Thank you for the clarification. I'll look into long-term potentiation more then. This might be the term for what I am interested in capturing. |
On Dec 17, 2007 10:24 AM, Randall R Schulz <
On Monday 17 December 2007 06:01, Deborah MacPherson wrote:
So far, there's no reason to believe that the information encoded in a
> > RE: do not encode information about thought or perception or any
> > other cognitive activity or phenomenon.
> Where then, is this information ever encoded in machine readable
neural network will ever be accessible from outside that network. The
only machine that can (so far) access the content of a neural network
(or whole CNS) is that network.
Of course you haven't. There as yet exists no technology that can detect
> Please point me to or name an example where accurate recordings
> have been made because I have not been able to find a good example.
CNS activity at the neuronal level over "large" regions. And right
now, "large" is more than one neuron, and even then only a neuron's
firing is detected—its information content, e.g. its long-term
potentiation, cannot be read.
Functional MRI (fMRI) can discern gross metabolic activity rates at
roughly milimeter-scale volumetric resolution and 1-second temporal
resolution, and there are a lot of neurons in a cubic milimeter and a
great deal of neuronal activity occurs in a second.
So far, neither brains nor minds can be read technologically, so one
must approach notions of direct information exchange between one brain
or mind and another with tremendous skepticism.
Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/
Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/
To Post: mailto:ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (01)