Neurons: humans v. pigs, ants and worms...

[Speakpigeon]

No because the question is whether there is a functional difference between the neurons of humans compared to that of pigs, worms, etc.

The question wasn't about whether some cells with are not neurons have evolved from neurons.

We all understand that neurons are evolving. The point is whether the neurons that are functioning as neurons in situ inside the brain may present functional differences depending on whether they are those of a human and those of a pig or worm.
EB

 

[fromderinside]

Neurons are cells that have the capacity to communicate with other neurons. Receptors are neurons that act differently than any of the other species of neurons found in the brain. One cannot say that because something acts differently from what one decides is a neuron it is not a neuron when one is asking whether neurons have changed function over time. The very fact that receptors communicate with neurons reflects they are neurons in the sense you claim to be examining.

Yet you put aside that neurons that communicate information have changed when their functions improve to integrate as well as communicate. For instance outer hair cells are represented together at intermediate processing levels because of convergent, many to one, innervation by ascending sensory neurons whilst individual inner hair cells are innervated many times in divergent, one to many, connections by any ascending neurons to intermediate processing levels.

That there are golgi neurons, granular neurons, pyramidal neurons, etc, is further evidence that neurons diverge in function, That neurons are organized by type in layers in the cortex is another example of specialization of neurons to different purposes.

As I pointed out earlier neurons have changed across time by becoming more complex in how ions and metabolites are processed within individual cells at different time scales tells us of increases in cellular complexity in carrying out many different communication processes by single cells such as clocking and memory functions.

If one cares to read one finds communication is a discipline not just a feature. Please tell me you don't think that a tuning filter has the same function as a spectrum compressing filter.

Oh, by the way, this is not a philosophy thread where one can just carry out rational argument without supporting evidence. You waved your hands. So what. Evidence and data demonstrate different neurons are functionally different from each other and they are different form more primitive instances on neuron.

The answer to your question about whether neurons function differently in humans pigs and worms is abundantly clear. They are different. They are different in the capacities of neurons because of differences in time to evolve and of kind functions the species are suited to. There are neurons in humans that function differently than any of the other species found on earth primarily in cells located in human primary speech area.

There are clear differences between human cerebellum neuron functions and those of worm (no cerebellum) and pig (no tool making capacity or complex language capacity), just as there are clear differences in Dolphin cerebellar function and that of humans for locomotion.

In general do neurons communicate between other loci? Of course they do. Do each of the species neurons carry out those functions uniquely? Of course they do.

 

[Speakpigeon]

Neurons are cells that have the capacity to communicate with other neurons.

I certainly hope they do a bit more than that the lazy bastards.

Receptors are neurons that act differently than any of the other species of neurons found in the brain. One cannot say that because something acts differently from what one decides is a neuron it is not a neuron when one is asking whether neurons have changed function over time. The very fact that receptors communicate with neurons reflects they are neurons in the sense you claim to be examining.

I already said there is no debate about the fact that neurons are evolving. Why wouldn't they?

The fact that some neurons have specialised as receptors is interesting but this is already true in pigs, yes? Yes. And if it is not true in worms, it might have been. It is probably true in ants, for example, no?

And this is irrelevant to my point. Human beings are, broadly, all functionally identical. Yet, they can play very different roles in society and they make up organisations that themselves play very different roles from each other.

Yet you put aside that neurons that communicate information have changed when their functions improve to integrate as well as communicate. For instance outer hair cells are represented together at intermediate processing levels because of convergent, many to one, innervation by ascending sensory neurons whilst individual inner hair cells are innervated many times in divergent, one to many, connections by any ascending neurons to intermediate processing levels.

That there are golgi neurons, granular neurons, pyramidal neurons, etc, is further evidence that neurons diverge in function, That neurons are organized by type in layers in the cortex is another example of specialization of neurons to different purposes.

As I pointed out earlier neurons have changed across time by becoming more complex in how ions and metabolites are processed within individual cells at different time scales tells us of increases in cellular complexity in carrying out many different communication processes by single cells such as clocking and memory functions.

If one cares to read one finds communication is a discipline not just a feature. Please tell me you don't think that a tuning filter has the same function as a spectrum compressing filter.

Oh, by the way, this is not a philosophy thread where one can just carry out rational argument without supporting evidence. You waved your hands. So what. Evidence and data demonstrate different neurons are functionally different from each other and they are different form more primitive instances on neuron.

The answer to your question about whether neurons function differently in humans pigs and worms is abundantly clear. They are different. They are different in the capacities of neurons because of differences in time to evolve and of kind functions the species are suited to. There are neurons in humans that function differently than any of the other species found on earth primarily in cells located in human primary speech area.

