dc waterman wrote:
> Which part didn't I grasp? I repeat your own quote:
> >> "[Which can] generate action potentials..." An "action potential" in
> a neuron is a potential which crosses a threshold and causes a change in
> state from non-firing to firing or vice-versa. This is well documented in
> both biological and artificial systems and is a requirement for the correct
> operation of the system. Removing the mathematics or considering the values
> as infinitesimal doesn't change the operation of the "Physically-real
> dynamicism." Derivatives are merely a way to approximate instantaneous
> values. What part of this is "nonsensical"??
>> Regardless of that, the system changes state at the neural level and I
> submit that it is therefore stateful. I respect your difference of opinion
> although, in this thread, you have offered nothing scientific to support it
> other than the system is dynamic. Perhaps you can direct me to the on-going
> thread you referred to in your reply...
>> /dave waterman, PhD
I am a novice at the biological level (to say the least)
I also think it reaches thresholds rather then simply change state in a binary
fashion. If you could read the state (energy) of neuron at any point in time it
would likely be different? When it reaches its threshold the neuron will fire.
The human mind is of course dynamic in that one system or component has direct
or indirect effect on another simply by powering or not powering the component
through hard wired channels or otherwise. I understand it as the power to the
brain being your total resources which it spends as needed.
