> aimed at understanding how synaptic currents combine to give rise to EEG waves.
>That problem was essentially solved a long time ago.
Probably nonsense, but I guess I should
aim at understanding how currents in radios combine to give raise to
music waves, so that I can then also say that the problem was solved
> Fundamental research means trying to understand neural oscillators and neural
>population dynamics, and there's a lot of that going on now. It's a
The idea to declare stuff without "soft subatomic" data
but instead just "hard atomic" one as the smallest as the fundament
for fundamental research
indeed sounds like a hard problem.
If I recall it I shall mention it to some into magic perceiving and
akasha surfing a little, so part of your fundamental problems might be
appreciated by them with similar mirth.
Some day you might even stumble over atomic aspects of ten times as
much glia and an entire body or something like that. Then you might
have another hard problem.
And then you might start to understand the data channel in the double
helix, and then you have a soft and a hard problem.
And then you might have lots of puzzle pieces, and try to make your
theories so they fit the parts without taking the whole into
That's a hard problem.
My, life is tricky indeed...
(Sorry, couldn't resist, just felt like making stupid comments.
Though the transmitter stuff and cell level stuff at times interests
me randomly and I take those parts more serious, with some other stuff
telepathy has been there too many thousands of years for me to take
this all serious. This reminds me of Easties holding small conferences
in Westgerman highway toilets trying to figure out how to get the
flush to work or make tap water come or other basic problems in life
that are so real important to solve.
I guess I should get some sleep before I get more and more silly
and risk the hard problem of falling from the chair laughing.
And leave you to the hard problems that poor people in the world
have to face.)