BrainMeta'   Connectomics'  

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

2 Pages V  1 2 >  
Reply to this topicStart new topic
> Four Objections To Cartesian Dualism
Shawn
post Jan 12, 2004, 07:48 PM
Post #1


God
******

Group: Admin
Posts: 1498
Joined: Jan 22, 2003
From: CA
Member No.: 9



just something to get this board started (this is from http://www.msu.edu/user/hacheema/lecture9.htm ):


Four Objections to Cartesian Dualism
• (1) Philosophical Objection: Where does interaction occur?

– Two substances must causally interact. But where?
– Spatial vs. Nonspatial interaction
– Contradiction? -- Dualism both requires that interaction must take place, but denies that mental events occur anywhere.




Four Objections cont.

• (2) Philosophical Objection: How does interaction occur?

– Descartes: ‘animal spirits’ convey mind’s influence to body.

– Response: Still leaves same problem. How does nonspatial substance interact with ‘animal spirits’?
Material causation: force is exerted. But force is a product of mass + acceleration. But nothing mental has mass and nothing mental is capable of acceleration. Therefore, if dualism is true, interaction appears impossible.




Four forms of Cartesian causation

• (1) physical-to-mental
• (2) mental-to-mental
• (3) mental-to-physical
• (4) physical-to-physical
• We can understand (4), but Descartes (and other dualists) owe us an explanation for each of (1), (2), and (3).




Four Objections cont.

• (3) Scientific Objection: Occam’s (‘Okham’s) Razor.

– All things being equal, the simpler hypothesis should be preferred.

• (i) Materialist posits 1 substance (1 type of causation)
• (ii) Dualist posits 2 substances (four types of causation)

– Dualist can tell us nothing of the internal constitution of mind-stuff, or of different types of causation.



Four Objections cont.

• (4) Scientific Objection: the Principle of the Conservation of Energy and the ‘causal closure of the empirical world’

The amount of energy in a closed physical system remains constant at all times (energy is neither created nor destroyed). Therefore, there can be no physical events without physical causes.

– mental-->physical / physical-->mental = gain and loss of energy.




One historical attempt to save dualism: Deny that mental-to-physical causation occurs
• Epiphenomenalism
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Charise
post Jan 17, 2004, 12:12 PM
Post #2


Aspiring
**

Group: Basic Member
Posts: 69
Joined: Jan 17, 2004
From: Denver, CO
Member No.: 948



ok..perhaps I've just leaped right into the fire here with my first post...

But after reading this.. I feel my 'mental' was just drained completely of all energy!

I think maybe I need a definition of Cartesian Dualism before I can really contribute anything worthwile here..

umm...so what was the question?? ..*fluffs her blonde hair...while looking extremely daft!*
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
purkinje
post Jan 18, 2004, 12:18 AM
Post #3


Newbie
*

Group: Full Member
Posts: 33
Joined: Jan 12, 2004
Member No.: 914



this argument seems to pit Monism against Dualism, but how legitimate is this? In terms of Mind-Brain interactions, aren't we limiting ourselves conceptually by being tied down to such notions as monist vs. dualist? Maybe the mind-brain interaction is not adequately described by either monistic or dualistic notions.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
CWUPhilStudent
post Jan 31, 2004, 02:08 PM
Post #4


Unregistered









[FONT=Arial][SIZE=1]Or perhaps, it is much likened to the Spinozian belief of one substance acting in two completely different ways. You can look at it in terms of a lens. Coming from one side of the lens, it appears to be convex, from the other side, concave, yet it is still the same lens. This is much like Spinoza's thought on the mind-body problem. For he thought there was only one substance, but being that it had infinite attributes, it could act in infinitely different ways. I agree with the first post's objections to Cartesian dualism, but there are many more arguements that you could expose. For instance, how can my mind be free if my body is determined. Descartes said that bodies are determined by the world they come into, but that the minds are completely free. This would have to be true if one proposed a complete separation of the body and mind. But it brings about a fundamental problem. If they must interact, which they do, how can it be possible for my mind to be totally free? How is it free when it is forced to interact with the corporeal body, which is destined to die, whereas the mind is destined for immortality.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
rhymer
post Jan 31, 2004, 02:56 PM
Post #5


Supreme God
*******

Group: Global Mod
Posts: 2093
Joined: Feb 27, 2003
Member No.: 385



What evidence is there for the immortality of the mind?

