It is binary at one stage of processing. when a neuron has enough input it fires an action potential which is a binary one or zero. that then gets "read" by the synaptic terminal and turns back into an analog signal to a "post synaptic" neuron.
As you said, how this signal is then processed by the next neuron depends on a lot of factors including the effects of other neurons. Synaptic strength refers to the amount of electricity the post synaptic neuron sees given this binary 1 or 0 and is often measured at rest. However, if other neurons are firing it can go up or down, amplifying or shrinking it by activating other voltage sensitive ion channels or by increasing the conductance across the lipid bilayer of the cell so that the electricity leaks out of the dendrite of the neuron before it is processed at the soma (the cell body where a new action potential can be generated)

Hey, dubious. I don't know nearly as much about the details as you do, but I was skeptical when he made the claim to the grad student that inter-neuron transmission was binary. My layman's understanding is that there's a sort of "signal strength" between neurons that can decay or be amplified depending on how those pathways get used. Each signal affects others, and so on--it's much more a very complex feedback system utterly different than the binary instruction pathways used by our current computers.

I'm a bit surprised the grad student or expert didn't discuss neuromodulators more. The fact is we already have the full connectome of a much simpler system, a worm (C Elegans). And this full mapping is considered insufficient to fully understand the simplified worm behavior because it doesn't fully capture the diversity of different neuromodulators and how they effect processing in neurons. It matters if the neuron is releasing dopamine, serotonin, glutamate, etc. There are ways to approximate these from EM images by analyzing the synapse properties, but ultimately it leads to a much larger problem in understanding neural processing.

In a similar light, the connectome project does not do a good job capturing synaptic strength. We don't really know just from the electron microscopy how strong the connections are. We can try and approximate it by looking at the size/formation of the synapse but ultimately this falls short.

For instance, my memory is that thalamocortical projections (thalamic nuclei to L4 of the cortex) do not make up the primary inputs to L4 on a structural connectivity level, but the strength of those connections are much stronger then the more numerous cortico cortical connections. I don't think the connectome from EM images will be able to pull that out.

The connectome is important, the same way knowing the human genome is important. However, it's really not going to tell us how to simulate a person. It's an important step to be sure, one we are still a good ways away from finishing last I checked (which was three years ago ...)

To me, the problem reduces to this:
1) Brain is the hardware
2) Current charge of neurons is the software that we like to call consciousness.

Consciousness, just like software, is intangible. This video about cells didn't bother to distinguish the "who" from the "what" when it talks about "us".

There are established fields in ontology and epistemology that address this very problem better than the "cells" argument. For anyone interested, I'd start here first.

Cells have no "purpose"?

I think that depends on how you define "purpose". I don't think humans (or other animals / organisms) have any particular intrinsic purpose. At least, nothing granted to us by a higher power or outside influence or whatever. We assign purpose to ourselves, and to other fuzzy-boundary collections of things. Things that are "alive" exist to use energy, move, reproduce, etc. Things that are "tools" exist to be a preferable means of accomplishing some task. Etc.

If any of those things have "purpose", certainly cells can have a "purpose" as well. Neurons exist to transfer bio-electric currents. Rod and cone cells in our eyes exist to react to light in general or particular wavelengths of light.

I don't think that we have any physical or intangible soul that serves as the core of our being. We have cells, organs, and organ systems that make up a "meat computer" that provides us with consciousness (a word that we invented, but which describes a fairly concrete idea), and I would argue that consciousness is the closest thing that we have to a "soul".

At some point, if we can create a machine that emulates / replaces the functionality of all those cells, organs, and organ systems that are responsible for consciousness, and copy a snapshot of the states of all of that in an organic being (like us) into a mechanical counterpart, then ... yeah. I think that machine would be the organic being that it was a copy of, in a far more meaningful way than Henrietta's cancer cells are "her".

Even if the lamb has the best treatment in the world, to eat it, it has to be killed as an infant, it's only months old.

I'm not blaming anyone, I was just as oblivious as anyone else to all of this for most of my life, and that's why I like to point it out these days, and perhaps help someone just like the younger me to identify the inconsistencies in the thought (or lack of thought) process. It takes a lot of cognitive dissonance to see the beauty of a young deer and feel obligated to save her life one minute, and next minute eat something just as young and precious without even a single neuron firing about what had to happen to the lamb in order for it to end up on a plate.

People will stop for ducks crossing a round, and then go through a fried chicken drive through. People will spend 1/2 their lunch break admiring pictures of kittens, but eat a lamb or veal (and when you compare a lamb to a kitten they look very similar and just as cute).

If that younger me was reading this, I know I'd be getting angry and frustrated at this comment, ready to throw a barrage of counter arguments such as "lions eat animals". But that is only a good thing, that frustration, anger and annoyance is the logical side your brain fighting tradition and habit side. It's a good thing if it's causing you frustration, because it means you do have a logical side at least and even perhaps on a subconscious level the brain is trying to work out the inconsistencies


And of course sheep are very much victims of factory farming these day : http://www.animalsaustralia.org/media/press_releases.php?release=150

There have been many things in history that have been thought to have been impossible. Neil deGrasse Tyson's presentation on "The God of the Gaps" is a great video addressing that line of thought.

However, that point may not even matter. My hypothesis is that our neurons don't operate all the way down to a sub-atomic or electron-spin level of granularity. There's plenty of complexity at the molecular and cellular scales. We're likely chemical and physical reactions like Newtboy says.

