In article <k5jJb.20917$IM3.2289 at newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net>,
"k p Collins" <kpaulc@[----------]earthlink.net> wrote:
> And, given the overall neuroanatomical context [for those
> who have it, "the special topological homeomorphism of
> central nervous systems", AoK, "Short Paper", explicitly,
> and the rest of AoK in general], the 'chain of delimitation'
> is plainly readable.
>> In my view, the 'problem' has been that folks 'forget' about
> the global Neuroanatomy, and all of the constraints disclosed
> within it, when they get up-close-and-personal with individual
No, I don't forget about it, and I know that some components are going
to cancel out or dissolve into noise overlaying function, but the
problem is that we really have no idea how neurons do what they do en
masse. We therefore don't know which subtleties are critical, and which
can be scaled out as we consider larger systems.
I know you feel you have answers to many of these questions, but you
don't ever provide details of your theories, which makes it impossible
to discuss them. Personally I doubt that a priori reasoning, or
hypotheses without testing, are strong bases for this kind of
generalisation. But I'd be happy to be proved wrong if you would
actually outline some of the material you refer to.