Colin, On Sat, Jan 16, 2016 at 3:57 PM, Colin Hales <[email protected]> wrote:
<- snip -> > You know the irony? > > Both Durand and Schiff visited us and became aware of my work on the > fields in 2009-2012 ... > > And, like everyone else, they've got the physics wrong. And they > completely miss the magnetic field. But that can be fixed. > Here's the problem - and YOU are a notable component in this... There are some people like Durand and Schiff who don't think neurons can compute with electric fields, but they DO believe that field might be responsible for "wave" effects. There are some people who see that electric fields probably ARE a significant factor in computation, but who dismiss magnetic effects. There are some people like YOU who see that magnetic effects probably affect operation, but who dismiss the idea that neurons might be using the Hall effect to do so, despite neuron size and construction closely resembling Hall effect devices. OF COURSE channel impedance will dramatically increase in the presence of a magnetic field, as moving ions are steered into channel walls by the Hall effect. Further, magnetic field from a linear conductor drops as 1/r and NOT 1/r^2, so OF COURSE a bundle of neurons will dramatically affect each other by magnetic means. Imagine, cabling being a MAJOR component every bit as powerful and mutual inhibition - and I suspect in many cases is RESPONSIBLE for mutual inhibition. Then there are people like ME who say that it is time to "do the math", both the physics math to find out what is workable in wetware, and the cognitive math to determine what would be useful in wetware, and only then start expressing opinions as to what IS vs. what MIGHT CONCEIVABLY BE happening. Sure their work is unscientific, but so is yours (and mine). Things work however they work, regardless of your and my opinion. Let's figure out how that actually is. So, people like Durand, Schiff, myself, and others observe your comments and believe you are misled - either in believing you presume too much (as Durand and Schiff apparently believe), or in believing you presume too little (as I believe), or believing you are on the right track but got something wrong (as I suspect some others here might believe). So, they write articles regarding what THEY believe (with little/no foundation) without mentioning your beliefs that they believe are wrong. There is a way to break this cycle. Write a book or article regarding ALL of the field-related things that might be happening. Then, other authors would HAVE to reference your article/book because their work would be one of the methods mentioned therein. *Steve* ================= > > cheers > colin > > *AGI* | Archives <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now> > <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/10443978-6f4c28ac> | > Modify > <https://www.listbox.com/member/?&;> > Your Subscription <http://www.listbox.com> > ------------------------------------------- AGI Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/21088071-f452e424 Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=21088071&id_secret=21088071-58d57657 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
