> Yes, getting this data is what the entire field of neurophys is > about. Being able to extract it without using surgery, > electrodes, amplifiers, and gajillions of manhours would be > outstanding. A lack of data is the primary thing holding > neuroscience back and to a large degree, the depth of cognitive > theory over time mirrors the quality of the acquisition and > analysis tools. > > -Brad >
That was exactly my impression when I last looked seriously into neuroscience (1995-96). I wanted to understand cognitive dynamics, and I hoped that tech like PET and fMRI would do the trick. But nothing existing giving the combination of temporal and spatial acuity that you'd need to even make a start on the problem.... I had a PhD student (Graham Zemunik) who tried to make a detailed model of the "cognitive dynamics" in a cockroach's "brain" -- and even that was pretty dicey because the data found by different researchers was often inconsistent. From what you're describing, some headway is finally being made on modeling "cognitive dynamics" in parts of the rat's brain, and that's a great thing. I've enjoyed following Walter Freeman's work on olfaction in rabbits, but, I've also noticed the pattern of bold hypotheses and partial retractions in his work over time, which is due to the fact that the data is not quite rich enough to support the kind of theorizing he wants to do. Fortunately, neuro-analysis technologies are advancing really fast just like computer chips. In another 10-30 years we will have the data to understand our brains, and the computers and algorithms to crunch this data. (And we may have AI's to do the work for us, who knows ;) -- Ben G ------- To unsubscribe, change your address, or temporarily deactivate your subscription, please go to http://v2.listbox.com/member/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
