From newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.ecf!utgpu!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!trwacs!erwin Tue May 12 15:49:40 EDT 1992
Article 5481 of comp.ai.philosophy:
Path: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.ecf!utgpu!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!trwacs!erwin
>From: erwin@trwacs.fp.trw.com (Harry Erwin)
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Subject: Re: syntax and semantics
Message-ID: <574@trwacs.fp.trw.com>
Date: 8 May 92 12:38:03 GMT
References: <1992Apr8.215800.18021@mp.cs.niu.edu> <92099.194744JPE1@psuvm.psu.edu> <1992Apr9.174840.3407@organpipe.uug.arizona.edu> <5674@mtecv2.mty.itesm.mx> <2@tdatirv.UUCP> <571@trwacs.fp.trw.com> <16@tdatirv.UUCP>
Organization: TRW Systems Division, Fairfax VA
Lines: 26

sarima@tdatirv.UUCP (Stanley Friesen) writes:

>In article <571@trwacs.fp.trw.com> erwin@trwacs.fp.trw.com (Harry Erwin) writes:
>|sarima@tdatirv.UUCP (Stanley Friesen) writes:
>|
>|>WRONG me bucko!   We *do* know, in large part, how a neuron works.
>|...
>|Which model of neuron functioning are you refering to? The computer
>|science variant (highly oversimplified) or the neuroscience variant (which
>|frankly admits its ignorance).

>The neuroscience variant, which admits its ignorance *past* *a* *certain*
>*point*.  The basic functionality,in terms of chemistry and physiology is
>quite well understood.  It is only certain details that are not known.

I'll be attending a three-day workshop in a couple of weeks that will
address this issue. They will be examining -- in some depth -- the
implications of Pribram's theories. If I learn anything of relevance to
this discussion (an interesting question, given that I'm a mathematician
and not a neurophysiologist), I'll post it here.

Cheers,
-- 
Harry Erwin
Internet: erwin@trwacs.fp.trw.com



