Gentlemen,
Another paper of interest.
Marc
Role of Memory in Olfactory perception.pdf (124 Bytes)
Marc --
It's hard to see why these papers are of interest. My impression is that the data are vastly overinterpreted, far-reaching and general conclusions being drawn from completely inadequate data. I see this sort of stuff all the time in Nature and Science.
The "40 Hz brain activity" turns out to consist of 40-Hz magneto-electric signals, which are far from single-cell recordings; they are measures of widespread ionic flows which generate magnetic signals. I'm sure there is some significance to the frequency measures, but I think what the authors make of the data is about 99% imagination. The role of memory in olefaction looks even more imaginative, in the other paper, with even less impressive data.
If you can make something out of information like this, more power to you. I can't.
Bill
The data areAt 02:26 PM 11/24/03, Marc Abrams wrote:
ยทยทยท
Gentlemen,
Another paper of interest.
Marc
Bill,
My impression is that the data are vastly overinterpreted, far-reaching
and general conclusions
being drawn from completely inadequate data.
Sort of like your hierarchy, huh? I guess if I based my impressions on
_only_ those papers I would probably feel the same way, but I don't. I try
not to base my opinions on things I have not attempted to either understand
or research. You have no idea of what kind and how much data actually
exsists for either of those subjects. I assume you have gone through the
references in both papers and have studied the cites that have provided the
data these papers were based on, yes? For instance,the Olfaction paper has
60 cites. I assume you have determined that the 'data' (cites) is
insufficent to support their claims. Could you please tell me which ones
were unsatisfactory? Do you have something in mind that rebukes the
conclusions of either paper? If so can I see them?
The lack of 'data' in B:CP (there are chapters with _no_ references & 75
total cites in the entire book) does not diminish it's worth to me.
Why do you seem to have this double standard when it comes to 'plausable'
ideas. No one, least of all me, is claiming that these papers represent the
final answers to either of these questions. But to say they are based on
'little' data and as such are not worth considering because of that does
nothing more than diminish your own work, which is based on _less_ data
than either of these papers
Bill, I really love you, but you seem to be walking around with this real
big chip on your shoulder and you are daring everyone to come and knock it
off. I'm not interested in trying.
I will not waste my time or yours in the future fowarding you ideas I think
might provide for interesting discussion. You are on a mission and I will
not interfere with it. You are _not_ open to new ideas. You either want
confirmation of your current ideas or solid _proof_ that you're mistaken in
your current ones. I can't provide either, sorry.
The "40 Hz brain activity" turns out to consist of 40-Hz magneto-electric
signals, which are far from single-cell recordings; they are measures of
widespread ionic flows which generate magnetic signals.
Yes Bill, that is the whole point. Single neurons are meaningless and must
act in concert to get anything done.
If you can make something out of information like this, more power to you.
I can't.
I didn't expect you would. I was hoping you might have found either one
interesting enough to explore a bit further. But as I said above, I will not
interfere with your mission in the future.
Bill, I sent a copy of this to Bruce Gregory. He was on my original list and
he has been a good friend, I don't know if you inadverdently removed him
from your reply so I added him back.
Marc
Marc