Reply to comment

I am very intrigued by the boxes model set forth earlier in the week, however, my biggest questions have more to do with the overall structure and design of the model.  In particular, my feeling is the following:

1. Is there any sort of valuation structure or built-in quality set in the model?  In other words, can we say whether any 'route' or any circuit is any more valuable, in the 'eyes' of the system, than any other?  My inclination, from my current understanding is to say, no, although I would be happy to hear otherwise.

2.  My reservation to saying 'no' to the above question is that I think the only thing foundational of this very relative and transient model is the input-->output poles, right?  Like a mathematical function, the model still has, for every stimulus, an output.  However, as Dr. Grobstein showed with the leech, sometimes you get spontaneous outputs, for no apparent input.  This suggests to me that in fact in this model of the nervous system, there is NO foundational properties, there are no real built-in valuation systems of saying any aspects of the model are more important for its functioning than any other components.  Maybe input is as equally valid as output.  If that's the case, why can't we just switch the model on its head and make outputs inputs and inputs outputs, and see if the model holds 'true' then?  Maybe the leech can in fact take several stimuli without emitting an output as well?  If one is true, why not the other?