On Sat, Oct 8, 2011 at 7:06 AM, Craig Weinberg <whatsons...@gmail.com> wrote:

>> If a motor neuron involved in voluntary activity fires where you would not 
>> predict it would fire given its internal state and the inputs then it is *by 
>> definition* acting contrary to physical law.
> Every firing of motor neurons involved in voluntarily activity fires
> where you would not predict, given that the internal state provides no
> prediction and that the inputs are determined by the subject and
> therefore unknowable to anyone outside of the subject.

The internal state of the neuron determines its sensitivity to inputs.
The internal state is complex but it includes things such as the
membrane potential, the intracellular ion concentrations, the number,
type and location of ion channels, to what extent the synaptic
vesicles have filled with neurotransmitter, and multiple other
factors. The inputs consist of every environmental factor that might
potentially affect the neuron such as the extracellular ionic
concentrations, pH, temperature, synaptic connections, concentration
of neurotransmitter in the synapse, concentration of enzymes which
break down neurotransmitter and so on. If the neuron fires where
consideration of these factors would lead to a prediction that it
should not fire then that is by definition the neuron acting contrary
to physical law. How else would you define it?

Stathis Papaioannou

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
For more options, visit this group at 

Reply via email to