In <mitchm-0103970153200001 at scottsdale-ts3-18.goodnet.com>
mitchm at netzone.com (Mitchell Gil Maltenfort) writes:
>>I joined the New York Academy od Sciences, because membership permits
me
I posted a reply suggesting a look at Academy's webpage re advice on
organizing a conference, but now want to heartily endorse the reply
below, re Society for Neuroscience.
Amng the thousands of posters at the SFN meeting in November, I spotted
more than a few which you might find of interest; more importantly,
they would lead you to people doing the kind of work you want to
encourage and to follow.
Possibly you can get a copy of program (one volume) and abstracts
(three volumes). Try: http://www.jneurosci.org This is for the
Society's journal, online, but it probably has a link to the main page,
email address, etc. (might be http://www.sfn.org, but not sure of my
memory...)
Frank LeFever
New York Neuropsychology Group
>>to get books (annals-this word makes me very unconfortable <G>)
written
>>by neuroscientists. Are there more groups of computational
neuroscientists
There is a huge void between the engineering disciplines and the
neurosciences
>>and we all lose.
>>>
>>I can't think of any specific societies dedicated to this work, but
you
>may want to look at the Society for Neuroscience <www.sfn.org> in
which
>neurobiological modeling is part of the whole goulash (anything from
>channel mechanics to cognitive psychology).
>>Texts that I like that took an engineer's approach to neurobiology,
and do
>a good job of balancing:
>>Uwe Windhorst's "How Brain-Like is the Spinal Cord" which is c. 1979,
>1980. Springer-Verlag
>>R.J. MacGregor's "Neural and Brain Modeling," Academic Press. late
1970's.
>>I find that a lot of the 'computational neuroscience' work out there
is
>very elegant, very ambitious mathematical and computational work which
is
>clearly inspired by neurobiological fact but has too many
simplifications
>or assumptions to be considered a definitive explanation for the
>neurobiology.
>>Good luck, Bernie!
