Thanks for the try but you offered very little other than you are a student
who thinks he is smarter that a guy who was educated at Johns Hopkins and
Harvard who also has 25 years of experience.
Ok you win. You are smarter. Now what?
Bottom line is that you are still a student with no real experience.
The fact is that I have used this model to be able to generate great results
for our clients. get it.....the model yields results. being a student you
haven't had to generate any results yet so.......
As for proving you wrong. I have already done that. You offered nothing in
your post other than to make claims about how wrong I am and then backed it
up with....nothing.
more....
"DarkKobold"
hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:9173fad3-4dd5-4bf9-99f6-396f4b6e21b6@v67g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
same
>> information on a couple of thousand different websites and sources.
>>
>
> Yeah, ocular dominance columns. Not really anything exciting. This
> only deals with one of the MOST BASIC aspect of the visual cortex.
> There are lots more areas of visual cortex then the ones that are
> discussed in the link you provide.
Sorry.....try again.
>
>
>> Your question:
>>
>> "Tom: I'm actually pursuing my Ph.D. in neuroscience. While I'm not
>> directly attached to the group, there are people in my lab who are
>> working with V1. Since V1 is really been the only part of visual
>> cortex that has been greatly scientifically explored, and is simply a
>> 'which direction is the bar of light traveling' part of the brain, I'm
>> legitimately curious how you are using our very basic understanding of
>> a very complex system, and relating it to human-human interaction."
>>
>
>> Easy...and not so easy. It is even harder if you aren't even studying
the
>> visual cortex yourself.
>
> "... aren't even studying the visual cortex yourself..." Actually, we
> are studying the visual cortex in systems class this week. Our prof is
> one of the leaders in mapping projections from the visual cortex.This
> seems like some stupid NLP way to diminish everyone's opinion of my
> knowledge of this area. A veiled insult. Does anyone else read this as
> a veiled insult?
hey Eistien you are the one who said you were NOT doing so
"While I'm not directly attached to the group, there are people in my lab
who are
working with V1. "
>
>
>> So the easy answer is that it is based on the level
>> and structure of communication between the limbic area of the brain and
the
>> neocortex. An overstimulated limbic system inhibits activity in the
>> neocortex creating a behavior loop that is outside of the control of the
>> person.
>>
>
> Wow. just wow. Even though yes, all areas of the brain are connected,
> this is the most ridiculous inference about behavior and
> oversimplification of projections I have ever read. The limbic system
> is A) in-parts part of neo-cortex, and B) responsible for so many
> things that keep us just alive... wow.
Her eis an example of the impressive amounts you have to offer. You are a
wonderful example of just what a PHD is worth.
>
>> Examples of this are phobias, addictions, depression and anxiety.
>
> ... Wow. Way to go out into left field. If neuroscientists actually
> understood how any of those things ACTUALLY worked, we would have
> solved the problems of drug targeting, treatments, anti-psychotics,
> anti-depressants, and millions of other things that currently plague
> REAL researchers.
That does seem to be the problem... You have no other experience to draw
upon to put thses things together. You increadible counter argument
is.....Well you haven't given one.
>
>
>>I can also
>> steer you to a 10 minute piece of a presentation that we posted on
YouTube
>
> This video was so ridiculously silly, I don't even know where to
> start.
Again no reference to how it is wrong.
Uh yes and as a matter of fact there are 6 layers.
>
>> I am not a PHD in neuroscience...What I was told is that anyone who was
a
>> PHD in neuroscience would understand the basis of the model if I told
them
>> it was based on the model of the visual cortex.
>
> First: Another veiled insult. "...anyone who was a PHD in neuroscience
> would understand..."
It is only insulting because you don't understand it. But then again you
are not a PHD yet...your just a student.
>
> Second: What 'the model' of the visual cortex? Come ON! There is no
> singular 'the model.' A real scientist would say, "The model we are
> using, which is based on our CURRENT understanding of how the visual
> cortex processes information, is called X, and was developed at Y
> University by Z.[1][2][3] " Credentials and history are EVERYTHING in
> science. [1][2][3] being peer reviewed journals in Science, Nature, J.
> Neurosci, or Vision.
>
>
>> I can lead you here for more information:
>>
>> Perceptual Neuroscience: The Cerebral Cortex
>> By Vernon B. Mountcastle
>>
>
> A 40+ year old book that talks about how there are layers of the
> cortex? It probably doesn't even discuss the difference between
> interneurons and pyramidal cells, LOL.
You and idiot. The book was published in 1998. That would make it 10 years
old.
I know....PHD's can add or subtract so let me help you. It is 2008 now. The
book was released in 1998. 2008 minus 1998 is 10. Glad I could help.
Again this is a testiment to you PHD qualified research ability. You could
even research when a book was written.His newest book is: The Sensory Hand:
Neural Mechanisms of Somatic Sensation (Harvard, 2005).
Then again mayb we should listen to a student rather than someone who won
the Nobel Prize. Yeah good plan....
. And here is the post where a 'newbie'
> scientist can point out every science-less claim you make.
Well....you didn't do a very good job. Maybe after you have studied the
brain for 50 years you will have more credibility. Until then I think we are
done. You have proven nothing but your limited understanding.
PHD...LOL!!! Clearly not yet!
