[Comp-neuro] (1) Maybe channel biophysics is not the "real" level
for analysis of brain function.
schwaber at mail.dbi.tju.edu
Thu Aug 21 23:11:54 CEST 2008
A colleague of mine just pointed me to this fascinating thread. It is so
great to find you unrepentant and unregenerate, Jim! Loving it, as
always. I have read through some recent posts and would like to add
three (I hope useful or provocative) thoughts. To keep the length
compatible with email, I'll send each idea separately, starting below.
_(1) Maybe channel biophysics is not the "real" level for analysis of
I agree with what Harry Erwin said about looking at the brain as an "M"
system that maintains a model of its environment. Neurons and brains are
immensely plastic. The plasticity arises from differential receptor
occupancy linked to biochemical and gene network activity. In this way
brains continuously learn, modeling and remodeling their experience in
the environment over time. This supports the rewiring needed not just in
learning but as the brain is modified by experience, aging, injury etc.
There is not a fixed, neuronally specific "circuit for function X".
As a result, once you leave purely sensory or motor cells it is the
normal observation that individual central neurons do not produce
reliable spike behavior in response to naturalistic stimuli-inputs. Just
as JB notes about Purkinje cells. Thus we may take a PSTH to "see" what
the neuron "does", and sometimes get approximate statistical consistency
this way, sometimes not. This is because the function of the brain is
held in the biochemical states of its neurons, developed through
environmental experience, as they behave in complex, dynamically
Neurons/brains are at base networked biochemical learning machines.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Comp-neuro