Reply to comment

I am going out on a limb here, but I think there is a small similarity between the contemporary model way of describing the scientific method and the input-neuron-output-reafferent loop, but then again I may be way off base which is at times my default mode. Think of it this way: Inputs equal new observations,implications equal neuron, summary still works/summary needs replacement equal outputs (my weak one!), reafferent loop equals the crack (no doubt). The one I am having trouble rationalizing is the summary of observation. Does this happen in the neuron or is there no place for it in Paul's input-neuron-output-reafferent loop model? How far off-base am I?