Graduate studies at Western
Behavioral and Brain Sciences 22 (5):838-839 (1999)
|Abstract||As presently implemented, the neuron doctrine (ND) portrays the brain's neurons and chemical synapses as fundamental components in a computer-like switching circuit, supporting a view of brain = mind = computer. However, close examination reveals individual neurons to be far more complex than simple switches, with enormous capacity for intracellular information processing (e.g., in the internal cytoskeleton). Other poorly appreciated factors (gap junctions, apparent randomness, dendritic-dendritic processing, possible quantum computation, the living state) also suggest that the ND grossly oversimplifies neuronal functions. In the quest to understand consciousness, the presently implemented ND may throw out the baby with the bath water.|
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
E. N. Miranda (1997). How Good Are Formal Neurons for Modelling Real Ones? Acta Biotheoretica 45 (2).
Stuart Hameroff, Overview: Could Life And Consciousness Be Related To The Fundamental Quantum Nature Of The Universe?
Nick Chater (1999). Why Biological Neuroscience Cannot Replace Psychology. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 22 (5):834-834.
Stuart R. Hameroff (2007). The Brain Is Both Neurocomputer and Quantum Computer. Cognitive Science 31 (6):1035-1045.
Steven G. Daniel (1999). How Trivial is the “Trivial Neuron Doctrine”? Behavioral and Brain Sciences 22 (5):834-835.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads11 ( #107,425 of 739,304 )
Recent downloads (6 months)0
How can I increase my downloads?