The overall tenor of this website and forum seems to be pretty much grounded in physiology and anatomy (in so far as I can tell so early in its life). However, there is nothing to be gained by complete accuracy of scientific description because it doesn't separate the accident from the essence with respect to the functional properties of the brain. Furthermore, all computational modelling involves some degree of abstraction because the modeller has to decide what aspects to ignore.

So my question is: How abstract can a neuroscience computational model be and still be acceptably on-topic for posting in this forum?

- Ross

Dear Ross, welcome aboard

Thank you for your post and question and sorry for being a bit late with the answer.

The ICT for Life Sciences Forum seeks to be a space where those interested in the fusion between the medical and physical sciences can meet and share ideas and thoughts, so I really welcome your contribution. We do not see to limit the range of enquiries and contributions, so our starting position is that we hopefully are able to address the not-so-technical as well as technical queries. There is a sufficient pool of expertise in Melbourne that we can draw upon to facilitate a dialogue. To get things moving, I have asked a NICTA PhD student, Colin Hales, to address your post from a technical perspective.

Again, thanks for your post and I hope it starts a productive dialogue.

Hi Ross,

There are places to discuss totally theoretical computer science models... eg wwwl.agi-network.org/

The membership here can certainly handle all manner of abstract propositions. It's a question of alignment with the forum goals. Can we build it and apply it to life sciences?

It is suggested that proposition with a lineage to empirically informed and validated models are likely to be seen as most relevant.

Try it out and see what happens.

regards

Colin Hales