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