PS If you add a new bottom line to your last post [click on edit while viewing the post] as:-

[/SIZE][/FONT]

you will achieve your desires.
All the best Bill.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Kip Ingram
post Apr 05, 2004, 11:52 AM
Post #6


Unregistered









I can propose a mechanism for "mental->physical" interaction. Quantum mechanics postulates that an "unobserved" system evolves in a 100% deterministic fashion, and that during this evolution it exists as a "superposition" of all possible experimental outcomes. Only when we make a measurement on the system (i.e., observe it) does its state "collapse" to provide a specific numerical value for the measurement.

Decades of experimental work have confirmed this behavior, but quantum mechanics itself does not postuate a specific cause of the collapse process. Everyone feels it has something to do with "measurement" or "observation", but the theory as it stands today allows the division between the "system" and the "observer" to be placed anywhere; the results are the same.

I believe that our minds cause quantum collapse. In other words, prior to the action of our minds a system exists as a superposition of all outcomes that are compatible with the laws of physics. Our mind exercises free will by choosing one of the potential outcomes.

Because all of the possible outcomes are compatible with the (mind-free) laws of physics, no experimental test will reveal the actions of the mind. Quantum uncertainty produces pure randomness in non-living systems and apparent free will in living systems.

This point of view is 100% compatible with all existing laws of physics and every scientific measurement that's ever been made. I must point out that my proposal is not a scientific hypothesis because it can't be subjected to experiment test (at least not one that I've thought of). But it explains a great many things very nicely.

Regarding mental->mental and physical->mental, I believe that our minds lie outside of scientific theory, so we will probably never make a dent in these items. My proposal above doesn't explain how our minds "work", it merely offers a mechanism via which the mind can influence the physical world.

I've made a couple of posts on this topic on my own website (Kip Ingram Online).
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Dan
post Apr 05, 2004, 05:25 PM
Post #7


God
******

Group: Basic Member
Posts: 1922
Joined: May 01, 2003
From: Sri Danananda
Member No.: 96



I believe this is referred to as the 'multiverse' interpretation
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Guest
post Apr 05, 2004, 07:01 PM
Post #8


Unregistered









Actually, not quite. The "multiverse" interpretation of quantum mechanics asserts that there is no collapse at all and that *everything*, including conscious minds, branches out into a never-ending superposition. In other words, everything that could possibly happen does happen, in some parallel universe.

Experimental evidence supporting the notion of superposition in an unobserved physical system is more or less irrefutable. But I believe that collapse does occur and that the action of our conscious minds triggers it. The relevant system may lie deep within our brains, but that's enough to give free will a "window of opportunity."

The multiverse interpretation certainly solves the measurement problem, but with a lot of baggage. Think about what "anything that could possibly happen does happen" means.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Guest
post Apr 05, 2004, 07:02 PM
Post #9


Unregistered









That last post (7:01 pm) was Kip Ingram again, by the way.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Dan
post Apr 05, 2004, 07:46 PM
Post #10


God
******

Group: Basic Member
Posts: 1922
Joined: May 01, 2003
From: Sri Danananda
Member No.: 96



QUOTE (Kip Ingram @ Apr 05, 12:52 PM)


I believe that our minds cause quantum collapse. In other words, prior to the action of our minds a system exists as a superposition of all outcomes that are compatible with the laws of physics. Our mind exercises free will by choosing one of the potential outcomes.

