Graham is still keeping shtum, I see....

Graham is still keeping shtum, I see....

I don't know what you are refering to @DavidMcC.
I vaguely recall a video that showed neurons moving, and I recall speculating that physical effects might affect neuron firing in the brain (along the lines that there could be more to brain function than synaptic connection). But I have no citations to offer. You are in error if you are basing your recent comments on my idle speculations.

In any case, you should try to substantiate points you make, with argument or citations.

SoS is spot-on with his parody response. I'll be posting that link shortly. It will explain everything.

GrahamH wrote:I don't know what you are refering to @DavidMcC.
I vaguely recall a video that showed neurons moving, and I recall speculating that physical effects might affect neuron firing in the brain (along the lines that there could be more to brain function than synaptic connection). But I have no citations to offer. You are in error if you are basing your recent comments on my idle speculations.

No, you weren't making idle speculations, you were earnestly commenting on the same article that I was.

In any case, you should try to substantiate points you make, with argument or citations.
...

Sounds like a convenient, political response, to me.

fuck

You still think I'm making it all up, don't you?
___________________________
There is no point in continuing this until Graham has posted a link.

Yup. I think you made it up. Based of course on some thing roaming about in your skull. Don't feel bad about it I used to do it a lot more and I still do it even now. Occasionally. You have inspired me to work on my mechanize post scrubber again though. I WILL find every paper Graham has ever linked.

SpeedOfSound wrote:....
http://jn.physiology.org/content/98/5/2842


...

Thalamocortical Conduction Times and Stimulus-Evoked Responses in the Rat Whisker-to-Barrel System
...
Conduction times varied fourfold, from 0.31 to 1.34 ms, ...

Does that mean that rodents have KHz gamma waves, I wonder?
... Oh, wait, this is too rational a consideration for the current climate in this thread..,.

DavidMcC wrote:No, you weren't making idle speculations, you were earnestly commenting on the same article that I was.

Then track it down, it sounds interesting.

DavidMcC wrote:

SpeedOfSound wrote:....
http://jn.physiology.org/content/98/5/2842


...

Thalamocortical Conduction Times and Stimulus-Evoked Responses in the Rat Whisker-to-Barrel System
...
Conduction times varied fourfold, from 0.31 to 1.34 ms, ...

Does that mean that rodents have KHz gamma waves, I wonder?
... Oh, wait, this is too rational a consideration for the current climate in this thread..,.

KHz would be way too fast.
I think it's about surround inhibition in the thalamus being fast so that 'awareness' is more drawn to the strong stimulus. This may be a clue about how we form create a category hierarchy for sensory input. I would have to spend hours with the paper that I don't have to be sure.

SpeedOfSound wrote:

DavidMcC wrote:THis issue aside, Hameroff is wrong to base the model on "model neurons", because that assumes that all the neurons in the cerebrum are of the same type. The very-long-axon neurons that connect the thalamus to remote cortical areas surely cannot be of the type he assumes, so his grand conclusion falls anyway, regardless of electro-mechanical axons.

I listened to one of his videos once. He really is hell bent on this QC stuff. He's kind of like Chalmers. He got his ticket to fame and now he is stuck with blathering about it no matter how wrong he proves to be.

Exactly!

DavidMcC wrote:

kennyc wrote:

DavidMcC wrote:

SpeedOfSound wrote:

Connexin based gap junction neurons in the cortex and the thalamus are limited to local interneurons that are inhibitory. As far as I know. So we can disregard what you said here until we get a link to some research that tells us otherwise.

If you ignore it, you are basing that on a misunderstanding. It is transmission along the axon, not transmision across the synapse, that is mechanical in nature in at least some neurons. The articles at the time did not say it was limted to interneurons.

Mechanical? Mechanical? Like physically flipping a light switch? What bullshit! Neurons may grow, change, shift as learning takes place, or through metabolism. But if you are claiming the brain synapses, neurons, axons or synaptic gaps work by mechanical action you need to provide some scientific research to support this.

Show me the links!