There are clear differences between human cerebellum neuron functions and those of worm (no cerebellum) and pig (no tool making capacity or complex language capacity), just as there are clear differences in Dolphin cerebellar function and that of humans for locomotion.

In general do neurons communicate between other loci? Of course they do. Do each of the species neurons carry out those functions uniquely? Of course they do.

I already know all of this. Thank you for your time.
EB

 

[fromderinside]

Communication systems introduce several problems in delivering that is sent to that which is received. The ea, for instance encodes real time signals which are delayed in time according to their frequency. A voice signal which has many frequency and transition components is passed through this frequency sorting filter and winds up at the end as being perceived as a voice rather than a bunch of separate frequencies. To accomplish this the communication elements neurons must have several distinct attributes. the spread signal must be adjusted for time, the signal must be cleared of metabolic noise which the processing elements introduce into the informantion being processed and transients used as information markers much be integrated with everything else sent.

Divergent innervation provides redundancy at each frequency and permits reconstruction of masked elements else the downstream processing system could not sort out all the information. Convergent innervation provides information about the delay line effects the cochlear membrane system and some basis for eliminating system noise from the signal. So right away we have two different functions of neurons at just the input to this one sense. This sort of delineation of communication processes has driven evolution of neurons throughout species and time to leave us with a marvelous suite of communication capacities across neurons within nervous processing systems within the your so called unchanged neuron.

 

[fromderinside]

And this is irrelevant to my point. Human beings are, broadly, all functionally identical. Yet, they can play very different roles in society and they make up organisations that themselves play very different roles from each other.

EB

Taking your first point pigs cannot be humans nor can different individual roles explain change in neuron function


Don't confuse individual plasticity and variety with evolution. Each system within individuals continues to evolve as opportunity arises. We don't go from gene to individual. Genes through mutation are operating as disruptors in every aspect of every being.

I chose looking neurons in the auditory system to demonstrate how little needs be changed in the general function of neurons to generate more diversity in neurons. That neurons are both divergent and convergent in nature is true from reptiles forward. Yet neurons only in humans provide information that can be interpreted as speech. Speech is a form of signaling, but it should not be confused as being the same as signaling. It is this capacity that hominid neurons uniquely developed in their auditory systems.

It remains to be seen if other species evolve to be speakers and their arrival at that station will be the result of their individual evolution. A linkage the existing speech supporting gene group, FOXP2, will be interesting but not necessary.

That is not to say that some birds and some other mammals can also generate complex sounds that appear to sound like speech. That is altogether another discussion and illustration of another function found in neurons. Small changers in neuron structure and capability result in a completely new functions in neuron processing which initially occur uniquely in single individuals in single species This sort of activity is at the base of the rise of different neuron types and natures across the neuron segment of our biome.

It's a long slog but it is an important slog. One should not confuse the success of neurons or any other system with singular function. Variety is at the base of evolution.

 

[DBT]

Brain architecture being the key:


The way a single neuron processes information is never the same.

''How do neurons process information? Neurons are known to break down an incoming electrical signal into sub-units. Now, researchers at Blue Brain have discovered that dendrites, the neuron's tree-like receptors, work together—dynamically and depending on the workload—for learning. The findings further our understanding of how we think and may inspire new algorithms for artificial intelligence.

How do neurons process information? Neurons are known to break down an incoming electrical signal into sub-units. Now, researchers at Blue Brain have discovered that dendrites, the neuron's tree-like receptors, work together—dynamically and depending on the workload—for learning. The findings further our understanding of how we think and may inspire new algorithms for artificial intelligence.

In a paper published in the journal Cell Reports, researchers at EPFL's Blue Brain Project, a Swiss Brain Research Initiative, have developed a new framework to work out how a single neuron in the brain operates.

The analysis was performed using cells from the Blue Brain's virtual rodent cortex. The researchers expect other types of neurons—non-cortical or human—to operate in the same way.

Their results show that when a neuron receives input, the branches of the elaborate tree-like receptors extending from the neuron, known as dendrites, functionally work together in a way that is adjusted to the complexity of the input.

The strength of a synapse determines how strongly a neuron feels an electric signal coming from other neurons, and the act of learning changes this strength. By analyzing the "connectivity matrix" that determines how these synapses communicate with each other, the algorithm establishes when and where synapses group into independent learning units from the structural and electrical properties of dendrites. In other words, the new algorithm determines how the dendrites of neurons functionally break up into separate computing units and finds that they work together dynamically, depending on the workload, to process information.''

 

[Speakpigeon]

Brain architecture being the key:


The way a single neuron processes information is never the same.

