On Mon, 03 Sep 2001 11:55:51 -0400, Kalman Rubinson <kr4 at nyu.edu>
wrote:
>On Mon, 03 Sep 2001 15:21:42 GMT, Richard Norman
><rsnorman at mediaone.net> wrote:
>>>As you say, a synapse can be electrical. By the same token, a neuron
>>does NOT have to "fire". There are many neurons that function
>>perfectly well without being able to produce action potentials. That
>>is why I simply referred to the membrane potential as being the
>>information carrier. The release of synaptic transmitter (or the
>>functioning of an electrical synapse) works perfectly well with graded
>>membrane potentials.
>>Agreed. I fell into the same trap. That's exactly the reason that a
>simplistic or, rather, off the cuff, definition is dangerous. The
>naive may grab onto terms or implications that the more knowledgeable
>would not.
>>>The notion of cell machinery and mechanisms is being transformed by
>>the more complete understanding and appreciation of the role of "cell
>>signaling". In this context, the function of the neuron is best
>>understood is an extreme specialization of the cell signaling
>>machinery. Neurons do not really do anything that other cells don't
>>also do. They just do it to extreme.
>>Yup. Of course, that won't help the ignorant who should do some
>reading.
>>Kal (who, with great bravado, presented the premise that neurons were
>specialized endocrine cells at his comprehensives many decades ago. It
>may have served to distract the committee from his other
>inadequacies.)
Sorry, this is a NEUROscience group. The simple fact is that
endocrine cells are specialized neurons! The neurohypophysis and
adrenal medulla started the trend and they went downhill from there.
