Trying to develop a computer model of biological neural networks

david_olmsted at my-dejanews.com david_olmsted at my-dejanews.com
Tue Sep 15 20:48:20 EST 1998


In article <6tmogr$hld$1 at news.tamu.edu>,
  wej3715 at fox.tamu.edu (Walter Eric Johnson) wrote:
> david_olmsted at my-dejanews.com wrote:
> : Quite correct. The first stage of the site(now mostly complete)shows that
> : asynchronous multivalued logic neural networks can do some behaviorally
> : relevant information processing and do it better (faster, more robustly)
than
> : any existing neural network.
>
> Does it show that?  I must have missed a few thousand pages of information
> describing proofs, experiments, and analysis.
>
> : It also shows how multivalued logic operations
> : can be implemented by neurons.
>
> Does it show that, too?  That's another few thousand pages I missed.
> Must be some really great neurochemistry in there to oexplain that.
>
> : I am hoping that Yale University will soon put
> : up illustrations of microcircuits so web surfers can compare the those
> : proposed for multivalued logic operations will real microcircuits. (if not I
> : will just have to scan them from Gordon Shepherd's most recent book).
>
> Some of us already have copies.  Many of those who don't probably have it
> readily available.  How about some relevant citations.  That way, you
> don't  need to worry about violating copyrights.
>
> : The second stage of the site on which I am now working is to provide
detailed
> : reviews of the non-mammalian neuroscience literature in order to provide
> : macroscopic confirmation of these ideas. The reticular formation has mostly
> : been reviewed and its neural structure and function confirms the multivalued
> : logic model assigned to it.
> :
> : The third stage will be to model the microcicuits of neurons at their ionic
> : level to provide microscopic confirmation by showing that all
> : their non-linearities appoximate multivalued logic operations.
>
> Appriximate?
>
> : So like any new theory only time will prove its correctness.
>
> I'd hardly call it a "theory".  In science, to be rightfully called
> a "theory" requires a very great deal of support.  How about a
> "conjecture"?  That seems much more appropriate.  (I must admit
> that many things were termed "theories" well before the support
> was there.)
>
> Eric Johnson

Eric,

Patience, my friend, patience. I can not do everything instantaneously. Since
you are so quick to judge maybe you can tell me how the brain works?

Sincerly,
David Olmsted
>

-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/rg_mkgrp.xp   Create Your Own Free Member Forum



More information about the Neur-sci mailing list