“There’s a gap that forms between them”.

Tagging this also with Dynamic Attending Theory because it’s all about the synchronization experience as it’s happening, as you attend. It’s not the “spotlight model” of attention, no, no. I knew there was _some_ kind of theory that involved “hooking in” to a beat and sychronizing and it in turn synchronizes to you… and I found that with relaxed oscillators… and I found it a _bit_ with brain stuff. But not as much as I’d hoped. I learn more everytime I return to this and now that I’m reading stuff on dynamic attending theory I’m hoping this is what I can hang my hat on.

—

Synchronization creates time.

Now I’m learning about Dynamic Attending Theory and it’s the “it” I think that I’ve been struggling to find _somebody_ who wrote about it, but I didn’t know what the ‘it’ was called. Never saw the word “entrainment” in all this time. Glad now.

—

Finally, an overriding theme in this book

involves “keeping in time” with world events.

This involves paying attention, at some level, to

the sounds around us.

involves “keeping in time” with world events.

This involves paying attention, at some level, to

the sounds around us.

==

Only parts that are synchonized are communicating. The rest are doing their own thing.

===

“Entrainment is all about the many modes of

synchrony. Thus, the goal of a dancing dyad is syn -

chrony. To achieve this goal, oscillator dyads must

gravitate to a synchronous state. Two limit cycle

oscillations that do not initially exhibit a commen-

surate n:m will eventually gravitate to their nearest

rational n:m ratio by adapting their phases and/

or periods. In a dance scenario, for instance, each

dancer’s stepping period and phase shift is pulled

toward synchronizing these motions with his or

her partner. Such a goal may involve quite simple

attractors, such as n:m = 1:1 or 2:1, or more com-

plex ones, such as n:m = 1:10 or 5:8. Synchronous

modes vary in complexity along a continuum from

low- order synchronies, with simplest ratios (e.g.,

n:m = 1:1, 1:2, 1:3, 1:4 . . . ), to complex high- order

synchronies (e.g., n:m = 3:4, 2:5, 5:8 . . . ).”

===

CHAOS MAKES NATURAL CATEGORIES i knew it -0 finally

“Logically, then, this rule implies that limits, as category boundaries, should deny synchrony by excluding oscillations that fail to synchronize with other category members. Indeed, category boundaries are defined by very irrational frequency ratios. Basically, these boundaries reflect bifurcations that repel (i.e., exclude) oscillator pairs. As irrational frequency ratios, they deny synchrony. Metaphorically, a tun- able brain will “sing” harmonically with rational frequency ratios that deliver prized synchro- nicity, but not with irrational frequency ratios that threaten desynchronization. “

===