[Comp-neuro] RE: Hilbert questions
billl at neurosim.downstate.edu
Fri Aug 15 20:23:49 CEST 2008
> brain that we should aspire to, and I'm betting that the equivalent of the
> Navier-Stokes equations is some relatively simple learning rule.
I would also anticipate that there will be general rules that will be mined from an eventual
understanding of brain function.
However, part of the debate has to do with whether the best approach to understanding will be
through functional analysis, high level theoretical analysis of attractors or other, brain
circuit analysis, grubby grub analysis or other.
I suppose I would like to be a dualist, or even a quadrist, by suggesting that these
approaches will have their greatest value through their interplay. According to very inadequate
wikipedia research, Navier was an engineer (though also a mathematician) whose contemporary fame
was as a builder of bridges. Stokes was more the pure theorist -- though also an engineering
William W. Lytton, MD
Professor of Physiology, Pharmacology, Biomedical Engineering, Neurology
State University of NY, Downstate Medical Center, Brooklyn, NY
billl at neurosim.downstate.edu http://it.neurosim.downstate.edu/~billl
More information about the Comp-neuro