Differential EEG

Doktor DynaSoar targeting at OMCL.mil
Wed Mar 10 07:02:14 EST 2004


On Tue, 09 Mar 2004 20:23:18 GMT, "ken" <kpaulc at earthlink.net> wrote:

} "Doktor DynaSoar" <targeting at OMCL.mil> wrote in message
} news:aajq4055rmnuc32u55vr93j8naduscof9q at 4ax.com...
} > On Mon, 08 Mar 2004 04:14:58 GMT, "ken" <kpaulc at earthlink.net> wrote:
} >
} > } "Doktor DynaSoar" <targeting at OMCL.mil> wrote in message
} > } news:pbmn40pfe2e2sqtuukjd4lqf049dcl2501 at 4ax.com...
} > } > On Sun, 07 Mar 2004 22:25:20 GMT, "ken" <kpaulc at earthlink.net> wrote:
} > } >
} > } > } I Enjoyed receiving your Pribram, Lashley and Hubel
} > } > } annecdotes.
} > } > }
} > } > } The work done be each of them is in-NDT.
} > } >
} > } > How does Pribram's theory fit in?
} > }
} > } All I know of Pribram's work was in the Chapter
} > } he wrote in Arbib's Book, =The Methphorical Brain=.
} >
} > Then I fail to see how you can say his theory
} > is in NDT. You don't know what it is.
} 
} I didn't say his "theory" is in NDT. I said his
} "work" [work that he did] is.
} 
} It's as I've explained. The Chapter I read in-
} fluenced the development of NDT. It's in-
} there in that general way. What am I supposed
} to do, be influenced by my reading of a 'paper'
} and 'pretend' that I wasn't? :-]

You're not supposed to pretend his work is in it when all you know of
it is a metaphor. You may have been influenced or inspired by the
metaphor, but the map is very much not the terrain.




More information about the Neur-sci mailing list