On Friday 14 December 2007 22:55, Deborah MacPherson wrote:
> ...
>
> Its not so easy to capture a connection from one brain to another no
> matter where they are because the meat of it may be too fleeting,
> big, or hard to document in standardized formats. Nevertheless -
> brainwaves can connect and can be documented and we need standards
> that cannot be collapsed by wave functions or hot button choices in
> terminology. Beauty is too simple to be pinned down like this. One to
> one connections may be an ultimate goal but is that what ontologies
> are for?
>
> What is missing today, in my limited view, is what about collective
> brainwaves? What can be documented and measured there? (01)
You continue to talk about "brainwaves" like there is such a thing.
There is not. What is recorded by an electroencephalogram is a highly
lumped electrical potential that is the residual at the scalp of a
extremely intricate, detailed and precisely coordinated neuronal firing
pattern across regions of the brain that may include many millions of
neurons. (02)
The do not encode information about thought or perception or any other
cognitive activity or phenomenon. An expert can distinguish a comatose
person from a sleeping person from a person sleeping and experiencing
REM (rapid eye movement associated with dream states) from a waking
person and possibly distinguish some things about their overall state
of arousal, but beyond that, nothing of real detail about mental or
perceptual activity. (03)
> ...
>
> Deborah (04)
Randall Schulz (05)
_________________________________________________________________
Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
Subscribe/Config: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-forum/
Unsubscribe: mailto:ontolog-forum-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/
Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/
To Post: mailto:ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (06)
|