I guess we could call it a 'multiverse until observed' theory. If all the possibilities exist at once, then there are 'multiple' universes (each possibility is a universe). In your theory, your 'observation' somehow causes the 'unchosen' universes to just go away. In the case that there is no observer to 'collapse' reality into a single 'possible' universe, your theory becomes identical to the multiverse theory.

quite aside from analyzing the differences between your logic and standard 'multiverse' logic, I find the basic idea of 'superposed wavefunctions' to not be literally real but simply a mathematical device. It seems to me to be a common psychological characteristic among 'einstein-complex' physicist-types to favor bizarre interpretations mathematical physics, probably because of the desire to be revered as a genius
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Kip Ingram
post Apr 07, 2004, 07:37 PM
Post #11


Unregistered









Yeah, "multiverse until observed" seems like an accurate way to describe the situation. I won't enter into a debate with you as to whether superposition "really" occurs or not, but I think denying that it occurs would put you even further out of the mainstream of physics than I am. This is precisely the aspect of quantum theory that has been subjected to exhaustive experimental test over the last few decades, and the theory has never failed to make correct predictions.

Feynman's Lectures on Physics has a good introduction to the experimental history, as does one of the early chapters of David Deutsch's The Fabric of Reality. Both treatments more or less grab you by the nose and drag you, kicking and screaming if necessary, into acceptance of "quantum wierdness." You might also want to do some web research on Bell's Theorem and the Aspect experiment.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Kip Ingram
post Apr 07, 2004, 07:44 PM
Post #12


Unregistered









Also, I don't really like the notion of thinking that an entire universe exists around all of the quantum possibilities. A quantum system's state is described by a unit vector in a Hilbert space of possibly infinite dimensionality. It's just one vector, and that vector evolves deterministically. Any observation that you can make on that system has an associated "operator", and the possible results of the operation are the eigenvalues of that operator. If you get eigenvalue X as your result, the quantum theory asserts that the state of the system will then be the eigenvector that goes with X. The "multiple possibilities" just reflects that fact that the vector might jump to any of the operator's eigenvectors. There's never more than one vector.

You could think of making an observation as laying a template down on the system; the template forces the system (randomly) into one of a fixed set of conditions. Each possible observation has its own unique template.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Dan
post Apr 07, 2004, 10:23 PM
Post #13


God
******

Group: Basic Member
Posts: 1922
Joined: May 01, 2003
From: Sri Danananda
Member No.: 96



although all that stuff sounds very reasonable insofar as it is the current dogma of Physics, although I cannot understand how any reasonable person cannot admit that 'collapse' smacks of absurdity in a strong way. More sensibly, this 'collapse' makes sense not as a real phenomenon but as a mathematical 'bootstrap' which forces the theory of quantum mechanics to fit observation
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Kip Ingram
post Apr 08, 2004, 12:28 PM
Post #14


Unregistered









Well, the paradigm that we're all familiar with from a "common sense" perspective involves systems that change with time according to a first or second order differential equation. For example, Newton's law that the second time derivative of position is equal to "force/mass."

The first discovery in the quantum arena had nothing to do with collapse. It was the simple fact that physical quantities don't change smoothly with time but rather in distinct lumps called quanta. In other words, there is a "smallest possible change", and changes smaller than that can't occur.

That means that time derivatives aren't really well-behaved; they're either zero (in between quantum jump) or infinite (at the instant of the jump). That calls the entire differential equation based paradigm into question. Since time derivatives don't really exist in a well-behaved way if you look with sufficient resolution, you can't equate them to anything and expect to get something that makes sense.

Classical physics emerges from the statistics of quantum physics.

We know what the half-life of uranium is, but there's no way to know when a single atom of uranium will decay. It's random. When an electron falls from an elevated energy state to its ground state it happens randomly as well. Even those simple phenomena are sufficient to tell us that our classical picture of reality isn't all there is to the story.

I really think you should do some reading on all of this. My ideas regarding how quantum theory may relate to the mind-body problem are definitely outside of the conventional scientific view, but the notions that you're questioning are some of the most well-proven scientific principles that we have. They're fundamental.

So, to summarize: mainstream, thoroughly accepted physics acknowledges that quantum events occur in a significantly random fashion, and my notion is that said randomness provides a "window of opportunity" for mental->physical influence.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Guest
post Apr 08, 2004, 01:14 PM
Post #15


Unregistered









QUOTE (Kip Ingram)
Our mind exercises free will by choosing one of the potential outcomes.


