Mike, On Sat, Oct 19, 2013 at 2:44 PM, tintner michael <[email protected]>wrote:
> > Worth reading lead article this week's New Scientist -claims that the > great majority of neuroscientific research is untrustworthy - while hoping > that this may lead to a new more solid stage of research. > This is the oldest of news - more than half a century. One side want solid reproducible results, the other side says that this isn't possible, so let's publish SOMETHING. There is a LOT that is below the threshold of publication, that you can learn by working with others in a wet lab. I did this, and heard things ~40 years ago that are must now being "discovered", along with much more that has yet to be "discovered". This can ONLY happen with MUCH better equipment. My microscope proposal is clearly supportive of this goal. Until then, we seem to be stuck with the status quo. BTW, SOMEONE should publish a book of neuroscientific suspicions. It would be hard to find a researcher who couldn't add something to such a book. THIS could guide machine learning MUCH better than current published neuroscientific research. Steve ------------------------------------------- AGI Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/21088071-f452e424 Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=21088071&id_secret=21088071-58d57657 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
