Richard Norman (rsnorman at mw.mediaone.net) wrote:
: It is amazing to discover how many different types of cells are
: decorated in so many spectacular ways with different types of
: icing, each contributing in some special way to the special
: mode of operation of that cell. Herein lies the fallacy of the
: computer types who would "simulate the brain" with rather
: simple-minded neuron models. (I am not referring to the
: computational neuroscientists who try as accurately as
: possible to model the "icing" as a means to understand
: it).
That's the problem with trying to explain "how neurons could
work" rather than "how neurons work". It bothers me to see
fanciful explanations of how neurons could work when there is
no evidence to support those explanations. From there, it is
just a short step to rationalizing that the neurons really do
work that way because they could work that way.
FWIW, I'm working on my PhD in Computer Science and am going
back and taking courses that I need to understand the real
neurons better without jumping to conclusions based on
limited knowledge of only one aspect of the phenomena.
What's really strange is to take a course for which you had
the prerequisites well before anyone else in the class was
born and before the prof was in college or even high school.
Eric Johnson