IUBio

brain Atlas

ENTICY1 enticy1 at aol.com
Mon May 6 10:01:10 EST 1996


In article <4mkuhu$379 at newz.oit.unc.edu>, gsox at med.unc.edu (Gerry S.
Oxford, Ph.D.) writes:

>
>I, for one, *am* in the neuroscience discipline, also "don't get it", and
>hardly call the information at that site or in your diatribe below as
>"breakthrough".  

Of course you don't. You have no information in your memory to relate it
to.
If you did you would declare it to have at least some relevance. But you
don't.
So you declare it NOT to have relevance. That is not your fault or anyone
elses
and I do not force this on anyone. If you feel my informing people that
the site
exists and that the technology associated within it does answer the
question
posed then you are in the wrong business. Knowledge is supposed to be what
all of us delve in.  But with attitudes like this shown..... the answer
would be not
to open new fields, not to try new things and not to do what Ron Graham,
Principal Scientist for AT&T has been quoted as saying......we must "...
push the state of the art." You would have the art static unless you 'get
it'. Which means you have violated the basic premise of research.... Find
solutions. If you don't 'get' the solution you ignore it. It does not show
the technology to be incorrect it shows ingorance and a determination to
retain it.

>The original poster was asking a simple question and
>wanted some solid, well-accepted information.  

It was well accepted that the sun rotated around the earth. You sound like
the old church.

>The suggestion of
>a good neuroscience textbook was appropriate.  The suggestion to
>read non-peer reviewed information that has not had a chance to be
>validated (or even comprehended) by the community is inappropriate as
>a response to this query.  Whether you are right or not isn't the issue.

Oh but it is...... Since it is the brain we are talking about here someone
who has
the model of the operating system of the brain should be able to predict
by using
it what happens in the brain to cause many of the things we observe from
it. 
To be told that one should not do that because it is not contained in a
printed text
book is to tell all great discoveries to be silent since they are not
already known.
I did not say to review my material alone. I answered the question. YOU
are 
attempting to dictate the availablity of knowledge because YOU don't get
it. That is stupid.

And let us get this 'peer reviewed' garbage out of the way now: Peers know
what they already know. If something is presented to them they do not know
it is rejected. Which it should be as it has no relevance to the person's
memory who is reviewing it. If it DID it would NOT be new. So what would
the point be of presenting material to peers who would not 'get it'
anymore than you? To ask permission to publish it? Hogwash.  The world is
filled with quotations from people who declined things new because they
did not 'get it'.... And do you  know what is remembered about those
people? The stupid comment that made about what they didn't 'get'.

Quote---"Louis Pasteur's theory of germs is ridiculous fiction". --
Pierre Pachet, Professor of
Physiology at Toulouse, 1872

Quote ---"The abdomen, the chest, and the brain will forever be shut from
the intrusion of them wise and humane surgeon". --Sir John Eric Ericksen, 
British surgeon - appointed Surgeon- Extraordinary to Queen Victoria 
1873.

Quote---"Professor Goddard does not know the relation between action and
reaction and the need to have something better than a vacuum against  
which to react. He seems to lack the basic knowledge ladled out daily in
high schools." --1921 New York Times editorial about Robert Goddard's
revolutionary 
rocket work.

Quote---"I, for one, *am* in the neuroscience discipline, also "don't get
it", and
hardly call the information at that site or in your diatribe below as
"breakthrough".
Gerry S. Oxford, Ph.D., University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill;
Commenting in Usenet correspondence regarding the complete understanding
of the operating  system of the human brain.

Oh yes, let us not forget the immortal words:

Quote ---"640K ought to be enough for anybody." -- Bill Gates, 1981

>>Being in computer science you are unable to see anything happen in the
>>world that does not occur in binary............ too bad, since off is
DEAD
>
>Hey, there's nothing wrong with computer scientists.  At least many of
>them understand the importance of validating a model with a real
>biological experiment.

Oh they do? Neural Nets are supposed to be a model of neural functions.
There is
no biological experiment to prove that. And it isn't true anyway. Its just
the way
things look that make neural nets appear to be correct. Darwinian neural
nets are
even worse... The ecosystem follows a pattern of evolution,... the brain
has
done so too only in reaching its position not in processing its data. 

If you think my comments are delivered mad or upset please reconsider that
notion. I know what the response to anything as radically new as this will
be. I expect it. I
welcome attacks but I also respond to them. 

   .-.                                                               .-.
  /   \           .-.                                 .-.           /   \
 /     \         /   \       .-.     _    .-.       /   \         /     \
Lee Kent Hempfling---http://members.aol.com/enticy1/ntc/index.htm
         \     /       \   /     `-'    `-'    \   /       \     /
          \   /         `-'                     `-'         \   /
           `-'                                               `-' 
"My belief is firm in a law of compensation.The true rewards are ever in 
       proportion to the labor and sacrifices made..."Nikola Tesla





More information about the Neur-sci mailing list

Send comments to us at biosci-help [At] net.bio.net