What is the mind?

F. Frank LeFever flefever at ix.netcom.com
Wed Dec 9 00:25:57 EST 1998



Well, why not just say "network"?  Seems to express the idea without
any misleading Golgian nuances...

F. LeFever  


In <366b3157.0 at ns2.wsg.net> "Ray Scanlon" <rscanlon at wsg.net> writes: 
>
>
>F. Frank LeFever wrote in message
<74eelr$cg8 at dfw-ixnews6.ix.netcom.com>...
>>
>>
>>It's a small point, but repeated use of the term "neural net" bothers
>>me.  Perhaps it is just shorthand for "network" as a way of
expressing
>>multiple interactions among neurons, complex functional communication
>>and bidirectional (multidirectional?), but I keep hearing Golgi.
>
>
>Oh, Lord! How our poor language gets in the way of expressing our
thoughts,
>the syncytium rears its head. I want a phrase that will include all
neurons.
>I don't like "nervous system" because it makes me think of Descartes
and his
>little pneumatic tubes. "Neural system" is a possibility, but "neural
net"
>sounds more modern to me because of a long ago (World War II)
background in
>communications.
>
>Then we have the computationalists and their "artificial neural nets".
If
>they can have a "net" why can't we?
>
>If I must bow to the shared lexicon community, I will use nervous
system but
>I won't like it. The great frog and mouse battle between Cajal and
Golgi is
>a century old so I will use "neural net" to make myself happy if no
one
>else.
>
>I object to "brain" being used as the center of all neural activity.
To my
>way of thinking, all neurons are equal. Some like to say that some are
more
>equal than others and the most equal of all are in the neocortex. I
don't
>buy it. Sensory neuron, interneuron, motor neuron--the neural net--all
are
>working, all the time.
>
>>The devil is in the details...
>
>
>Right you are!
>
>Ray
>Those interested in how the brain works might look at
>www.wsg.net/~rscanlon/brain.html
>
>
>
>




More information about the Neur-sci mailing list