- #1
Damir
- 19
- 0
Dear all,
I’m running a danger of being banned. I feel, therefore, a need to assure you (and mentors) that I’m not presenting potty opinions here.
Among other things, I’m contributor at Wikipedia in areas of neural networks, complexity theory, psychology and neurology. Unfortunately, they did not accept mu suggestion that neuroscience and neurology actually mean the same (tautology).
In the following link you can see an article on perception I contributed too. In related discussion page you might discern that my suggestions have driven major changes to the article. And, in a sense, it was peer reviewed, since numerous professional psychologists and neurologists, who read the article, did not have any objection:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perception
I have also published some op-ed articles that were well received. The following online article was reproduced on many sites and translated in Portuguese and Spanish:
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/07/01/2290426.htm
(You may find some that did not expire if you Google my name in quotation marks.)
You can also see two reviews of my website on my website. Just click on Reviews button. “Current Opinion in Neurobiology” is a serious peer reviewed publication.
I hope that my posts will be treated with a bit more respect now since they are not “Overly Speculative Posts”. I consider past events and reprimands as overreaction. I’m not surprised though, since cutting edge science often challenges deep believes of some, especially when it comes from a discipline we are not very familiar with. And I strongly believe that crossing boundaries between scientific disciplines is very important. In this case very important, since physicists are human and they perceive as all humans do. Not knowing that their observations are altered may compromise many honest future works.
Kind regards,
I’m running a danger of being banned. I feel, therefore, a need to assure you (and mentors) that I’m not presenting potty opinions here.
Among other things, I’m contributor at Wikipedia in areas of neural networks, complexity theory, psychology and neurology. Unfortunately, they did not accept mu suggestion that neuroscience and neurology actually mean the same (tautology).
In the following link you can see an article on perception I contributed too. In related discussion page you might discern that my suggestions have driven major changes to the article. And, in a sense, it was peer reviewed, since numerous professional psychologists and neurologists, who read the article, did not have any objection:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perception
I have also published some op-ed articles that were well received. The following online article was reproduced on many sites and translated in Portuguese and Spanish:
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/07/01/2290426.htm
(You may find some that did not expire if you Google my name in quotation marks.)
You can also see two reviews of my website on my website. Just click on Reviews button. “Current Opinion in Neurobiology” is a serious peer reviewed publication.
I hope that my posts will be treated with a bit more respect now since they are not “Overly Speculative Posts”. I consider past events and reprimands as overreaction. I’m not surprised though, since cutting edge science often challenges deep believes of some, especially when it comes from a discipline we are not very familiar with. And I strongly believe that crossing boundaries between scientific disciplines is very important. In this case very important, since physicists are human and they perceive as all humans do. Not knowing that their observations are altered may compromise many honest future works.
Kind regards,