nm_fournier at ns.sympatico.ca
Fri Mar 5 21:55:53 EST 2004
Thanks for your response. The point was really brought up when i read one
of Ken's points regarding triangulation. Even though it is interesting and
I agree with him that it would be useful. It just seems to me that we still
end up having difficulty with interpretation the results. (This is such the
limitation of our spatial and temporal resolution for measurement I
I am just skeptical whenever anyone advocates that they have a "complete
theory of brain functioning". I mean any theory is embedded within
statistical variability and probability. Actually many of the posts and
suggestions that yourself and Ken provided were very interesting and
You mentioned in some other posting that you worked with Pribram? I was
wondering if I interpret that correctly? That's really interesting. Maybe
you can provide us with some information regarding how he was to work with.
i.e. what kind of guy he was and stuff. Also maybe you can chat about your
research a bit. I am really interested. I have never met him but i have
read his work before (like pretty much every neuroscientist has, or at least
should). Obviously, it was very influential and ahead of its time.
I think its really fantastic to get these opportunities to work and interact
with such great thinkers. I spent sometime earlier today with David Hubel
who was visiting our university today. (for those who do not know who Dr.
Hubel is. He won the Nobel Prize with Torsten Wiesel in 1981 for his work on
the visual cortex. They also shared the award with great cortical mapper,
Roger Sperry). We are having our annual symposium on the life and research
of Donald Hebb and he is one of the speakers. Besides talking with Dr.
Hubel about his research and science in general, I was really fascinated
just hearing the life history of this individual. It blows me away, how at
one time, the Montreal Neurological Institute housed many of the most
influential neuroscientists of our time. It is just amazing.
Unfortunately, two hours can go by really fast chating about stuff like
Anyway sorry for the rant.
"Doktor DynaSoar" <targeting at OMCL.mil> wrote in message
news:6n5i40trtpo9hvupk4mq4lf2dldr55osj6 at 4ax.com...
> On Fri, 5 Mar 2004 02:56:33 -0400, "NMF" <nm_fournier at ns.sympatico.ca>
> } Another aside point. The measurement features that you are suggesting,
> } using differential EEG, still runs into the same problem that any
> } electroencephalographic approach would fall to. You still run into the
> } inverse problem regarding the localization of the signal. Even the new
> } statistical approaches still can't adequately solve this problem with
> } complete absolute certainity, hence the reason why any estimate lies
> } a margin of statistical probability and uncertainity.
> Very true, and I really even don't put much faith in simultaneous
> EEG/fMRI results, mostly due to the massive statistical correction due
> to SPM.
> Most source localization is forced solutions. For instance, dipoles.
> They are the result of a calculation. Nobody seriously expects them to
> be a real, functional phenomenon and part of neural processing. They
> CAN coincide with a neural generator; I've shown some myself. But a
> forced result maintains its own credibility problem beyind the
> statistical considerations.
More information about the Neur-sci