Cerebral Downloading?? <collins>
Kenneth 'pawl' Collins
k.p.collins at worldnet.att.net
Thu Jan 2 23:35:58 EST 2003
[I tried to reply privately, but the email came back to me.]
Thanks for coming to my defense(?) <-- my notation for
BTW, I Solved the many-body problem more than a decade ago. I've
discussed elements of its resolution in b.n, and elsewhere,
calling it by the "many-body" name.
You're right. No theory will ever 'end Physics'.
re. 'depression': I still stand as in AoK, Ap8, only moreso - have
"c" - ITYS :-]
John H. wrote in message ...
|And how many times have we heard this century that the physicists
|up with a Theory of Everything? Michelson, 1901, the end of
physics is near.
|Max Born 1928: the end is near again. Hawking, 1990s, we can say
|cautious optimism that the end of physics is near. Now we find
|can vary, recent expts have cast serious doubt on the higgs boson
|hypothesis, and after superstrings we now have 'brane theory'.
|It's easy to say 'anything is possible' and is often said by
those who don't
|understand the damning complexities. If we can't understand the
|of a few sub-atomic particles, if Poincare's 3 body problem still
|computational analysis, if combinatorial explosion still
represents a major
|stumbling block in AI, cautious optimism dictates we should
|believing in those things which at present we know bugger all
|However, I have some sympathy with Ron Blue's ideas, we may not
|levels of complexities to emulate _discrete_ functions of the
CNS, but this
|is a whole other story from emulating or storing a person.
|If you think understanding global cerebral function is easy then
|explain why there is still raging controversy about the aetiology
|depression. And don't tell me its about serotonin! That is simply
the tip of
|<mrdoubter at webtv.net> wrote in message
|news:14294-3E11DD6E-67 at storefull-2337.public.lawson.webtv.net...
|> Sorry for you Collins. Unless you have spent the past several
|> working in this field (which if you have, I would find most
|> interesting), then what you have postulated is still more
|> mind set (ie don't confuse me with facts etc.) And what has
|> to be a fact at this point in history regards many discoveries
|> improvements in matters deemed 'impossible' by the 'all wise'
|> time. Man would never walk on the moon is the classic example.
|> to base your opinions on what came before and perhaps on
|> 'evidence.' Anecdotal evidence is a contradiction. Now if you
|> worked in this field, it might be different. How did you glean
|> knowledge (because that is all my question regards, actually is
|> mr D
More information about the Neur-sci