I think we've beaten this horse to death . . . . :-) >> However, he has some interesting ideas about the connections between >> cognitive primitives and neurological structures/dynamics. Connections of >> this nature are IMO "cog sci" rather than just "neurosci." At least, that >> is consistent with how the term "cog sci" was used when I was a cog sci >> professor, back in the day...
I think that most neurosci practitioners would argue with you. >> (To a significant extent, Granger's articles just summarize ideas from >> other, more fine-grained papers. This does not make them worthless, >> however. In bio-related fields I find summary-type articles quite valuable, >> since the original research articles are often highly focused on >> experimental procedures. It's good to understand what the experimental >> procedures are but I don't always want to read about them in depth, >> sometimes I just want to understand the results and their likely >> interpretations...) So what I'm getting is that you're finding his summary of the neurosci papers (the "other, more fine-grained papers") as what is useful. ----- This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244&id_secret=56347245-bce03f
