Somehow you would have to interpret what the nerve activity "means".

Ronald C. Blue rcb5 at msn.com
Mon Mar 5 10:47:17 EST 2001


> "Richard Norman" <rsnorman at mediaone.net> wrote in message
> news:Kzul6.4744$v_1.474996 at typhoon.mw.mediaone.net...
> > One major problem with your idea is that nerve cells are really quite
> > tightly packed.  If you could, for example, eavesdrop on a peripheral
> > nerve from some distance and actually see all the action potentials,
> > you still have the monumental problem of separating the activity in
> > one cell from that of another which lies only a few hundredths of a
> > millimeter away.   Somehow you would have to interpret what the
> > nerve activity "means" rather than identify activity purely by location.
> >

You will never figure out what the activity means by using probes or analyzing
the data generated by one nerve cell.  The problem is similar to understanding
the non-linear dynamics of the activity of water/oil at one particular position
in a wave machine.  As the water/oil goes up and down the mathematics of the
interaction is unpredictable at a particular point.  The problem is you are
looking to close.  If you back up you will find that you have a "correlational
opponent processing" or "associational reciprocal inhibition" machine which uses
wavelets and wavelet interference patterns.

Ron Blue
http://turn.to/ai










---






More information about the Neur-sci mailing list