Nondeterminism in the Hodgkins-Huxley Equation (part 1)

In which I briefly describe the neuron, and how the Hodgkins-Huxley equations model it. I also discuss the fortunate form of the neurons in the visual cortex of the rat, how they take the form of weighted sum of boltzmans, which I can exploit for my own nepharious purposes.

I go on to discuss how a neuron could evolve to have nondeterministic behavior.

Category:

Education

Tags:

• free
• will
• determinism
• nondeterminism
• randy
• helzerman
• Hodgkins
• Huxley

[accarruthers]

Just a simple query to the world(ly) commenters.

Why talk down something you self-admittedly know nothing of?

Not pointing fingers: a simple query of interest.

Thank you creator for a humble, and interesting video. It has helped my study.

[randyhelzerman]

(cont, to SebastianG63) If you'd like to help me explore this further, I'd be very happy for the collaboration.

[randyhelzerman]

Hi SebastianG63, I know, YouTube's comment system is very annoying, but we all know it sux and make allowances for multiple posts. And I totally hope that a biologist will look at this and comment, perhaps tell me about some other, better theories. I did buy 5 textbooks on neurophysics, all written between 2002 and 2008, they all mention that the exact story behind the Hodgkin's Huxley equation wasn't the whole story, but they all say everybody still uses it because its a useful approximation.

[randyhelzerman]

Math dude. The principle of inertia is a mathematical equation, not an English statement, and not a queasy feeling you get when thinking about the dome. Show me the math where this ball violates the principle of inertial. I have shown you the math where it does not; apparently you cannot understand the math, therefore, you can't play with the big boys. Come back after you learn calculus and we'll let you sit at the grown-up table.

[randyhelzerman]

??? I'm sorry TheNewHumanist, when you say "it doesn't require math, it requires logic" you just show you don't know the rules of the game. You can't just waltz into a chess tournament and yell out "anybody want to shoot some hoops??" or "kasparov didn't **really** win because he didn't score a touchdown!!!" In order to play the game of Newtonian Physics, you need to know be able to deploy calculus. Again, this isn't something you get an opinion about, sorry.

[randyhelzerman]

Sure, everybody agrees the net force on the ball at the top of the dome is equal to zero. So? That doesn't prove that there arn't multiple possible futures courses of action for this ball, none of which violate the laws of newtonian physics.

[randyhelzerman]

phrases like "not a concrete enough basis" are hand-waving, not math. Lets see the math! Prove there's only one possible future course of events for norton's dome, according to newtonian physics!

[randyhelzerman]

Ok TheNewHumanist, if you think that Norton's Dome example _doesn't_ show that Newtonian physics is nondeterministic, well, this isn't French literary criticism--you don't get an opinion about this. Show the me math. This kind of discussion doesn't happen in the English language, it happens in the langauge of Math--which is why, in my video on the subject, I presented the math. Prove that I'm wrong.

[randyhelzerman]

(cont, to TheNewHumanist) Since I believe you have free will, its out of my hands at this point. I'm perfectly willing to have an interesting conversation with you, but its in your hands, not mine.

[randyhelzerman]

Hmm...I don't know what else to do really; I've stated my position in as clear and as plain of terms as I can; I claim you don't understand my position at all. You of course, have some options at this point: (1) conclude you do understand my position, ergo, you know enough about my position to conclude that I'm a wanker, or (2) reevaluate your own position, conclude that maybe you have misunderstood it, and keep trying until you do understand it, and THEN criticize it. (cont)