X-Message-Number: 3905 From: (Eli Brandt) Subject: Re: CryoNet #3898 - #3902 Date: Sat, 25 Feb 1995 16:58:03 -0800 (PST) > Date: Fri, 24 Feb 1995 22:12:08 -0800 > From: John K Clark <> (Having read more of my Cryonet backlog, and having a better idea of how long this discussion has been going on for, I think I'll keep it to e-mail after this message.) > (Eli Brandt) Wrote: > > >If the simplest part of the brain is, as postulated, an > >N-state device, then... that is the simplest part of the brain. > > You can postulate that 2+2 =5 if you like but that doesn't make it true. Brian Zimov(?) said, "if the simplest part of the brain is an N-state device..." You said, "then it's a bunch of binary devices." To shift gears and say that the hypothetical is false does not address the issue. > That of course is the standard view , recently however suspicion > has mounted that certain neurons may have active transmission > even in their dendrites because passive transmission is just too > slow for some things. Oh. What's the prevalence of these "certain neurons"? Where can I read about this work? > >I think this isomorphism/identity issue needs to be addressed > That's what I've been doing for the last 2 months so I'd rather > not repeat everything I said in my last 40 posts, but if What I see is a lot of text without consensus, and a continuing stream of discussion points in which people essentially restate their disagreement on this issue. > >Conduction in salt water isn't light-speed fast, but I fail > >to see how you're going to speed it up much. > > By junking salt water and their overweight ions and moving to > electronics with their fast light electrons. Fair enough. But this speed-up is going to be the limiting factor, rather than the more spectacular speed-up you could get by replacing active transmission. Eli Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=3905