neurons as well. The central premise of specificity in reception is incorrect. To call this an antenna, I feel, is incorrect because the effects of electromagnetic fields is a byproduct of the electrochemical gradient and not part of the neurons function. Also, if you are using switch in the networking sense, I don't think a neuron could be considered a switch. Switches function as an intermediary between the router and computers to send data to its correct location, more or less. Neurons don't really do that. They take in signals and, if excited enough, send the signal to all connections. They are repeaters more than switches.

High frequency current would only flow across the surface between the electrodes in the most electrically direct route. In such an event, it would only effect the muscle between the electrodes. Tasers have a full body effect.

The voltage travels through the body because the skin conducts fairly well and are used on the upper body (for hyperdermic tasers). It allows the current to move through the surface of the body and interact with skeletal muscle. Due to bets when I was younger I can (anecdotal as it is) confidently say that if you are shocked in the calf you will not feel it in your upper body, but the higher up you go the more muscles are involved. I don't think that this would happen if it wasn't an electric current going to a ground state. If it was full body you would see tetany of smooth muscle as well, and would see peoples eyes go crazy, defecation, inability to breath at all, blood vessels contracting to a point of dangerousness, etc.

 

As you now know, each axon hillock is "tuned" to a particular frequency, so only a certain percentage are responding to the 50Khz radio signal generated inside the body. They are also only absorbing a certain amount of energy.

 

 

I have just released a full article on this as I realised it was missing from the series.

 

http://deepthought.newsvine.com/_news/2013/02/09/16905519-neural-research-a-modern-view-part-4

 

This should explain the mechanism better.

I don't know that axons hillocks are tuned to specific frequencies, nor have you shown this to be the case. Axon hillocks have the same resting potential and ion concentration as the rest of the cell, as well as other neurons. So how do other neurons have different frequencies and why would the axon hillock be the only part that is involved in radio frequency interaction?

[dt1]

 

I think part of our problem is misunderstandings on both sides.

 

I expected this, we are coming from different professional fields and integrating that knowledge requires us to explain some things that are unique to our fields.

 

 

Now I know that electric and magnetic fields can cause reactions in the brain, in fact we have used this fact for quite a while by stimulating areas of the brain with concentrated magnetic fields. But at the same time they are not at all wavelength specific.

 

This is because the wavelength is a function of the plasma frequency. In English, that means it is related to the concentration of ions in a particular region. Over time, the frequency will change but only very slightly.

 

 

If it is strong enough to stimulate a single neuron it will stimulate neighboring neurons as well.

 

This is only because the frequency used is not narrow enough and not tracking the slight frequency changes due to alteration in the plasma frequency. It has nothing to do with the strength of the signal. A neuron will respond to signals in the nW and microW ranges.

 

 

 

The central premise of specificity in reception is incorrect. To call this an antenna, I feel, is incorrect because the effects of electromagnetic fields is a byproduct of the electrochemical gradient and not part of the neurons function.

 

It is an antenna because of the physics, not because of an opinion. That is immutable. So, the question becomes, does the delivery of radio energy to this antenna change the firing behaviour of the neuron. The above referenced scientific papers demonstrate that it does. This means neural coding schemes can be faked or manipulated by carefully crafted radio signals.

 

 

Also, if you are using switch in the networking sense, I don't think a neuron could be considered a

switch. Switches function as an intermediary between the router and computers to send data to its correct location, more or less. Neurons don't really do that. They take in signals and, if excited enough, send the signal to all connections. They are repeaters more than switches.

 

I agree. I am using the term "switch" as a common description of a "logic gate". In more formal language I would describe the neuron as an "E-field (or voltage) controlled multi-valued logic gate" that controls the flow of charged particles and molecules.

 

 

The voltage travels through the body because the skin conducts fairly well and are used on the upper body (for hyperdermic tasers).

 

No. Voltage is a potential difference between to oppositely charged sources. The voltage only exists between the electrodes. Thus, any stimulation due to the voltage gradient would be confined to the area between the electrodes which is typically less than 10cm. Voltage is the force that moves the current.

 

 

It allows the current to move through the surface of the body and interact with skeletal muscle.

 

No. The current follows a single electrically direct route between the electrodes. This is why we ground things, the current will be forced to the ground, rather than into you because the voltage is greater between the ground and the source, than you and the source.

 

 

 

Due to bets when I was younger I can (anecdotal as it is) confidently say that if you are shocked in the calf you will not feel it in your upper body, but the higher up you go the more muscles are involved. I don't think that this would happen if it wasn't an electric current going to a ground state. If it was full body you would see tetany of smooth muscle as well, and would see peoples eyes go crazy, defecation, inability to breath at all, blood vessels contracting to a point of dangerousness, etc.

 

This may be misleading, you were probably shocked with a DC voltage which does not produce a radio wave. The electrons need to change direction to emit the photons. Your body would be electrically described as a floating ground reference and a potential would exist between you and the source causing the electrons to flow.

 

I stuck my finger into a 5A, 240 VAC, light socket as a child (I'm hardcore) and went into a full body lock for a fraction of a second. I know what AC feels like and I can only describe it as a vibrating carbonated water type of experience that affected my entire body. I now know that it was a discombobulation of the neurons due to a radio wave driving the plasma in the body but releasing the source before ion depletion could occur saved my life.

Edited February 10, 2013 by dt1