''How do neurons process information? Neurons are known to break down an incoming electrical signal into sub-units. Now, researchers at Blue Brain have discovered that dendrites, the neuron's tree-like receptors, work together—dynamically and depending on the workload—for learning. The findings further our understanding of how we think and may inspire new algorithms for artificial intelligence.

How do neurons process information? Neurons are known to break down an incoming electrical signal into sub-units. Now, researchers at Blue Brain have discovered that dendrites, the neuron's tree-like receptors, work together—dynamically and depending on the workload—for learning. The findings further our understanding of how we think and may inspire new algorithms for artificial intelligence.

In a paper published in the journal Cell Reports, researchers at EPFL's Blue Brain Project, a Swiss Brain Research Initiative, have developed a new framework to work out how a single neuron in the brain operates.

The analysis was performed using cells from the Blue Brain's virtual rodent cortex. The researchers expect other types of neurons—non-cortical or human—to operate in the same way.

Their results show that when a neuron receives input, the branches of the elaborate tree-like receptors extending from the neuron, known as dendrites, functionally work together in a way that is adjusted to the complexity of the input.

The strength of a synapse determines how strongly a neuron feels an electric signal coming from other neurons, and the act of learning changes this strength. By analyzing the "connectivity matrix" that determines how these synapses communicate with each other, the algorithm establishes when and where synapses group into independent learning units from the structural and electrical properties of dendrites. In other words, the new algorithm determines how the dendrites of neurons functionally break up into separate computing units and finds that they work together dynamically, depending on the workload, to process information.''

Brain architecture is something else. Here it is more about the interconnection between a small number of neurons and how one neuron processes the signals it receives from the other neurons.

At that level of description, the description of what each neuron does will inevitably differ from one neuron to another, just as you can describe what workers doing exactly the same job in such a level of details that you will succeed in identifying differences in how they do it. Yet, they are doing exactly the same job, and by design.
EB

 

[fromderinside]

Wow. 19th century reasoning turds still pop up. Neurons are different from telephone lnes in most every way. It is the neuron where nervous system design changes. It does not originate at the system, circuit, center, etc.

Neurons are central to nervous system design, They drive it being the fundamental unit of it. Neurons are located everywhere in, form the basis of, the nervous system. Ergo they become the center of change of the nervous system. What could be more self evident than that speakpigeon?

Not only will what each neuron does description change, how the neuron works and contributes to nervous processing is the first modified element in any change in the nervous system. Micro evolutionary principles of genetics demands this be so. Wilson is right. Gould is wrong. Trivers and Burt wrote a book on the dynamics of gene variation in their book Genes in Conflict http://roberttrivers.com/Robert_Trivers/Books_files/Genes in Conflict.pdf

 

[Jokodo]

Wow. 19th century reasoning turds still pop up. Neurons are different from telephone lnes in most every way. It is the neuron where nervous system design changes. It does not originate at the system, circuit, center, etc.

Neurons are central to nervous system design, They drive it being the fundamental unit of it. Neurons are located everywhere in, form the basis of, the nervous system. Ergo they become the center of change of the nervous system. What could be more self evident than that speakpigeon?

Not only will what each neuron does description change, how the neuron works and contributes to nervous processing is the first modified element in any change in the nervous system. Micro evolutionary principles of genetics demands this be so. Wilson is right. Gould is wrong. Trivers and Burt wrote a book on the dynamics of gene variation in their book Genes in Conflict http://roberttrivers.com/Robert_Trivers/Books_files/Genes in Conflict.pdf

What does "Wilson is right. Gould is wrong" handed to do with the rest of your post? I'm seeing some good points, but none Gould would have disagreed with.

 

[fromderinside]

You probably agree that by my comment I believe Speakpigeon has taken the view that genetic change, evolution, depends on catastrophes and filling current niches by means other than competition and mutation, that individual is important to evolution. Such would result in positions like those of Speakpigeon that neurons are seen as the same across species. If so mutation and competition at most fundamental levels is ruled out as the primary means through which evolution is enabled leaving such as divine intervention and punctate evolution to fill in as evolutionary mortar.

Ergo my reference to Wilson and Gould. Genetic release from competing genotypes brought on by the expanded possibilities sets the stage for the theater mutation then generates. I believe the 'hostility' seen by the Wilson/Dawkins side of the argument is due to Gould, Lewontin, et al view that explanations like fate and divine intervention permits cause of events as explanation rather than explanation by measurement of material outcomes.  Dawkins vs Gould

IOW I think Gould would disagree with my perspective that neurons are developing new functions all the time.