Humans have a considerably larger neocortex than other mammals, making it an ideal subject for the research of higher cognition. Theories about cognition have been legion. One theory suggests that humans have a higher cognition because we have larger cells and a more complex circuitry in the neocortex. Another theory claims that our higher cognition is due to different types of cells in the neocortex – cells that other mammals don't have. There is an important role in chandelier cells – so-named for their structural resemblance to an old- fashioned candlestick. We are beginning to get to the microcircuitry of neocortical cells by recording from pairs of connected neurons in human brain tissue, measuring the dynamic communication lines between neurons, illustrating how neurons interact and affect one another. Whereas previously it was thought that neurons worked in groups to affect the brain, a single chandelier cell can trigger multiple excitatory pyramidal cells – which make up the bulk of the cortex – and cause a chain reaction throughout the brain. Triggering specific chandelier cells, researchers are able to elicit a precisely timed chain of electrical events in the neocortex. The synaptic pathways between chandeliers and pyramid cells are incredibly strong – much stronger than has been recorded previously in other mammals. This suggests that humans do possess different types of cells, and that our higher cognition isn't due to having larger cells. Chandelier cells have been found in other species, but they are more complex in humans. This raises the possibility that there are many things which attribute to higher cognition – different types of cells, and a complex circuitry. I thought these guys had found out rather more than they have from the headline I saw.
Journal reference: Molnár et al. Complex Events Initiated by Individual Spikes in the Human Cerebral Cortex. PLoS Biology, 2008; 6 (9): e222 DOI: 10.1371/ journal.pbio.0060222 On 5 Sep, 11:47, adrf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Forgot, > A crude version of what I can do when thinking is called parametric analysis, > look it up on > internet, misapplied as to context, but no great matter and cross fertilised > with Systems > theory. Thinking upon it, it could be that Georges Metanomsky - how does he > come by such an > allegoric name? - is what may be a mental case of paraplegic? I call it > metaphor hopping. > > adrian > > > > archytas wrote: > > The brain stuff I was looking for was about recent empirical work. I > > only saw the headline and meant to read up, but the headline had > > gone. It was a claim to have found complex activity of multi- > > dimensionality. Might be dross, but I'll get to the stuff > > eventually. Little work is original and I'm not sure much has shifted > > since Richard Gregory was writing Mind and Brain. It has struck me > > for a long time that all of us lack much resource other than the first > > person reference (phenomenology) and our habitus and we are all stuck > > in a form of argument with severe difficulties and interests a long > > way from truth-seeking - whatever science models we have seem too > > limited and caught up in this. > > > On 4 Sep, 23:09, adrf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> Georges you don't know ornamental mind from a bar of soap. Besides what do > >> you do but copycat > >> stuff and pretend it's your own. I've thought maybe the skepdics might be > >> a use for you, but > >> severely doubt they'd put up with you. I don't know who hurt you, but none > >> of us did, so why > >> take it out on us? > > >> adrian- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Epistemology" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/epistemology?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
