I guess I was away too long (Society for Neuroscience meeting in LA); I
can't find the post which presumably kccheng posted concurrently with
emailing me--or perhaps he emailed me without posting it.
Sorry I cannot, accordingly, give you his full message very easily, but
essentially it was this pathetic assertion: electromagnetic particles
must have specific characteristics representing whatever it is they are
conveying into (and storing within) the brain--how else can so many
different things be represented if they wre all the same?
Truly pathetic.
If he had been lured from some paleolithic paradise in a remote New
Guinea valley, and had seen someone hitting a keyboard and producing
strings of letters on a screen (or on paper, in the case of an
old-fashioned typewriter), this pure soul might imagine that the typist
had 40 or so special fingers, each one representing a different letter
(26) or number (10) or punctuation mark (whatever), which must travel
into the screen (or into the paper).
If only ignorance was involved, not the perverse and persistent
irrationality of a kccheng, we could soon show him that indeed oonly
one finger is necessary, and it need not be special: the SECRET is in
WHERE the finger presses.
Its as simple as that. In principle.
The details are complicated, apparently too complicated for kccheng.
Many, many neuroscientists have worked for years to show in detail just
exactly HOW and WHERE external energies are TRANSDUCED into neural
energies for transmission into the brain; and many more are now
examining how these SIGNALS (not particles) initiate processes leading
to structural changes underlying memory.
Just to cite one small example: while kccheng must find the direct
imput of photons into the periphery of the visual system "proof enough"
for his simple mind (not knowing of the transduction to neural energy
right at the beginning, i.e. in the rods and cones), what on earth can
he make of the auditory system, wherein the input is not in the form of
"electromagnetic particles" but in the form of MOLECULES beating
against auditory MECHANICAL structures?
(Probably he'll say something he thinks is brilliant, like "molecules
are made of electromagnetic particles"!)
Why don't you find a newsgroup with readers who are less critical, if
you want to preserve your illusions of brilliance without so much
effort?
F. Frank LeFever, Ph.D.
New York Neuropsychology Group