You are getting as bad as SOS. I have already explained why you have got it wrong.
The support is there somewhere, linked on this site. Obviously I've no idea which of many possible threads it could be.
Graham is strangely silent, considering that he talked about this too, not all that long ago.

Oh well then no evidence for a mechanical brain.

SpeedOfSound wrote:Yeah. I am such an asshole insisting on common sense evidence and links. Damn me.

Terrible, horrible, bad SOS, BAD!

DavidMcC wrote:

SpeedOfSound wrote:

DavidMcC wrote:

SpeedOfSound wrote:Yeah. I am such an asshole insisting on common sense evidence and links. Damn me.

Well, you certainly should have read it, damn you.

You said a silly thing. Just admit it or be silent and move on.

ALL axons use this same mechanism to transmit signals. The mylenated ones are faster due to the NoR's. It's not news.

Of course it "it's not news", but it IS outdated.
So, you admit that you didn't notice the article at the time.

Maybe it was deleted by the former-mod?

SpeedOfSound wrote:

kennyc wrote:...

Mechanical? Mechanical? Like physically flipping a light switch? What bullshit! Neurons may grow, change, shift as learning takes place, or through metabolism. But if you are claiming the brain synapses, neurons, axons or synaptic gaps work by mechanical action you need to provide some scientific research to support this.

Show me the links!

I suppose you could think of the action potential traveling down the axon as mechanical if you want. Imagine a leaky pipe with a big wave at one end. As the wave travels and the water rises it opens a switch which let's more high pressure water flow into the pipe. Then it travels another small length and hits another such switch letting more water and hence pressure in.

if you wrap the pipe in myelin you end up plugging the leaks and the wave flows faster.

I really have no clue what that has to do with anything. Neurons work by sending electrical signals down/up the axons and across the synaptic gaps by chemical action. The may grow, shift and adjust with time as do other cells (probably moreso) but I do not see any Mechanical process in the brain that could be considered part of its real-time operation.

Are you claiming there is?

SpeedOfSound wrote:.....

if you wrap the pipe in myelin you end up plugging the leaks and the wave flows faster.

yes, but that's nothing more than insulation on a wire, it doesn't change the operation of the circuit.
other than as you say allows greater speed/efficiency of electrical flow.

DavidMcC wrote:

SpeedOfSound wrote:

DavidMcC wrote:

SpeedOfSound wrote:I have a little leprechaun-genie in a bottle here and I can't find the link that explains it. But I am sure that Graham has the link.

I would see a psychiatrist about that, if I were you.
You seem to have a problem, caused by your ignorance.

http://jn.physiology.org/content/98/5/2842
??

Anyway. That's exactly what I was going to suggest to you except that it violates the FUA.

You have NO Evidence to back up your silly words.

It's on this site, ffs! Just find it. I probably didn't even post it myself, but it was certainly a year or two ago.
Also, I don't recall it being on an April 1st.

No. You claim it exists, you find it. I know for a fact what you are claiming about mechanical brains is bullshit. Show me the links! Show me the evidence!

SpeedOfSound wrote:

DavidMcC wrote:

SpeedOfSound wrote:

DavidMcC wrote:
I would see a psychiatrist about that, if I were you.
You seem to have a problem, caused by your ignorance.

http://jn.physiology.org/content/98/5/2842
??

Anyway. That's exactly what I was going to suggest to you except that it violates the FUA.

You have NO Evidence to back up your silly words.

It's on this site, ffs! Just find it. I probably didn't even post it myself, but it was certainly a year or two ago.
Also, I don't recall it being on an April 1st.

You brought it up why can't you find it? I think you are full of shit so why would I look for the leprechaun you claim to have in your bottle? This is just another example, among fucking dozens f you running rough over the rules of ettiquette around here. Jesus fucking christ. Learn will you?

This!

DavidMcC wrote:Graham is still keeping shtum, I see....

BFD! Back up your claims.

GrahamH wrote:

DavidMcC wrote:No, you weren't making idle speculations, you were earnestly commenting on the same article that I was.

Then track it down, it sounds interesting.

Yep, let's hear it David ... or provide other support for your Mechanical Brain claim.