User talk:Barak

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Welcome

Hello, welcome to Wikipedia.

[edit]

Here are some tasks you can do:

You might find these links helpful in creating new pages or helping with the above tasks: How to edit a page, How to write a great article, Naming conventions, Manual of Style. You should read our policies at some point too.

If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. If you made any edits before you got an account, you might be interested in assigning those to your username. I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian!

  • You can sign your name using three tildes, like this: ~~~. If you use four, you can add a datestamp too.
  • If you ever think a page or image should be deleted, please list it at the votes for deletion page. There is also a votes for undeletion page if you want to retrieve something that you think should not have been deleted.

Again, welcome! - Meelar 22:28, 28 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Hi there, thanks for rewriting conceptual blending in a neutral manner. My initial draft did seeming jarring and pompous. Nevertheless, you wrote "This theory is one among many; no theory of cognition to date has been widely accepted by the cognitive science community, nor has any been successfully implemented in the sense of yielding a system able to replicate the phenomena of human cognition." While that is strictly true, and it does not place blending on a pedestal, it also gives the impression that most "of the many" theories are equally likely candidates. Surely that's not the case. As per contemporary dogma, a couple of theories must have a broader base of support (blending doesn't have to be one of these theories). It would be instructive to place blending within such a context. I don't think that would go against neutrality. Thanks again -- Gyan 03:40, 17 Apr 2004 (UTC)-

--

Hi there!

Magnetoencephalography is indeed used experimentally to make functional maps of human cortex - Sarang Dalal at UCSF/Berkeley, for example, does it; I watched him do a subject last week. He's not the only person working in this field, though. MEG's research use to assess high-frequency (>50 Hz) discharges that are poorly detected by surface and subdural elecetroencephalography isn't in question; you can read about one very recent foray here.

So I'm putting that sentence back :)

-Ikkyu2 06:23, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

What a wonderful improvement to the MEG article! -Ikkyu2 00:41, 18 October 2005 (UTC)