"Sergio Navega" <snavega at attglobal.net> wrote in message
news:39954b9d_3 at news3.prserv.net...
> Ray Scanlon wrote in message <39904caf.0 at ns2.wsg.net>...
> >
> >Gary Forbis wrote:
> >>
> >> I fully agree with this... (where "the brain" is read "the system of
> >neurons.")
> >
> >Of course. One is forced to use a little shorthand to get over the
ground.
> >Do we speak of brains, nuclei, neurons, molecules, atoms, sub-atomic
> >particles, quarks? For us, I think that the neuron is the object of
choice.
> >For "amygdala", read "the neurons that comprise the amygdala".
> >
>>> "For us", you mean the average neuroscientist concerned with processes
> occurring at the neural level. These are only a small part of the
> scientists investigating brains.
Not at all. "Us" is meant to include all those, neurophysiologists,
mathematicians, grocers, and the man in the street who would talk of the
brain and how it works. (Not the SOUL (MIND). Let the religionists talk of
the SOUL (MIND).) The neuron is the proper unit for describing brain action.
When we discuss the nueron, then we drop to the molecular level.
> This would be slightly different for neuroscientists with concerns
> at the molecular level, which will tend to see not only "neurons", but
> synaptic clefts, neurotransmitter vesicles and the like. This is
> one level below the "neural level".
Of course, When one wishes to speak of synapses, one speaks of Peptide
Transmitter in large dense core vesicles, Classical Transmitter in small
synaptic vesicles, and channels for exocytosis. Different ships, different
long splices.
> Take computational neuroscientists, and you'll see that they are
> concerned not exactly with neurons, but mainly with electrical properties
> of dendrites and axons. One sect of computational neuroscientists will
> develop models not of a single neuron or a dendrite, but of a group of
> neurons, which enter in dynamic and chaotic synchronous oscillations.
The use of chaotic and synchronous in one sentence staggers me.
If you are talking of people using a program such as NEURON or DENDRON to
model a neuron, or a (very small) group of neurons, I think they would
question your use of "chaotic". "Chaos" is a popular mystery word, like
"quark" that people like to use when out of their depth -- "The brain is a
mystery to me and Chaos is a mystery to me, therefore one mystery must
explain the other."
> This line of investigation (which is one level UP of the realm of
> "barely neurons") is of fundamental importance to solve the
> "information coding" conundrum.
Information does not appear in the brain. There is signal energy proceeding
through the interneurons on its way to becoming a motor program. Above all
it is NOT CODED. Axonal pulses do NOT form a code. And they do not appear on
LABELED LINES. These are nonsense notions of the religionists
(philosophers).
> Cognitive neuroscientists go even one level higher, trying to
> accompany the spread of activations through the cortex when someone
> sees, for example, an inverted face.
Cognitive Science is, of course, an oxymoron. It is, at best, a curiosity
like Creation Science.
> From their analysis, a dynamic
> picture appears, revealing notions and concepts that one can't
> infer from the basic properties of a single neuron.
And now the emergentists emerge.
> You cannot say that the level of neural investigation is the
> only one to be considered "scientific". Science is about the
> creation of models with predictive and explanatory power. One
> can't rule out cognitive scientists, if what they do can be
> experimentally assessed.
No, but I can separate science from religion.
Religion is respectable. It gives some solace to those overwhelmed by the
inevitability of death. It is a help to those who must live in an unfair
universe. But it is not science. Science means removing God from the
machine -- NOT the universe.
Sorry for all the shouting but you have touched me where I live..
--
ray
Those interested in the brain might look at
www.wsg.net/~rscanlon/brain.htm
