Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id EAA06210 (8.6.9/5.3[ref pg@gmsl.co.uk] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk); Wed, 26 Jul 2000 04:16:35 +0100 Message-Id: <200007260314.XAA05912@mail6.lig.bellsouth.net> From: "Joe E. Dees" <joedees@bellsouth.net> To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk Date: Tue, 25 Jul 2000 22:18:33 -0500 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: RE: Simple neural models In-reply-to: <LPBBICPHCJJBPJGHGMCIEEJMCHAA.ddiamond@ozemail.com.au> References: <4.3.1.0.20000724182301.00f55100@pop3.htcomp.net> X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v3.01b) Sender: fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk Precedence: bulk Reply-To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
From: "Chris Lofting" <ddiamond@ozemail.com.au>
To: <memetics@mmu.ac.uk>
Subject: RE: Simple neural models
Date sent: Wed, 26 Jul 2000 04:31:23 +1000
Send reply to: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
> Mark,
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk [mailto:fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk]On Behalf
> > Of Mark M. Mills
> > Sent: Tuesday, 25 July 2000 9:15
> > To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
> > Subject: Simple neural models
> >
> >
> > At 10:33 AM 7/22/00 +1000, you wrote:
> > >You see, you miss the point totally. You are stuck at the level of
> > >expression and so incapable of seeing BEHIND the I ching symbol.
> > What does
> > >it REPRESENT? It represents a neurologically determined general
> > pattern of
> > >meaning.
> >
> > Chris,
> >
> > Can you use your template system to describe neural signal
> > exchange between
> > two adjacent cells?
> >
>
> The template model, in the context of dynamics, of developing a behaviour, a
> whole, is applicable at any level of analysis. Once you build the model so
> feedback will validate it. For any sort of communication, where
> communciation is your emphasis, you start with two independent objects. (you
> can have self-communciation as well but even that has a bifurcation in it).
>
> These objects, over time, can become dependent on each other just by chance,
> they work in the same 'area' and the dynamics of the area will force a drive
> to retain stability and so behavioural choices become limited such that you
> get to a point where 'you do this and I will do that'. This is the BIND
> phase in that both objects remain as is other than structuring their
> dynamics with the outcome that both benefit. This is like a contract where
> it is dissolvable but as long as it lasts there is some 'give' over 'take';
> a dance emerges that acts to maintain stability enough for something more to
> develop if possible. Feynman got into this with his comment that let
> everything do their own thing and reality is the interference patterns.
>
> If over time this relationship is highly beneficial (or just the only one
> possible!) then the two objects can start to be seen *structurally* as if
> 'one' but they still retain individuality. This is the BOUND phase where the
> emergent behaviour of the whole system, the whole interaction of A and B,
> shows a strong dependency of each object upon the other but there is still a
> distinct boundary between A and B. You can remove A or B and although there
> will be a loss, recovery is still easy. The bound element favours sympathy;
> there is a degree of feedback that is a 'difference that makes a
> difference'.
>
> To establish rapport you need more than this, you need emphathy, context
> awareness such that A and B become entangled to a degree where you can still
> identify A and B but no longer seperate them; it is getting to the point
> where they almost occupy the same space; at some base level they do. This
> allows for a more 'instant' response to situations as a team; the empathy
> means A and B 'know' each other, they have established an invarient
> relationship. This is the BOND phase where there is a definite shift from a
> more reactive bias to a more proactive bias; this process requires some sort
> of knowledge, a map, of the context and so the ability to pre-empt
> contextual behaviours.
>
> The final step is that of intergration, assimilation, where A and B become
> 'one'. This is a BLEND where a 'new' expression occurs; A and B now become
> C. This does not mean that A and B necessarily dissapear but more that
> expression is now in C. This expression is for humans in the form of a
> habit; a response to a stimulus -- no thought. The aim of meme is to do
> this, as is the aim of a gene. In your gut/muscle example they can react as
> if 'one'.
>
> You can take this further in that once this expression occurs, a 'new'
> object has emerged, the next stage in development is in the form of the
> object's interaction with its context in that the object asserts itself.
> Singlemindedness in expanding 'outwards'. The price of course is energy in
> that you need a lot to do this and over time this will lessen, however the
> energy put out into the context is useful to other objects. As this process
> goes on so the intense energy of the object is transferred into the space
> in-between the objects, relational space and there it interacts with other
> forces, other objects, and we are back with contractive BINDING again. In a
> closed system this will lead to an ever increasing number of network
> connections such that over time the focus changes from objects to the space
> in-between them; context determines all and we find this in memes where the
> meme comes from the context, not from the gene which is 'inside'.
>
> At this level of development it is the space in-between objects that
> identifies them; it is the space in-between that validates their existence.
>
> The above somewhat 'general' perspective is applicable at all levels of
> analysis where interactions of others lead to a behaviour as if one -- as we
> find in neuron synchronisations in networks such that the network fires as
> if 'one' or as we find being attempted at the now failed Camp David talks;
> they 'failed' at the BOUND level, could not get to BOND since to do so
> requires such concepts as superpositions etc.
>
> In the recent discussions of Darwin/Lamarck so their perspectives started in
> 'different' positions along the BBBB development path. Darwin at the
> beginning and Lamarck half way through.
>
Your average neuron makes around 50,000 synaptic connections,
to other adjacent and distal neurons, to itself, and in both
excitatory and inhibitory fashion. I recommend the Kalat text
BIOLOGICAL PSYCHOLOGY for a solid foundation in
understanding these matters; it is the text used by Dr. Bruce
Dunn, of Cornell University and the Institute for Human and
Machine Cognition (and a teacher of mine), in his 6000 level class
Brain-Mind: Fact-Fantasy.
>
>
>
> ===============================================================
> This was distributed via the memetics list associated with the
> Journal of Memetics - Evolutionary Models of Information Transmission
> For information about the journal and the list (e.g. unsubscribing)
> see: http://www.cpm.mmu.ac.uk/jom-emit
>
>
===============================================================
This was distributed via the memetics list associated with the
Journal of Memetics - Evolutionary Models of Information Transmission
For information about the journal and the list (e.g. unsubscribing)
see: http://www.cpm.mmu.ac.uk/jom-emit
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Jul 26 2000 - 04:17:28 BST