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.
More information about the Neur-sci