Wright & Liley provide an advance in addressing the interaction of multiple scales of processing in the brain. It should address in more detail the biological evidence that underlies the models it proposes to replace.

Two hypotheses concerning nonlinear elements in complex systems are contrasted: that neurons, intrinsically unstable, are stabilized through embedding in networks and populations; and, conversely, that cortical neurons are intrinsically stable, but are destabilized through embedding in cortical populations and corticostriatal feedback systems. Tests are made by piecewise linearization of nonlinear dynamics at nonequilibriumoperating points, followed by linear stability analysis.

Although this is an impressive piece of modeling work, I worry that the two models that Wright & Liley have created do not yet provide us with useful empirical information regarding brain processing.

The work in progress reported by Wright & Liley shows great promise, primarily because of their experimental and simulation paradigms. However, their tentative conclusion that macroscopic neocortex may be considered (approximately) a linear near-equilibrium system is premature and does not correspond to tentative conclusions drawn from other studies of neocortex.

To model the organization of levels' of cortical dynamics, at least some general scheme for hierarchy, functional diversity, and proper intrinsic control must be provided. Rhythmic control forces the system to iterate its state by short trajectories, which makes it much more stable and predictable without discarding the desirable ability of chaotic systems to make rapid phase transitions. Rhythmic control provides a fundamentally different systems dynamics, one not provided by models that allow the emergence of continuous trajectories in the systems state space.

We focus on one aspect of Wright & Liley's target article: the linearity of the EEG. According to the authors, some nonlinear models of the cortex can be reduced (approximated) to the linear case at the millimetric scale. We argue here that the statement about the linear character of EEG is too strong and that EEG exhibits nonlinear features which cannot be ignored.

We present simulation results of an olfactory cortex model complementing the results presented in Wright & Liley's target article. We show how the cortical dynamics as expressed in EEG can be regulated by neuromodulation and discuss how the system can attain global stability without cortical-subcortical interaction, as presumed necessary by Wright & Liley. Network structure is shown to be crucial.

Simulation of brain dynamics requires the use of accurate empirical data. This commentary points out major errors in some of the empirical data used in Wright & Laley's simulation. The simulation is quantitatively very different from the real cortex, and may also have important qualitative differences.

Event-related potentials (ERPs) – neglected almost entirely by Wright & Liley – allow objective investigation of information processing in the brain. The application of chaos theory to such an analysis broadens this possibility. Through the use of the point correlation dimension (PD2) accurate dimensional analysis of different Event-Related Potential components such as the P3 wave is possible.

Multiscale dynamics, linear approximations, global boundary conditions, experimental verification, and global influences on local cell assemblies are considered in the context of Wright & Liley's work. W&L provide a nice introduction to these issues and a reasonable simulation of intermediate scale dynamics, but the model does not adequately simulate combined local and global processes.

The unification of microscopic and macroscopic models of brain behaviour is of paramount importance and Wright & Liley's target article provides some important groundwork. In this commentary, I propose that a useful approach for the future is to incorporate a developmental perspective into such models. This may be an important constraint, providing a key to understanding the nature of macroscopic measures of brain function such as functional measures like ERP.

For some years there has been a controversy about whether brain state variables such as EEG or neuronal spike trains exhibit chaotic behaviour. Wright & Liley claim that the local dynamics measured by spike trains or local field potentials exhibit chaotic behaviour, but global measures like EEG should be governed by linear dynamics. We propose a different scheme. Based on simulation studies and various experiments, we suggest that the pointwise dimension of EEG time series may provide some valuable information about underlying neuronal generators.

Wright & Liley contrast their theory that the global dynamics of the EEG are linear with that of Freeman, who hypothesizes an EEG governed by (nonlinear) deterministic-chaotic dynamics. A “call for further discussion” on the part of the authors is made as to how either theory fits with experimental findings indicating that EEG dynamics are non-linear but stochastic.

I would like to emphasize the significance of chaotic dynamics at both local and macroscopic levels in the cortex. The basic notions dealt with in this commentary will be noise-induced order, chaotic “itinerancy” and dissipative structure. Wright & Laley's theory would be partially misleading, since emergent nonlinearity rather than the linearity at even a macroscopic level can actually subserve cortical functions.

The network model of EEG formation has revealed a unified mechanism for disparate EEG phenomena: for various reactions as well as for ontogenetic and phylogenetic differences. EEG rhythmicity was shown to be an external manifestation of the functioning of the intracortical stabilizing system which provides normal informational operations in the cerebral cortex.

We outline fresh findings that show that our macroscopic electrocorticographic (ECoG) simulations can account for synchronous multiunit pulse oscillations at separate, simultaneously activated cortical sites and the associated gamma-band ECoG activity. We clarify our views on the approximations of dynamic class applicable to neural events at macroscopic and microscopic scales, and the analogies drawn to classes of ANN behaviour. We accept the need to introduce memory processes and detailed anatomical and physiological information into any future developments of our simulations. On the issue of intrinsic cortical stability and the role of extrinsic fibre systems in maintaining stability, we argue that this position is not in extreme contradiction to those of our commentators, and that the mechanisms implicit in our simulations' properties imply rich computational possibilities. We discuss some of the reasons for and against the existence of significant global resonances in the brain and explain why such behaviour appears absent in our simulations. Last, we discuss other phenomena, such as rhythmic driving of the cortex, which have not yet been introduced into our models, and indicate lines for future development of the simulations.

Barons's target article approaches errors in decision-making by defining three kinds of models: normative, descriptive, and prescriptive. Baron's prescriptive model is at the center of this commentary. From a theoretical perspective, is Baron's prescriptive model a set of rules through which one can move from the descriptive to the normative? Or is it a practical goal one can achieve as opposed to a normative unachievable theoretical ideal? Delineating an efficient prescriptive account for decision making necessarily depends on a very specific normative model. However, Baron's normative consequentialism model is too general to enable adequate prescriptive accounts.

Baron has provided some examples of nonconsequentialism in decision making and describes them as biases; these may be the remnants of the biological origin of decision making. One may argue that decisions are made on the basis not of rationality but affective processes. Behavior follows the trend toward maximizing pleasure. This mechanism might explain apparent nonconsequentialism.

Baron assumes that ethical decision-making can be evaluated without specifying more general features of the cognitive system within which it occurs. It is suggested that ethical principles are heuristics employed during goal-oriented action planning. Heuristics are bound to generate suboptimal decisions in some cases. It is rational to replace a particular heuristic only when the cost of associated error exceeds the cost of constructing and installing a more successful alternative.

Near the end of his target article, Baron argues that we need to address the question of how to conduct education in consequentialist decision making. However, recent trends in education have deemphasized and denigrated decentered and decontextualized thought. It is argued here that perspective decentering and decontextualized thinking are absolutely essential to the development of consequentialist reasoning.