RoyBoy <aphycho at usa.net> wrote in message
news:H0NZ6.115882$r7.15529709 at news1.busy1.on.home.com...
> ***
> However, though Roy made one statement that was spot-on:
>> "After all, a neuron is very small...and requires to be part of a
> system to do much."
>> and one that was incorrect:
>> "However, a neuron is specialized...and is as
> dumb and useless by itself, as a single cog
> in a clock."
> ***
>> Hehe well...if I hit .500 I'm pretty happy.
Not for neuro. 'sOkay. <g>
> How does the analogy defer from the correct statement?
Clockwork's gear is not a processor.
Just a conduit.
Even axon 'pipe' is more than conduit.
Single neuron has not only bigger instruction
set than the gizmo you're using to read this,
but has semi-autonomy; it maintains itself alive,
and 'relates' (broad use of word) to other cells.
It is more complex than most other cell
types (debatable whether neuroendocrine
cell is more or less-- depending on
level-of-consideration, and neuron type).
Remember all those modulating processes?
(might be time for some textbook
phagocytosis <g>
Also, single neuron, unlike clock gear,
is nearly never *essential*--
beaucoup redundancy.
Several more reasons why bad analogy;
previous over-suffice WRT granularity
of current discussion.
;~)
