IUBio

NN formats

ken collins kenpc at banet.net
Sun May 23 22:13:55 EST 1999


"instantaneous 'state'" is a nonsensical concept because it
agrees to artificially separate out the Physically-real
dynamicism... i don't disagree that taking a derivative is a
useful way of gaining insight... it's just that doing so does
not, somehow, transform a system into the Maths... the system
remains the system... the Maths is "only" "just" another
"probe"-like viewing instrument.

i stand on what i've posted (and apologize to you because it's
obvious that you've not grasped it, and that's probably due to
the fact that my recent posts were referring back to a much
larger, long-ongoing discussion... but that's as it is, beyond my
control).

K. P. Collins, independent scholar

dc waterman wrote:
> 
> No offense but your conclusion doesn't follow from the logic. Given your
> statement:
>    "[Which can] generate action potentials..."   Can you not conclude that
> moving from one potential to another is a change in state?  I believe you
> are following the same logic as the sandpile problem.  Given a sandpile and
> removing a grain of sand at a time - when is the sandpile no longer a
> sandpile?  The exact point in time of "change in state" from sandpile to
> 'not sandpile' is difficult to determine, however you must agree that there
> is definitely a change in state involved, i.e., sandpile, 'not sandpile'.
> 
> The nervous system is not stateless.  Hit yourself in the finger with a
> hammer and then decide if there is a difference in your current and previous
> state.  Same with biological neurons, firing, not firing; firing, firing
> stronger..., etc.  When modeled in the continuous mathematics of the
> calculus you can derive instantaneous state in continuous systems....
> 
> FWIW, no disrespect intended....
> /dave waterman, PhD
> --------------------------------



More information about the Neur-sci mailing list

Send comments to us at biosci-help [At] net.bio.net