X-Message-Number: 26109 Date: Fri, 29 Apr 2005 10:56:01 -0400 From: Thomas Donaldson <> Subject: for Yvan once more For Yvan: This is getting just a bit repetitive. But here goes again. Ok, you mainly are trying to produce a neuron, not a whole brain. If I understand your description the "neuron" you're proposing will not work at all like a real neuron. The problem comes with growth of dendrites to match with another neuron. If the other neuron is sufficiently close, they can form a synapse without much need for growth. Otherwise one or the other (usually the one with the extension of its axon) must grow axonules from its axon to the other neuron. The other (usually) must grow dendrites to the axonule when it arrives. (Axonule is a word I just invented: axons, too, split into branches, and an axonule is one of those branches, or a branch of a branch etc). So we come to the question of how the axon of the sending neuron grows properly toward the receiving neuron. In real neurons, guidance is by chemical factors released by the receiving neuron, by astrocytes surrounding it, or by other nearby cells. Growth involves sensing these factors. You are correct that memories (in present views) come from the fine connections of neurons. The problem comes when you try to implement this growth of a new connection in the neurons you are discussing. And of course, please don't go on about time-sharing in your "neuron". Given the number of chemicals involved in the working of a real neuron, it's unlikely that you can time-share even a single neuron. And trying to time-share a group of neurons will get you into trouble, too. Incidentally, I'll point out that if you DON'T use time-sharing for your neurons but give each one its own processor (or given that neurons are complex themselves, even more than one processor doing different jobs), then you'll also get FAR FASTER neurons than if you have one processor trying to act like 1000 neurons. Best wishes and long long life to all, Thomas Donaldson Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=26109