IUBio

Signals in the brain

Dirk Wessels d at wxs.nl
Tue Apr 28 09:22:55 EST 1998


F. Frank LeFever wrote:

> Frank's commment:
>  plenty of factul data in books or journals (when you are ready for
> scientific journals; start with elementary textbooks).

My experience is that these elementary books just state the data
that confirms their basic theories.
The more data/facts become more interesting, if this data does
not confirm the theories.

In magazines like Science and Scientific American, I saw that
there were many measurements that did not confirm the "basic"
theories, but were in these cases used for supporting the authors
new theories. Yet these were based on the basic ones, and
the actual data used seems to deny the basic models, and need
much more complex models.

OK, I am not trying to disguard the "basic" theories, but
my experience with programming AI and simultated neural
networks tell something different than the brain and the
actual processes going on in the brain.
Therefore I have begun with a different hypothesis:
"Emotions are most important, then the "logical" signals.
This seems to confirm the evolutionary approach, since
even plants seem to have feelings (fear,.. etc).
Based upon this we need to understand this process much
better and how it helps in constructing memory and how
hormones and emotions influence each other exactly.
(Since we are still looking for the "love" parfume, it seems
that we have not found the exact process behind emotions).
Maybe emotions is a more mixture of both electrical en chemical
signals.

But maybe I will start with my full hypothesis and see where we
find data that seems to deny it. Therefore I was first looking
for some more actual and representive data (and not those
from magazines).

Greetings,
    Dirk




More information about the Neur-sci mailing list

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