> difficult. One possibility is that Calvin is wrong and the cortex is > some other type of circuit... My current thinking is that the CAM model > is almost correct in that the cortex is a class of automata that > transmits *signals* between cells rather than states. In this mode, a
The probability that any currently existing model of cortical function is "correct" is vanishingly small. The percentage of unbound variables is very large. These are merely ideas being tossed around in the name of progress, I doubt even Calvin himself believes in his theories, beyond that which is required to think about them(theory: the brain has to *believe* in something, even for a short time, in order to think about it: http://www.wjh.harvard.edu/psych/social.html#Gilbert ). Neuroscience, as with many other wet sciences, force the researchers to spend their entire careers working on theories that they know are almost certainly incorrect. The formal and concrete sciences, such as mathetmatics and CS, don't need to live with quite the same sense of ambiguity, because they are dealing with man-made construct. Just something to keep in mind when reading about the non-provable fields. ------- To unsubscribe, change your address, or temporarily deactivate your subscription, please go to http://v2.listbox.com/member/?[EMAIL PROTECTED]
