David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Ezio Di Nucci
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Acta Biotheoretica 31 (3):185-202 (1982)
A new theory for basic function in the nervous system has recently been proposed (Dempsher, J., 1979a, 1979b; 1980, 1981). The major basic themes of the new theory are as follows: (1) There are two fundamental units of structure and function, the fibre or conducting mechanism, and the neurocentre, where nervous system function as we know it takes place. (2) The nerve impulse is regarded as a mathematical event. The mathematics is the result of a prescribed fusion of energy and matter. (3) Nervous system function everywhere in the nervous system is mathematical. In the fibre, the prescribed fusion of energy and matter results in a number. In the neurocentre, the prescribed fusion of energy and matter results in a mathematical function. Basic function in the nervous system everywhere requires a transformation of a nerve impulse in the fibre into a nerve impulse in the neurocentre with opposing properties: The nerve impulse in the fibre is confined to the fibre; cannot sum with another nerve impulse; can travel long distances with constant form and velocity; curvature in space and time are not significant features; and it is regarded as a number. On the other hand, the nerve impulse in the neurocentre is confined to the neurocentre; can sum with other nerve impulses; cannot travel long distances - even in a very short distance, it changes form; curvature in space and time is a very significant feature; and it is regarded as a mathematical function.The approach to determine how one form of the nerve impulse is transformed into the other at the input region is based on two of the differences listed above: (1) The nerve impulse in the fibre cannot sum with another nerve impulse in the fibre, whereas in the neurocentre, several nerve impulses sum to form a larger nerve impulse. (2) The nerve impulse in the fibre is regarded as a number, in the neurocentre, it is regarded as a mathematical function. The commonality of (1) and (2) is that the properties defining the nerve impulse in the fibre are associated with the property ofdiscreteness, whereas, the properties defining the nerve impulse in the neurocentre are associated with the property ofcontinuousness. Thus, the basic theme of unification of function at the input region of the neurocentre is the transformation of a phenomenon with the property of discreteness into a phenomenon with the property of continuousness. The solution to this transformation is approached from two directions:biologic andmathematical. In the biologic approach, the unit element of the nerve impulse in the fibre terminations (as.u. as a wave of energy, a spike in the classical theory) fuses with a. calcium-binding protein causing the release of Ca++. The calcium ions then combine with another protein. Associated with the second reaction is a conformational change in the Ca++-protein complex and the unit element in the neurocentre, bs.u., is emitted. Individual bs.u. then fuse with acetylcholine; summation occurs andwave b is emitted. In the mathematical approach, the nerve impulse as a number, is partitioned into two numbers with a precise rule relating these two numbers. One possibility suggested is that the number can be regarded as the value of a trigonometric function. This value then gives rise to an angle with sides related in a ratio or proportionality fashion — a relationship with the property of continuousness, as contrasted with that of a single number, discreteness. Both biologic and mathematical approaches are united so as to suggest that the mathematical (trigonometric) function arose as the result of a fusion of energy (as.u. as a wave of energy) and the calcium-binding protein as matter; following this reaction, bs.u., with opposing properties, is emitted.
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
|Through your library|
References found in this work BETA
No references found.
Citations of this work BETA
No citations found.
Similar books and articles
Stojan Obradović & Slobodan Ninković (2009). The Heuristic Function of Mathematics in Physics and Astronomy. Foundations of Science 14 (4):351-360.
Kyle L. Kirkland (2002). High-Tech Brains: A History of Technology-Based Analogies and Models of Nerve and Brain Function. Perspectives in Biology and Medicine 45 (2):212-223.
Hugh Lehman (1965). Functional Explanation in Biology. Philosophy of Science 32 (1):1-20.
Robert J. Richards (1976). James Gibson's Passive Theory of Perception: A Rejection of the Doctrine of Specific Nerve Energies. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 37 (December):218-233.
John Dempsher (1979). Integration of Function in the Nervous System — a New Theory. Acta Biotheoretica 28 (4):283-302.
E. Toombs (2003). Harmony, Explanatory Coherence and the Debate Between the Reticular Theory and Neuron Theory of Nerve Cell Structure: Echo's Resolution of a Quiet Revolution. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part C 34 (4):615-632.
Pavel E. Moroz (1980). A Hypothesis of the Code of Nerve Impulses. Acta Biotheoretica 29 (2):101-109.
John Dempsher (1980). A Bio-Physical Basis of Mathematics in Synaptic Function of the Nervous System: A Theory. Acta Biotheoretica 29 (3-4):119-127.
John Dempsher (1979). Synaptic Function in the Nervous System: A Theory and its Application. Acta Biotheoretica 28 (2):75-97.
John Dempsher (1981). The Nerve Impulse in the Axon — a New Theory. Acta Biotheoretica 30 (2):121-137.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads13 ( #253,471 of 1,789,789 )
Recent downloads (6 months)3 ( #261,181 of 1,789,789 )
How can I increase my downloads?