Kip, what evidence is there that free will determines which outcome occurs after the collapse of the wave function? What do you understand by free will? Don't you think free will is deterministic?
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Guest
post Apr 08, 2004, 01:32 PM
Post #16


Unregistered









QUOTE (Kip Ingram)
my notion is that said randomness provides a "window of opportunity" for mental->physical influence


well it's not really your notion since many others have thought of it independently of you and many no doubt even before you. I have thought of such notions years ago, but it certainly isn't complete because it doesn't explain what's so special about the observer that enables the collapse of the wave function, much less the choosing by way of this thing you call "free will" of which outcome will occur from all the possibilities. I know you can't tell me such answers because they require a degree of neuroscientific knowledge that no-one is in possession of yet, and so it's pointless to put the questions to you. And this fact underscores the incompleteness of this notion you're describing. It's, at best, a vague notion with apparently no hard evidence backing it up. It's fine to believe in it, I guess, but unless you have a firm understanding of what "free will" is, then you're not going to get very far.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Kip Ingram
post Apr 08, 2004, 02:32 PM
Post #17


Unregistered









I certainly wouldn't try to claim credit for having had an original idea here. I was just referring to the statements I'd made earlier in the discussion. I also don't think that the concepts I'm advocating represent a scientific hypothesis in any way, since I can't propose a way to test them. So this is really a philosophical position, not a scientific position.

Regarding "what evidence is there that free will determines which outcome occurs..." From a physical perspective, there's none. Since all of the possible outcomes are equally compatible with the laws of physics, you can't really look at one and see how "free will" caused it in some dynamic fashion.

I should point out that I don't think "free will" is the nub of the issue at all. I don't think there's any test you can run on the external behavior of a person to prove he or she is conscious; I can certainly imagine a sufficiently sophisticated android giving a perfectly good impression of consciousness. On the other hand, if the android is governed completely by deterministic processes, I wouldn't consider the android to be "conscious." I think that what is the nub of the issue is self-awareness. All of us have self-awareness, and we perfectly well know it. But none of us can prove that another person has self-awareness. We assume that they do because we know that we do, they look and act an awful lot like we do, and we know that they're made of flesh and blood the way that we are too.

I really didn't mean to get into a big debate here. I merely pointed out that quantum randomness offers an "inlet" into physics for the "mental" to influence the "physical." That's a perfectly tenable position, but it could also be perfectly wrong. I personally find the idea to be the most likely that I've considered (certainly more likely than the notion that self-awareness just "switches on" when a brain becomes sufficiently complex). However, my official position is that all of this is possible.

That's my story and I'm sticking to it. smile.gif
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Guest
post Apr 08, 2004, 02:39 PM
Post #18


Unregistered









QUOTE (Kip Ingram @ Apr 08, 02:32 PM)
That's my story and I'm sticking to it. smile.gif

I don't blame you for sticking to it. It's empowering to believe that our free will (or focused attention or something else we feel we have control over) can influence and bias the realization of certain outcomes over others from a cauldron of quantum mechanical possibilities innocently called the wave function.

It's a good belief to have, but I feel there's something better, more complete, and more empowering, something that eludes conscious formulation for the time being. But something to look forward to, nonetheless.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Dan
post Apr 12, 2004, 03:26 PM
Post #19


God
******

Group: Basic Member
Posts: 1922
Joined: May 01, 2003
From: Sri Danananda
Member No.: 96



QUOTE (Kip Ingram @ Apr 08, 01:28 PM)


I really think you should do some reading on all of this.  My ideas regarding how quantum theory may relate to the mind-body problem are definitely outside of the conventional scientific view, but the notions that you're questioning are some of the most well-proven scientific principles that we have.  They're fundamental.

no worries, I've got an M.S. in physics
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Kip Ingram
post Apr 14, 2004, 07:38 PM
Post #20


Unregistered









QUOTE
no worries, I've got an M.S. in physics


Then I'm curious; how do you explain the results, say, of the double slit experiment suite? This may be getting off topic; if you'd rather we can switch to email. Generate my email address as follows:

<my first name>@<my first name><my last name>.com

Thanks!
Kip
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Dan
post Apr 14, 2004, 08:13 PM
Post #21


God
******

Group: Basic Member
Posts: 1922
Joined: May 01, 2003
From: Sri Danananda
Member No.: 96



a quantum 'aether', with the nodes spatially related by phase, thus generating a 'pilot-phase-wave' background
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Guest
post Apr 15, 2004, 04:42 AM
Post #22


Unregistered









QUOTE (Dan @ Apr 14, 08:13 PM)
a quantum 'aether', with the nodes spatially related by phase, thus generating a 'pilot-phase-wave' background

Hahaha!!! I can't help but call this bluff!

