you didn't quote, you rewrote.
i said:
"ionic conductances, upon which the ability to generate action
potentials depends"
and went on to discuss the continuity inherent in such... if
things are inherently continuous, where, within them, can one
discover the "boundaries" of a "state"?
it doesn't do to sum gradients within the continuity and term
this or that summation a "state"... the continuity... all of
it... is in-there, no less than it is when the gradients within
the continuity sum differently... yes, now the left ring finger
presses the "S" key, and subsequently the right ring finger
presses the "L" key... but it's all just continuous gradients
with nary a "state" in-there.
take three flashlights, fix red, green and blue filters on their
lenses, attach some variable resistors, and you can get any color
you want... but it's all still continuous. (the long ongoing
discussion takes all of this down to the "level" of so-called
"photons", so-called "electrons", so-called "atoms", and
beyond... it's all one big continuity.)
gives new meaning to the old saw about "walking hand in hand" :-)
cheers, ken collins
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