In <mitchm-0103970153200001 at scottsdale-ts3-18.goodnet.com>, mitchm at netzone.com (Mitchell Gil Maltenfort) writes:
>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.
Yes...and that is the problem. Most (?) of the assumptions have not been "blessed"
by neuroscientists. As a result, brain scientist don't trust the results obtained and
more often than not the results obtained are ignored instead of being challenged
and discussed (good old feedback).
Universities have very little incentive to merge their departments to study the
mysteries of the brain. Corporation are too concerned about the next quarter
to take a chance on unproven technologies (those of us in the corporate world
have the resources but we lack the incentives and the time). An the true patron
of the sciences the military is being cut back to the bone.
Unless things change, this train is going to slow down!. We are all waiting for
a scientific breakthrough. Wouldn't a technical breakthrough help to improve the
odds of success for all of us interested in how the brain functions?
___________________________________
Bernie Arruza.
IBM
Boca Raton, Fl USA
__________________________________
__The_way_of_the_warrior_is_the___
__resolute_acceptance_of_death.___
__________________________________
___________Miyamoto_Musashi_______
___________The_Book_of_Five_Rings_
__________________________________
