In article <4jk559$82s at newsbf02.news.aol.com>, zamanlf at aol.com (Zamanlf) writes:
|> <opening contentless diatribe deleted, as are all following instances>
|> Your opinion, that any theory which is consistent with the idea
|> that there is an “inner self” within each of us “is in trouble,” is the
|> conventional attitude of neuroscience.
You're getting confused here Fred. As I said before, the phrase you used was
'little men or women in the brain'. I reiterate: Any theory involving such a
concept, beyond the sensorimotor homunculus, is in trouble in my opinion.
|> The concept of an “inner self” has never been defined in terms
|> that are acceptable to science, til now.
'Til now'? Please post your definition. I think that would clear up the
misunderstanding. Unless of course you don't have one.
|> I have already briefly stated what the statistical relationship is
|> between multiunit axon discharge and the EEG wave.
I missed it, please post it again. I think you are confusing the local field
potential and the EEG. You said:
'a statistical relationship between axon spike discharge and the slope or
rate-of-change of the locally-generated gross potential clearly exists'
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
and then:
'These researchers found a different relationship, between the probability of
axon spike discharge and the amplitude of the extracellular gross potential'
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Both of these terms describe the local field potential, recorded close to the
generating cells. I think it was Gauss who produced a theorem showing that
locating the internal sources of the potential on a sphere (EEG) was an ill-posed
problem. You claim, in essence, to have solved this problem (identified a
statistical relationship between the spiking of the generating cells and the
derivative/amplitude of the EEG). Please summarize your solution
and post it here. Unless of course you don't have such a solution.
|> My view of sociology is far more complex and detailed than you can
|> imagine. Again, another of your assumptions of knowledge that far exeeds
|> reality.
You cannot imagine what I can imagine. Your view of sociology as posted here is
simplistic and naive.
Paul
