Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id TAA08483 (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 19:43:46 +0100 Message-Id: <200007261841.OAA08468@mail4.lig.bellsouth.net> From: "Joe E. Dees" <joedees@bellsouth.net> To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2000 13:45:46 -0500 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: RE: Simple neural models In-reply-to: <LPBBICPHCJJBPJGHGMCIAEKECHAA.ddiamond@ozemail.com.au> References: <200007260314.XAA05912@mail6.lig.bellsouth.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 14:38:02 +1000
Send reply to: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk [mailto:fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk]On Behalf
> > Of Joe E. Dees
> > Sent: Wednesday, 26 July 2000 1:19
> > To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
> > Subject: RE: Simple neural models
> >
> >
> > >
> > Your average neuron makes around 50,000 synaptic connections,
> > to other adjacent and distal neurons, to itself, and in both
> > excitatory and inhibitory fashion.
>
> local distinctions make patterns; this is flocking behaviour and so your
> quantitative emphasis is lacking something.
>
These are simple facts, like them or not.
>
> The synchronisations that take place in neural columns/networks etc make the
> the groups fire as 'one' and so a filtering process -- local to general
> which in turn becomes local to a 'higher' level. The hierarchy is WELL
> documents in neurology etc and so you single context perspective is, IMHO,
> meaningless; it is just an expression of numbers.
>
I know all about microtubule and modular component composition,
and I also know that there is an attempt by some people to assert
that quantum fluctuations can affect the brain and thus the mind
through its substrate, even though the scale of the microtubules
supposedly affected is so much greater than the quantum scale
realm it would be like expecting dust mites to determine sequoias.
>
> These sorts of abstractions, local to general and 'up' of 'down' a level are
> in our senses, your visual system has already abstracted before it gets half
> way through the brain and that favours sameness/difference,
> object/relationship distinctions (fovea/parafovea does this. IMHO you are
> looking too closely at the dots rather than the patterns since it is the
> patterns that lead to behaviour etc. You see this in studies of neurology
> where they zoom-in to a surface and see interdigitations, resulting from
> recursive dichotomisations, and cant see the expression (e.g. the
> interdigitations of the fight/flight on the 'surface' of the amygdala). The
> expression is a few steps 'back'; it is as if you are looking at a B/W
> picture and only see the dots, no image. In a carpet you are looking at the
> warp and so bypassing weft and the expression that the combination leads to.
> Take a step back Joe, see the forest and beyond.
>
You see a forest composed of one kind of tree; a dual
dichotomized tree which has some simple recursiveness (branches
feeding back into roots). I see an entire varied and dynamic
ecology of neural, synaptic and axonal structures flooded by
interrelational pattern gestalts which must mutually accommodate
and assimilate, and which die off or strengthen depending upon the
electrical stimulation concommitant with use, causing the
production of the MAP-2 protein which facilitates myelinization and
speeds up transmission speeds. In fact, the progressive
myelinization patterns of cortical substructures in the developing
infant is completely compatible with the development of the
focus/field/fringe struction of perception, a fact which was the
subject of a paper I presented to Dr. Bruce Dunn, along with a
semiotic way to investigate same. The problem is that perceptual
structions are developed prior to verbal development, so it is
impossible to expect an answer of preverbal infants when one asks
them for observations concerning the evolution of their developing
perceptual structions. The way I got around this problem is to use
pictures of the faces of their mothers and recordings of their voices,
nested in arrays of pictures and voices of other similar females,
and subjected to increasing degrees of distortion (such as
violations of gestalt good continuation), then monitor for selective
attention. Of course, I can hardly expect an admitted failed
academic such as you to grasp such work.
>
> Chris.
>
>
>
> ===============================================================
> 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 - 19:44:38 BST