The neuron doctrine is an insult to neurons
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 | ||||||||||
| Options |
|
|||||||||
Download options| PhilPapers Archive |
Upload a copy of this paper Check publisher's policy on self-archival Papers currently archived: 5,875 |
| External links |
 |
| Through your library | Configure |
Similar books and articlesSteven G. Daniel (1999). How Trivial is the “Trivial Neuron Doctrine”? Behavioral and Brain Sciences 22 (5):834-835.
Nick Chater (1999). Why Biological Neuroscience Cannot Replace Psychology. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 22 (5):834-834.
E. N. Miranda (1997). How Good Are Formal Neurons for Modelling Real Ones? Acta Biotheoretica 45 (2).
Analytics
Monthly downloads |
Added to index2009-01-28Total downloads10 ( #107,683 of 556,837 )Recent downloads (6 months)0How can I increase my downloads? |
My notes
Discussion