That idea always bothered me.
If the transporter doesn't really transport YOU, but instead only creates a perfect copy of you at the destination and destroys the original, you're dead and a copy has taken your place.
Your consciousness is a function of a complex, ongoing chemical reaction. It IS totally measureable with a powerful and detailed enough MRI. A copy of that is simply a copy. Your consciousness does not transfer from one to the other any more than consciousness is shared by twins.
As to the 'break in consciousness' when sleeping or unconscious, I think it's a misnomer. Your brain continues to work in those situations, only your perception of it is blocked. The chemical reactions that are 'you' continue to occur without a break, you continue to emit brain waves, and your neurons continue to fire. If the chemical reactions in your brain stop, you're dead, not asleep.

Our bodies are best at responding to pathogens that enter our system normally - over mucus membranes, through skin contact, and via ocassional inadvertent ingestion and inhalation.

Directly injecting pathogens (and a whole host of other known toxins) straight into the bloodstream puts their bioavailability at 100%, instantly. These damaging elements have perfect access to the brain, and all other internal organs, giving the body's almost no chance whatsoever to deal with the invading harmful elements. You can expect to see symptoms manifest in minutes, hours, or days - and this is exactly what you do see in vaccine related injuries.

Aluminum, formaldehyde, cyanide, and other elements we do eat, and are harmless when found embeded in their naturally occurring places. Injecting those refined elements (mixed together with all kinds of other poisons) directly into the bloodstream is no where close to eating un-refind foods that have the same elements bonded to other molecules which render them intert or beneficial.

What is the bioavailability of aluminum found in a banana when eaten?

What is the bioavailability of that same quantity of aluminum when the banana is pulverized and injected into the bloodstream?

What is the bioavailability of that same quantity of aluminum when it's refined, and no part of the banana except the aluminum is injected directly into the bloodstream?

Their description of the actual affect of the aluminum in particular is incomplete. Aluminum is a known neural disruptor. If it reaches the brain directly (remember, bioavailability is at 100%) the aluminum will disrupt neurons. This may result in some cases in a neural disruption. Did you know autism is a known neural disruption?

Wait a minute...neuronally challenged from sleep deprivation and exhaustion.

I sent the previous transmission on Safari so it obviously is operational on profile pages but not video pages.

FUN!

There seems to be some evidence that a lack of empathy -can- be inborn, rather than learned. An actual malformed brain or unbalanced brain chemistry, if you will. At the same time, there is evidence that empathy is indeed an innate trait, rooted in physical brain structures (the whole mirror neuron idea).

Interesting, but surely, a part of the brain "lighting" up, having been given certain stimuli, does not necessarily explain root cause. eg;- Why does the light work when it is switched on? A neurological answer would simply attribute it to the necessary connections being made. But we know it is WAY more complicated. The correct bulb must be used, the correct voltage, the connection cannot be broken, the switch must be operable, etc. Any one of these not in place = no light. Similarly with neurology. The light is on, but myriad reasons could account for it. Nature, nurture, peer pressure, obligation, and much more dictate what/who we are. A sadists pleasure neurons light up witnessing pain, but may also light up when helping someone. So which is the true reaction, or are they both, though contradictory, true? I respect science immensely, but trying to map the brain as if it were totally predictable in any given circumstance seems - unless we are all identically cloned have identical experiences, identical parents, and identical hopes and dreams - futile.

From one of the links above:

"People are constantly hearing that so called als is termed incurable, and still they search for healed of als or cured of als stories, als survivors and “als miracles”.

Well, the people doing those searches are onto something, and you don’t need a miracle, to solve, survive, or “cure” als. As with any health problem, solving nerve health problems so called diagnosed as als just takes changing your ideas and ways and doing the work it takes to get yourself healthy. In other words, instead of waiting for a miracle or a cure for als, people can solve the problem themselves, and many have done so.

In many places, they don’t even use the term als. They just call it motor neuron disease, which sounds less like some entity attacking people and more like heart disease or something else that people realize is just a health problem that can be solved by making the right choices and adjustments.

Knowledge is power and it’s also the cure for als.

So, by following these links you can find stories of people who have done well at healing themselves, or curing als naturally, and you can find inspiration and information that you can use to heal yourself, as more people are doing all the time."

@lucky760

Well, the terminology you used is a bit charged, isn't it? "Manipulate oneself" into feeling something? Compassion is all about putting yourself in someone else's shoes--imagining being them. It's not manipulation; it's actually perfectly natural thanks to mirror neurons--when we see other people in pain we activate the areas in our brain as if we were experiencing pain. The thing is, our higher order cognitive abilities can override this natural function. Basically compassion is our natural state and we later learn how to turn it off. I'm sure there is some evolutionary advantage to that but what I've been trying to discuss here are the disadvantages.

But that's more of an aside to the main issue. The main point is we both agree that showing compassion is important. Splitting hairs about the semantics of feeling/showing compassion doesn't add anything to the discussion so I'll simply tip my hat to you for being willing to engage in this conversation with me for so long and be on my way.

@lucky760

Oh, I totally agree--it is a difference of philosophy. But which philosophy is going to lead to a better world?

Look, you don't care some guys got shot after committing a crime. I do. Why? Because it's all directly connected to the rest of us. Why did they commit the crime? How did they get to that point in their lives where they felt it was okay to put others in harm's way? Most importantly, how do we help prevent other people from ending up in that place, so that we're not the ones being put in harm's way next time?

A philosophy of indifference is unlikely to get one to seek answers to those questions: those guys got shot because they were "dumb" or because they were "scum" or some other simplistic answer that leads to no change happening in the world.

But on an even more fundamental level, getting shot hurts pretty bad (I've had friends who have been shot and survived) and on just that level alone I empathize with the guys. We're biologically wired to empathize with other people's pain (mirror neurons) but we can also override that biological response and act callously toward our fellow humans.

I believe compassion is the only way we are ever going to solve the world's major problems, particularly violent conflict. Lack of compassion--even for people who should know better or people who disregard their own safety--is only ever going to give us exactly the world we have now.