Biography of Man describes that history
> of a living (and
> changing) entity from its inception as an initial multi-cell life form (some
> 700 million years
> ago) up to its present status.
And you have evidence for this? If you could describe the detailed
evolutionary history of man backed up by evidence, I don't think you
would have much problem publishing it given that it has provided work
for many eminent scientists' careers from beginning to end and
continues to do so!
>> $4 That is right; therefore some speculative assumptions are necessary. Your
> remark would
> mean that you, if you were living in 1850, would have to reject the laws of
> Newton as that
> man has postulated that two masses at a distance attract each other with
> opposite but equal
> forces without giving any details how that is possible and what processes
> are involved in it.
> Newton just said: It is isomorph with reality and he showed that all
> measured data on
> planetary movement were correctly represented in his ‘model'.
Yes fine becuase no-one had a counter observation. Your model
suggests Hopfield networks in the brain employing simple logic gates.
I can point to a few thousand papers which show neurons are not logic
gates.
> If you require that all aspects from small to large have to be
> included/solved at the same time,
> you block all progress.
Not at all, I don't need psychology to deal with neuronal function,
but it definitely must not violate what is known about it! I can't
suggest in my pop psychology theory that neurons are arranged in
hopfield networks, and in their non-coding DNA their behaviour is
encoded. Its contradictory to decades of research, and it doesn't
even yield a worthwhile conclusion.
> In my case it means e.g. that it is
> worthwhile to
> investigate wat difference there is in the brain activation between an
> englishman writing the
> word ‘table' and a german writing the word ‘Tafel'.
I thoroughly agree that measuring brain activation in these different
circumstances would be interesting (and I'm sure its been done using
fMRI, PET or something else) but your method can't hope to be of any
use in doing so.
> If my modelling is
> correct, then there is
> no difference in the cortex activation but there must be a difference in
> either the cranial nerve
> nuclei or in the brain stem / spinal cord ‘pattern generators'.
What modelling? So now you actually have an artifically evolved brain
somewhere? that can understand, read and write English and German.
Your either extremely secretive or just lying now! You would have
made a huge leap forward in AI were that claim true and you wouldn't
be discussing it here.
Anyway, to suggest that semantic concepts are identically modelled in
different people who speak different languages is wrong. For analgous
situations check out the work of Walter J. Freeman who has shown that
neural activation to a stimulus is different across individuals, and
within individuals depending on context. Therefore, the cortical
activation changes with meaning. Your really haven't done any
reseacrh apart from a few books on psychology have you? And now you
claim to have uncovered the architecture of the cerebral cortex....
> I don't know sufficiently what can be
> measured with present
> measuring techniques.
>
Didn't think you would. I mean why bother finding out what is
known/what can be done before embarking on a clearly ludicrous
project? common sense?
> I have some difficulty in getting portions
> published in journals.
No shit.
> That is not an unusual situation for any innovative approach to a scientific
> subject.
Hang on a minute now, just because there are many stories of visionary
scientists being rubbished when proposing their groundbreaking theory
does not mean that everyone who claims to have an extraordinary theory
actually has one. For every one of the maligned geniuses there are a
thousands who actually were spouting rubbish.
> What I have contributed primarily is: ‘Weaving a unifying thread through all
> this information,
> based on the statement:
> ‘Man' may be a complex phenomenon but its emergence in evolution is
> controlled by a
> single and simple criterion:
> ‘Only those life forms that produce sufficient fertile offspring will
> remain!'
> I have shown (I think) further that this one simple criterion is translated,
> by evolution, in the
> brain into operations on only one information entity: ‘The Virtual Image',
> created in the brain
> from all recent and past sensory observations. In evolution this virtual
> image became
> gradually more refined.
Tell you what ok, I'm going to change the wording of Einstein's theory
of relativity, call it 'mat's mechanics' and then claim it as my own.
Since when did the idea of an internal representation of the world
become a new one? Since when did survival of the fittest become a new
concept? How have you shown that your theory is the case? simply by
argument? or by experimental evidence (not including any 'evidence'
from your 'modelling procedure')Are yousimply saying that through
evolution, the brain has been able to recieve and discern a greater
multitude of sensory information at ever greater resolution? well
blow me. other people have said this for years, its not new.
How do you knwo the brain handle's information in the mathematical
sense? because we can say 2+2=4?
>> $6 The only test of any model/theory is:
> ‘Does it describe reality correctly to a sufficient extent, i.e. is it
> reasonably isomorph?'
> You may indeed call it a Turing test. No theory gives a complete description
> of all details of
> reality.
Not yet, but I think thats the aim of many of todays physicists?! TOE
etc.
> Man is just not equipped for anything better.
How do you know?
> There will remain therefore always a ‘terra incognita', regarding the ‘inner
> workings', as you
> expressed it.
Well I'm sure there would if I wanted it in terms of quantum
mechanics, but I think understanding it in terms of action potentials,
protein dynamics etc. is rather well within our grasp given time.
> $7 My modelling is now a 1000 page handbook ‘Biography of Man' with some 6
> underlying
> research documents, parts I through IV, VIII and IX. We are planning now a
> three year
> refinement and extension research program in cooperation with the
> psycho-neuro-
> pharmacological dept of professor Alexander Cools of Nijmegen University
> (KUN). It will
> (hopefully) lead to a number of scientific publications, aimed at very
> specific aspects of the
> modelling procedure. The planned research subjects are more or less
> identified by the list of
> questions I cited in my summary of my request for comment in my newsgroup
> communication of 23-02-2002. This three year follow-up research project will
> lead to a
> software implementation of the modelling environment (in fact a computerized
> psychology
> implementation). We plan to use it for two applications:
> One for supporting managers in strategic decision making in a competitive
> environment.
So all you are doing is creating neural net that learns to make
decisions. I don't think that constitutes having modelled the brain