Someone with an advanced collegiate degree in physics would never ever explain the results of the double-slit experiment in terms of 'aether' like you just did. What are 'nodes'? Can you tell me the name of at least one physicist who uses the term 'pilot-phase-wave' background? The answer is that physicists and people with advanced degrees in physics don't use that silly terminology.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Joesus
post Apr 15, 2004, 08:35 AM
Post #23


Supreme God
*******

Group: Basic Member
Posts: 4066
Joined: Sep 26, 2003
From: nowhere and everywhere
Member No.: 601



If he has an advanced Collegiate degree then he just did use that silly terminology.
You might want to rephrase that statement to "no one that you have known" would use that terminology.
As long as people are making accusations of psychosis we might as well determine the basis of reference.
It seems there is more than one person who posts on this board who would fit another persons ideas of being deluded.
It would seem to be a personal point of reference.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Kip Ingram
post Apr 15, 2004, 10:16 AM
Post #24


Unregistered









I agree with the last entry; I'd far rather continue our technical/philosophical discussion than start taking swipes at one another.

Dan, my reading of your reply is that in the two-slit experiment a "pilot wave" guides the particles. When both slits are open each particle goes through only one slit, but the pilot wave goes through both and that gives rise to the interference pattern. Is that essentially correct?

You would concur, then, that Bell's Theorem and experiments like Aspect's have shown that the "pilot wave" travels faster than light?

The pilot wave seems to be an entity that makes the electrons "behave as if" they're going through both slits at the same time. But if we explicitly look to see which slit an electron passes through we alter the pilot wave; electrons then "behave as if" they're going through one slit or the other.

Or to put it another way: when we don't look at which slit electrons pass through, the pilot wave causes the system to behave as if it's a superposition of the "slit A possibility" and the "slit B possibility." When we do look, it causes the system to behave as if it "collapses" into either the "slit A possibility" or the "slit B possibility" on an electron-by-electron basis.

My next question is: what's the difference in your description and mine? I'm saying that quantum superpositions exist and observation causes collapse to a single possibility. You're saying that the universe "behaves as if" quantum superpositions exist and observation causes collapse to a single possibility.

Well, hey. Every experiment ever done has produced results that compatible with the hypothesis that systems exist as a quantum superposition prior to observation and that observation singles out one of the possibilities. So if that's not what's "really" happening, what is "really" happening? If your aether manifests itself only by "faking up" superposition/collapse behavior, what's the difference as far as we're concerned? It looks to me like you're merely proposing an implementation of the superposition/collapse process. In the context of my original post that would mean "mental" could affect "physical" by influencing the pilot wave.

If the pilot wave produces some other effect as well then it's a whole different ball game. Do you believe that it does?
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Dan
post Apr 19, 2004, 04:20 PM
Post #25


God
******

Group: Basic Member
Posts: 1922
Joined: May 01, 2003
From: Sri Danananda
Member No.: 96



the 'pilot' wave is not a real wave, but a 'phase' wave in a background quantum aether with each node relating to all other nodes via phase position. To say that because both ideas logically satisfy a particular observation, both ideas are equivalent in terms of physical plausibility, I disagree with. the 'collapse' idea requires me to believe that the world is making massive instantaneous transformations of state, dependent simply on my observation of it. This sounds extremely egocentric, and I can't believe that my simple observation can have such a constant universe-shattering impact
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Dan
post Apr 19, 2004, 04:21 PM
Post #26


God
******

Group: Basic Member
Posts: 1922
Joined: May 01, 2003
From: Sri Danananda
Member No.: 96



QUOTE (Guest @ Apr 15, 05:42 AM)
QUOTE (Dan @ Apr 14, 08:13 PM)
a quantum 'aether', with the nodes spatially related by phase, thus generating a 'pilot-phase-wave' background

Hahaha!!! I can't help but call this bluff!

