Is this neuroscience controversial or acceptable?

[EdEarl]

James T. Fulton is a former executive at Hughes Aircraft Company and current neuroscience researcher. The last quote in this color makes me cautious.

A 21st CENTURY PARADIGM DESCRIBING
THE NEURAL SYSTEM

A complete and contiguous electrolytic theory of the neuron and neural system is presented in unprecedented detail. It represents a new electrolytic paradigm that provides a more sophisticated framework than the chemical concept employed under the old paradigm. Individual sections are provided addressing the modalities of vision, hearing, taste and smell via the left navigation panel. Special reports are available via the right navigation panel.

 

 

Because of the revolutionary nature of some of the material presented, students subject to examination by their institution are encouraged to review the Cautions Page before proceeding.

 

[CharonY]

I would have to spend more time to read it all, but there are some red flags. In no particular order:

 

- the website is promoting a book, rather than referencing primary literate. Moreover, the book is is self-published, which is also somewhat unusual.

- the author is apparently not an active researcher

- the constant reminder that the theory is revolutionary and unusual. If at all I find the reasoning slightly confusing and as far as I know (and I am no expert in this area) there are already approaches to recast neuroanatomic structures into circuit systems in order to utilize physical models for simulations. In short I fail to see what is revolutionary (or even just informative) the whole thing is. There could be something hidden among the gazillion links, but I highly doubt it. If I had something important to say, i would explain it within the first paragraph.

- fonts, color, ugly (k not a very good criticism, but for some reasons it is part of crackpot material)

- claims affiliation with some weird company

-caution page? Really? If the science is sound you do not need to warn someone.

- where is the math? I do not see any (and this is one of the biological systems where it is really needed)

 

In summary I would say that someone is out to make money from gullible people.

[Ringer]

From a quick look through the author seems to be way behind the times, seems to be misunderstanding some things about excitatory cells, and his only reference to his claims is himself(so far as I've seen). For example he describes the heart as a mini-brain due to its neuro-myo-cyte functionality (it can function with or without nervous system excitation). But on that standard any smooth muscle system is its own nervous system. Just because cells can be stimulated without the nervous system doesn't make them their own nervous system, nor does it make them nerves.

 

He also makes a claim that our vision is tetrachromatic in origin, this is based solely on what wavelengths pass through the retinae. Somehow the evidence that our trichromatic vision evolved from dichromatic vision somehow slipped passed him. He also has a habit of redefining words, which is one of the biggest red flags one can have.

[imatfaal]

Another red flag is that he wrote his own Wikipedia entry!