Colin Hales writes:
> There's a whole axis of modelling orthogonal to the soma membrane which
> gets statistically abstracted out by traditional Hodkin/Huxley models. The
> neuron becomes geometry-less (except for when the HH model is made into
> 'cable'/compartmental equivalents for longitudinal transmission). The new
> modelling I am doing undoes what HH did. There's nothing wrong with it -
> it just throws away all the experience components, which are physics
> occurring at right angles to the HH propogation.
> The electric field, which is massive and intricately choreographed, cannot
> be eliminated. It must be fully expressed in space just as a neuron does.
> All the chemical complexities don't matter except insofar as they serve to
> manipulate the electric field in space. My EC calculus says 'why it's like
> something' to be these fields (again I am still working on this!).
> In my model, for very specific reasons of physics, computationalism,
> functionalism, representationalism, eliminativism are all false. This does
> not mean that there is no 'abstract computation', no 'functional
> structure', no 'representation'.... it just means that these things are
> not _causal_ of phenomenal consciosuness - they merely serve to manipulate
> it appropriately for the purposes of cognition.
> So - 'action potentials' will be an emergent feature of the physics, not
> modelled. All the chemistry manipulating the membrane conductance (and
> therefore its effectiveness as a dielectric) are eliminatable in favour of
> simpler gating mechanisms. You do not have to have a cytoskeleton - merely
> a dielectric. Synapses are all irrelevant. They are constructed so as not
> to interfere with the overall soma fiald expression (by the way -
> astrocytes are more important in this than neurons!)...... except that in
> some heavy mass-synaptic firing conditions - maybe in the cerebellum there
> may be field effects in the dendritic trees that are 'like something'....
> not sure yet.... but my bet is no.
> Also, by implementing 'virtual circuits' orthogonal to the membrane
> dependent on synchrony/asynchrony in 3D space, the soma fialds have a role
> in learning in that they maintain channels down which (along with other
> sources of chemistry) chemistry flows to modify synapses and build new
> neural hardware/shape changes.
> So overall: unless the computational substrate has this stuff built into
> it there will be no experiences. End of story. My PhD will eventually
> contribute to an experiment to prove this. I have to build new chips tho.
> Nature has made a wonderful, amazing piece of kit in the neuron/astrocyte.
> We have barely begun to get it what it is really doing. Unjustified
> computationalist/functionalist hubris and assumption based on simplistic
> models from >50 years ago will not do.
So you are saying the special something which causes consciousness and which
functionalism has ignored is the electric field around the neuron/astrocyte.
fields were well understood even a hundred years ago, weren't they? Why
a neuron be simulated by something like a SPICE model? Even if there is some
physics involved, once the equations are worked out then either with pencil and
paper or with the aid of a computer you should be able to model the neuron:
starting parameters, work out what it is going to do in future. Do you disagree
this would be possible?
Be one of the first to try Windows Live Mail.
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to firstname.lastname@example.org
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at