Someone with an advanced collegiate degree in physics would never ever explain the results of the double-slit experiment in terms of 'aether' like you just did. What are 'nodes'? Can you tell me the name of at least one physicist who uses the term 'pilot-phase-wave' background? The answer is that physicists and people with advanced degrees in physics don't use that silly terminology.

what's your education, 'guest'? tongue.gif
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Robert the Bruce
post Apr 20, 2004, 05:51 AM
Post #27


Unregistered









Solid State Physicists like Dr Don Robbins and Teller of Stanford would appreciate the node thought - besides which who cares if conventional a*s-kissers would like the term - works for me.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Kip Ingram
post Apr 20, 2004, 02:25 PM
Post #28


Unregistered









Well, if the pilot wave isn't real then how does it produce any kind of effect at all? If it does produce an effect then it must be "real."

I'm going to reiterate what the purpose of my original post was: to suggest a mechanism via which the "mental" could affect the "physical." It seems to me that a condition of even thinking about such a thing is to consider that the "mental" actually exists, at least for purposes of the discussion. If one doesn't think that "mental" exists separate from "physical," then there's no point discussing the "mental->physical" conduit.

*If* we assume, at least for the sake of argument, that the materialists have it wrong and "mental" exists, then it's *possible* that mental affects physical by influencing the otherwise random outcome of quantum dynamics. If you go for the Copenhagen interpreation, then this would occur by directing the collapse process. If you go for Dan's "pilot wave" thingie, then mental could affect the pilot wave. Let's not get sidetracked into a discussion of quantum theory interpretations.

The possibility that mental affects physical by influencing quantum processes cannot be ruled out given current experimental data, because noone has ever studied the quantum dynamics of system deep inside living brains. I don't think it's even possible to do that, because you couldn't collect an ensemble of results from identically prepared systems, which is how you normally check outcome probabilities experimentally.

Philosophically, I don't have to offer proof of my position since I'm claiming a possibility. Someone who takes the position that it's not possible for things to work this way have the burden of proof. It would be different if I claimed that this *is* how things are; then I'd have to offer proof. :-)

Obviously if you assume materialism is valid then "mental" is just an emergent property of physical processes, and would affect other physical processes by the familiar laws of physics. This is a very boring discussion from that angle.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Dan
post Apr 20, 2004, 06:42 PM
Post #29


God
******

Group: Basic Member
Posts: 1922
Joined: May 01, 2003
From: Sri Danananda
Member No.: 96



I'm not saying the pilot wave isn't real, I'm saying it's an emergent spatial effect of local oscillators. That's why I'm calling it a phase wave
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Dan
post Apr 20, 2004, 06:47 PM
Post #30


God
******

Group: Basic Member
Posts: 1922
Joined: May 01, 2003
From: Sri Danananda
Member No.: 96



QUOTE (Kip Ingram @ Apr 20, 03:25 PM)
Philosophically, I don't have to offer proof of my position since I'm claiming a possibility. Someone who takes the position that it's not possible for things to work this way have the burden of proof. It would be different if I claimed that this *is* how things are; then I'd have to offer proof. :-)

philosophical, schmilosophical. You can say anything you want, and if I don't understand where you're coming from and you don't attempt to show me, I can ignore you all I want burden-free. If you want me to understand you, you'd better tell my why instead of telling me I need to tell you why not.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post

2 Pages V  1 2 >
Reply to this topicStart new topic
2 User(s) are reading this topic (2 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 



Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 19th November 2017 - 06:21 AM


Home     |     About     |    Research     |    Forum     |    Feedback  


Copyright BrainMeta. All rights reserved.
Terms of Use  |  Last Modified Tue Jan 17 2006 12:39 am

Consciousness Expansion · Brain Mapping · Neural Circuits · Connectomics  ·  Neuroscience Forum  ·  Brain Maps Blog
 · Connectomics · Connectomics  ·  shawn mikula  ·  shawn mikula  ·  articles