> > 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)
Just FYI, MEG's (Magnetoencephalography) is a good step in providing temporal precision, but is still a long way from discerning individual neurons. It can basically give us EEG measurements from deep inside the brain without using electrodes(which obviously opens alot of doors for human experimentation) > 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 I'm sure you know this, but for the benefit of others: Insect brains are much easier to study because the neurons are explicitly laid down by the genetic code. They are identifiable neuron by neuron and are roughly identical from insect to insect (within the same species). The fact that even these networks aren't quite yet understood is a shining example of how far we have to go in understanding the human brain. > 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. > I support fringe theorists like Freeman as long as they stay in touch with the community and don't sail off to parts unknown. (Edelman tends to do this). Progress takes all types, the careful, methodical data collectors, and the people on the front lines pushing the theories to extents that the data barely supports. > 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 ;) > Here's hoping. Although I fear they probably said similar things 10-30 years ago. Only nanotech can get us the type of noninvasive, detailed data that we need. The type of electrodes we currently use are never going to suffice. Lucky for us that the brain uses electrically recordable signals from a structure that is so easily accessible. We'd be in dire straits if the brain used entirely chemical mechanisms and was located in an abdominal sack. Thank you evolution for making our jobs as easy as they are :) ------- To unsubscribe, change your address, or temporarily deactivate your subscription, please go to http://v2.listbox.com/member/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
