The Viking (Gunnar Blohm)
@gunnarblohm.bsky.social
CoSMO, Neuromatch, Neuro4Pros co-founder.
Comp neuro at Queen's U 🇨🇦 studying sensorimotor control.
Vice-Director (Queen's) of Connected Minds.
Mentor, dad, brewing, gardener, artist, antifa.
Renaissance man. Believer in humanity!
http://compneurosci.com/
Comp neuro at Queen's U 🇨🇦 studying sensorimotor control.
Vice-Director (Queen's) of Connected Minds.
Mentor, dad, brewing, gardener, artist, antifa.
Renaissance man. Believer in humanity!
http://compneurosci.com/
Anyway, I learned a few things along the way of this discussion, so thank you for that
November 25, 2025 at 11:22 PM
Anyway, I learned a few things along the way of this discussion, so thank you for that
I don't follow dogma. Or hypes. Both are prone to over interpretation and wishful thinking. So I'm with you here.
Also, I have no stakes in this. I don't do neural recording or analysis. But I do do modeling, including RNNs and spiking nets. So I have a bit of dyn sys knowhow from that end...
Also, I have no stakes in this. I don't do neural recording or analysis. But I do do modeling, including RNNs and spiking nets. So I have a bit of dyn sys knowhow from that end...
November 25, 2025 at 11:19 PM
I don't follow dogma. Or hypes. Both are prone to over interpretation and wishful thinking. So I'm with you here.
Also, I have no stakes in this. I don't do neural recording or analysis. But I do do modeling, including RNNs and spiking nets. So I have a bit of dyn sys knowhow from that end...
Also, I have no stakes in this. I don't do neural recording or analysis. But I do do modeling, including RNNs and spiking nets. So I have a bit of dyn sys knowhow from that end...
Well if it's a brand new theory then we clearly lack models at this point... 🤷🏼
But that's great! Lots of opportunities!
Let's just be careful to frame this theory as a hypothesis and not truth (yet).
And no, these papers show association, not causation. Necessary but not sufficient
But that's great! Lots of opportunities!
Let's just be careful to frame this theory as a hypothesis and not truth (yet).
And no, these papers show association, not causation. Necessary but not sufficient
November 25, 2025 at 11:13 PM
Well if it's a brand new theory then we clearly lack models at this point... 🤷🏼
But that's great! Lots of opportunities!
Let's just be careful to frame this theory as a hypothesis and not truth (yet).
And no, these papers show association, not causation. Necessary but not sufficient
But that's great! Lots of opportunities!
Let's just be careful to frame this theory as a hypothesis and not truth (yet).
And no, these papers show association, not causation. Necessary but not sufficient
I looked at all the papers you sent, and none addressed my point showing how oscillations perform computation. There are some suggestions indeed, but I think much more work is needed.
(Which you should be happy about. As hopefully this means your field will be growing)
(Which you should be happy about. As hopefully this means your field will be growing)
November 25, 2025 at 9:47 PM
I looked at all the papers you sent, and none addressed my point showing how oscillations perform computation. There are some suggestions indeed, but I think much more work is needed.
(Which you should be happy about. As hopefully this means your field will be growing)
(Which you should be happy about. As hopefully this means your field will be growing)
Decoding doesn't prove anything. Not in spikes. Not anywhere else.
You can decide decision signals from muscles... Clearly no causal role of muscles in perceptual decisions
You can decide decision signals from muscles... Clearly no causal role of muscles in perceptual decisions
November 25, 2025 at 9:02 PM
Decoding doesn't prove anything. Not in spikes. Not anywhere else.
You can decide decision signals from muscles... Clearly no causal role of muscles in perceptual decisions
You can decide decision signals from muscles... Clearly no causal role of muscles in perceptual decisions
No. A-->B does NOT imply B-->A. That is my logic.
November 25, 2025 at 9:01 PM
No. A-->B does NOT imply B-->A. That is my logic.
and re spikes: when we change spikes (causal intervention), brain computations change. + we have tons of models...
