On Sat, 21 Apr 2007 02:35:01 +0200, Josip Almasi <joe from vrspace.org>
>r norman wrote:
>>>> I will simply comment that neurophysiology, which looks specifically
>> at cellular mechanisms, and neurobiology in general, which looks
>> specifically at experimentally accessible mechanisms with actual
>> evidence to support them, is a rather different world from that of
>> artificial intelligence or behavioral psychology (I except
>> physiological psychologists, many of whom are indistinguishable from
>> neurophysiologists) or speculations of physicists or ... or ... ....
>>Ah so what you can't measure, doesn't exist?:)
>>Well pardon me for spoiling your precious newsgroup with speculations;)
Science generally accepts that notion that a theory that does not
produce measurable and testable predictions is not worth pursuing.
Then again, as I have tried to point out, there is a difference
between the strategies adopted by people in different disciplines.
You are the one promoting such speculations in a science newsgroup.
They might be far more acceptable in neural net or artificial
intelligence circles. I have no objection to arguing and discussing
this type of notion in the proper venue and, in the context of those
groups, such discussions could be very valuable. Perhaps someday a
result could be developed that could then be imported over to an
experimental science group for testing and possible validation.