On Wed, 18 Apr 2007 10:17:29 GMT, "Allen L. Barker"
<alb from datafilter.com> wrote:
>>r norman wrote:
>>>> Unfortunately, this particular view of how biological machinery works
>> won't get too far on bionet.neuroscience which is supposed to be
>> restricted to actual science.
>>>>>>>Growing a Brain in Switzerland
>http://www.spiegel.de/international/spiegel/0,1518,466789,00.html>By Manfred Dworschak
>February 16, 2007
>>A network of artificial nerves is growing in a Swiss supercomputer
>-- meant to simulate a natural brain, cell-for-cell. The researchers
>at work on "Blue Brain" promise new insights into the sources of
That web site deals with a project that has more physiological
validity than most of the AI stuff you see, but still a reference to a
peer reviewed journal article carries just a bit more weight than a
press release and newspaper article.
But that is not the point at all. You quoted me but snipped away all
context. The specifics about "this particular view" that I claim is
not scientific refers to a statement about, first a redox reactions
between neurotransmitter and receptor ("electron jumps"), second about
how such a redox reaction is a quantum effect, third about how such a
redox reaction (or any other neural process) is "influenced by [the]
brain's own electromagnetic field", not to mention the need to
"calculate FFT in planck time".