No spikes = no sensory transduction
No spikes = no movement
quite a difference in the type of evidence we have compared to "oscillations do it all", IMHO
No spikes = no sensory transduction
No spikes = no movement
quite a difference in the type of evidence we have compared to "oscillations do it all", IMHO
November 25, 2025 at 7:01 PM
and re spikes: when we change spikes (causal intervention), brain computations change. + we have tons of models...
No spikes = no sensory transduction
No spikes = no movement
quite a difference in the type of evidence we have compared to "oscillations do it all", IMHO
No spikes = no sensory transduction
No spikes = no movement
quite a difference in the type of evidence we have compared to "oscillations do it all", IMHO
I'm not applying different bars. And again, I do believe in oscillations (and not just bc I do EEG/MEG).
But there is a difference between "they likely play a role since we see so many associations" and "oscillations *explain* everything".
TL;DR: people should study (and model!) this more
But there is a difference between "they likely play a role since we see so many associations" and "oscillations *explain* everything".
TL;DR: people should study (and model!) this more
November 25, 2025 at 6:59 PM
I'm not applying different bars. And again, I do believe in oscillations (and not just bc I do EEG/MEG).
But there is a difference between "they likely play a role since we see so many associations" and "oscillations *explain* everything".
TL;DR: people should study (and model!) this more
But there is a difference between "they likely play a role since we see so many associations" and "oscillations *explain* everything".
TL;DR: people should study (and model!) this more
a very cool study indeed. But again, it's purely correlative and any causal interpretation as *actual* communication *mechanisms* is entirely speculation...
November 25, 2025 at 6:45 PM
a very cool study indeed. But again, it's purely correlative and any causal interpretation as *actual* communication *mechanisms* is entirely speculation...
I have indeed not seen them. That's what I have been asking for from the start in this convo... 🤗
Mind sharing some of these bc I'm having trouble finding them... 🤷🏼
Mind sharing some of these bc I'm having trouble finding them... 🤷🏼
November 25, 2025 at 11:48 AM
I have indeed not seen them. That's what I have been asking for from the start in this convo... 🤗
Mind sharing some of these bc I'm having trouble finding them... 🤷🏼
Mind sharing some of these bc I'm having trouble finding them... 🤷🏼
I fully agree with that statement. And I also agree that spikes are likely not the full story, maybe not even close...
But again, sound science needs theory and data to tell a coherent story. One without the other is dangerous.
The brain is a complex system, there are likely no simple answers
But again, sound science needs theory and data to tell a coherent story. One without the other is dangerous.
The brain is a complex system, there are likely no simple answers
November 25, 2025 at 12:18 AM
I fully agree with that statement. And I also agree that spikes are likely not the full story, maybe not even close...
But again, sound science needs theory and data to tell a coherent story. One without the other is dangerous.
The brain is a complex system, there are likely no simple answers
But again, sound science needs theory and data to tell a coherent story. One without the other is dangerous.
The brain is a complex system, there are likely no simple answers
Models and theory are critical to constrain the possibilities of interpretation, uncover hidden assumptions and show that our mental constructs hold up.
November 25, 2025 at 12:16 AM
Models and theory are critical to constrain the possibilities of interpretation, uncover hidden assumptions and show that our mental constructs hold up.
This is where I disagree. We have done quite a bit of stamp collecting re data.
But without theory, it's still just data and we're still jumping to conclusions.
I understand you're personally convinced and that's great.
To me, data is never conclusive without models / theory.
But without theory, it's still just data and we're still jumping to conclusions.
I understand you're personally convinced and that's great.
To me, data is never conclusive without models / theory.
November 25, 2025 at 12:16 AM
This is where I disagree. We have done quite a bit of stamp collecting re data.
But without theory, it's still just data and we're still jumping to conclusions.
I understand you're personally convinced and that's great.
To me, data is never conclusive without models / theory.
But without theory, it's still just data and we're still jumping to conclusions.
