Wavelet answer: Re: question: job of a neuron

Ron Blue rcb5 at msn.com
Wed Sep 5 11:47:01 EST 2001


----- Original Message -----
From: ""Wolfram"" <remove_this!helbrecht at gmx.net>
> rcb5 at msn.com ("Ron Blue") wrote:
>
> > Single neurons are connected to other neuron via axons and dendrites, or
>
> Are there differences in the "jobs" (if i still may use that word
> in this context (and thread)) of axons and dendrites? As far as i
> know - from school, several years ago, - is that dendrites act as
> input sensors and axons as some sort of output. But i think,
> during the years neuroscience might been exploring more about
> them.

Unfortunately, the rules we learned in school don't seem to apply to the
real world.  Standard models are not standard, consider the summation
in dendritic fields that would be dendrites talking to dendrites.  Normally
information is thought to flow from dendrites to soma to axon to dendrites
but this
is not always true.  Neurons did not read the same rules that we
did.  Consider the resent observation that glial cells transmit information
when we
were told that their job was to support neurons.

> > > How can there be interference patterns if were only talking about a
> > > single neuron?
> > The backaction propagation wave will interfere with future wavelet
> > transmissions, but neurons do not exist as a singularity but as a
component
> > in a greater system.  The question ultimately becomes what is the job of
a
> > neuron "in its system".
>
> No. But if you want to see the "examined" neuron in a context of
> other cells i would like to know, what it does with "input"
> signals like pain or heat or even a triggered red "point" in the
> eye.

Signals like pain is not necessarily a signal but can be the absents of a
signal or
discrepancies to previous learned materials and therefore an opponent
process in a wavelet system.

> > emit.   Regardless of the system wavelets will generate interference
> > patterns with each other that is holographic in nature.  Neurons are not
>
> So time ago i heard about "the holographic nature" ot the brain
> first. As far as i know its result is that a part of the brain can
> be removed, but the remaining part is (most times or always?) able
> to regenerate the missing abilities.

In a way this is correct.  But the missing information is fuzzy.  Such
processes
can be used in laser holograms that have had parts removed.  The resultant
information
is not perfect but reduced in quality.  Changing the frequency of the laser
light will
change the size of the information.

Ron Blue
http://turn.to/ai

>
> --
>
> best regards,
> Wolfram
>
>

---




More information about the Neur-sci mailing list