I second that and thank you for keeping me from writing a scathing reply to
the umpteenth reply by the elite to "this question". There are some
pragmatic areas to be explored, even with the little we know, that are
thwarted with all the tired cutsie answers. Please neuroscientists, try to
join some of the very real issues for which some non scientists have made
some very real breakthroughs but would be so much better off if your patience
would prevail and add to our humble attempts.
Once in a while it would be nice if the people have the knowledge, but so far
few solutions, would dare to contribute their wisdom and LEARN from
those who live the problems.
Thanks if you read this.
Jane Beaver
Laim wrote:
> Thanks for your simple reply to a simple question.
> And for being honest and open.
> Cheers
> Liam
>> >First, as neuroscientists, we're all at least marginally concerned about
> >issues like "what is the information capacity of the brain". Problem is,
> >working in this field for a while has taught us that a) We don't know
> >what this capacity is; b) We haven't figured out how to measure it; and
> >c) We haven't even figured out what exactly we mean by "information" or
> >"capacity" when talking about the brain.
> >
> >
> >Cheers,
> >
> >Matt Jones
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://iubio.bio.indiana.edu/bionet/mm/neur-sci/attachments/19990522/13365678/attachment.html