I understand you're personally convinced and that's great.
To me, data is never conclusive without models / theory.
I don't disagree re theory being late and data being the first step. But unless we have theory confirming that our intuition / interpretation of the data holds up, we can't make strong claims IMHO.
As scientists I feel we have a responsibility to be careful and nuanced and not jump to conclusions
As scientists I feel we have a responsibility to be careful and nuanced and not jump to conclusions
November 24, 2025 at 11:15 PM
I don't disagree re theory being late and data being the first step. But unless we have theory confirming that our intuition / interpretation of the data holds up, we can't make strong claims IMHO.
As scientists I feel we have a responsibility to be careful and nuanced and not jump to conclusions
As scientists I feel we have a responsibility to be careful and nuanced and not jump to conclusions
Lyle Muller's paper says exactly what I say: "Much theoretical and experimental work remains to test the feasibility of computations with travelling waves in the cortex" 🤷🏼
November 24, 2025 at 9:46 PM
Lyle Muller's paper says exactly what I say: "Much theoretical and experimental work remains to test the feasibility of computations with travelling waves in the cortex" 🤷🏼
Sorry, I misunderstood... 🤦
Is this along the lines of what you're looking for? pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC...
Is this along the lines of what you're looking for? pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC...
Ten Simple Rules for Writing a Postdoctoral Fellowship
An official website of the United States government
pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
November 24, 2025 at 9:05 PM
Sorry, I misunderstood... 🤦
Is this along the lines of what you're looking for? pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC...
Is this along the lines of what you're looking for? pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC...
Just for the record, this is not what I said.
I personally think oscillations are fascinating in many ways.
All I'm saying is that I do not think there is strong theory and therefore we cannot properly interpret the correlative data.
Sorry if my curiosity about this rubbed you the wrong way.
I personally think oscillations are fascinating in many ways.
All I'm saying is that I do not think there is strong theory and therefore we cannot properly interpret the correlative data.
Sorry if my curiosity about this rubbed you the wrong way.
November 24, 2025 at 9:01 PM
Just for the record, this is not what I said.
I personally think oscillations are fascinating in many ways.
All I'm saying is that I do not think there is strong theory and therefore we cannot properly interpret the correlative data.
Sorry if my curiosity about this rubbed you the wrong way.
I personally think oscillations are fascinating in many ways.
All I'm saying is that I do not think there is strong theory and therefore we cannot properly interpret the correlative data.
Sorry if my curiosity about this rubbed you the wrong way.
I'm not saying oscillations don't do anything, but I think we need much more research into this, especially theory. I am not convinced by the papers you shared...
November 24, 2025 at 8:56 PM
I'm not saying oscillations don't do anything, but I think we need much more research into this, especially theory. I am not convinced by the papers you shared...
I respectfully disagree.
First we have good models for spikes and their computations.
Second afferent sensory input is exclusively mediated through spikes.
Third, motor output is exclusively mediated by spikes.
This is not at all equally true to oscillations
First we have good models for spikes and their computations.
Second afferent sensory input is exclusively mediated through spikes.
Third, motor output is exclusively mediated by spikes.
This is not at all equally true to oscillations
November 24, 2025 at 8:55 PM
I respectfully disagree.
First we have good models for spikes and their computations.
Second afferent sensory input is exclusively mediated through spikes.
Third, motor output is exclusively mediated by spikes.
This is not at all equally true to oscillations
First we have good models for spikes and their computations.
Second afferent sensory input is exclusively mediated through spikes.
Third, motor output is exclusively mediated by spikes.
This is not at all equally true to oscillations
Indeed, no doubt here.
But what *does* or *can* it do functionally? That's unclear afaik and needs actual models
But what *does* or *can* it do functionally? That's unclear afaik and needs actual models
November 24, 2025 at 1:57 PM
Indeed, no doubt here.
But what *does* or *can* it do functionally? That's unclear afaik and needs actual models
But what *does* or *can* it do functionally? That's unclear afaik and needs actual models