|
pubmed:abstractText |
The prevalent probabilistic view is virtually untestable; it remains a plausible belief. The cases usually cited can not be taken as evidence for it. Several grounds for this conclusion are developed. Three issues are distinguished in an attempt to clarify a murky debate: (a) the utility of probabilistic methods in data reduction, (b) the value of models that assume indeterminacy, and (c) the validity of the inference that the nervous system is largely indeterministic at the neuronal level. No exception is taken to the first two; the second is a private heuristic question. The third is the issue to which the assertion in the first two sentences is addressed. Of the two kinds of uncertainty, statistical mechanical (= practical unpredictability) as in a gas, and Heisenbergian indeterminancy, the first certainly exists, the second is moot at the neuronal level. It would contribute to discussion to recognize that neurons perform with a degree of reliability. Although unreliability is difficult to establish, to say nothing of measure, evidence that some neurons have a high degree of reliability, in both connections and activity is increasing greatly. An example is given from sternarchine electric fish.
|
