Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id WAA08804 (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 22:38:01 +0100 From: "Chris Lofting" <ddiamond@ozemail.com.au> To: <memetics@mmu.ac.uk> Subject: RE: Simple neural models Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2000 07:53:41 +1000 Message-ID: <LPBBICPHCJJBPJGHGMCIOEKHCHAA.ddiamond@ozemail.com.au> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 In-Reply-To: <200007261841.OAA08468@mail4.lig.bellsouth.net> Importance: Normal Sender: fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk Precedence: bulk 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: Thursday, 27 July 2000 4:46
> To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
> Subject: RE: Simple neural models
>
>
> You see a forest composed of one kind of tree; a dual
> dichotomized tree which has some simple recursiveness (branches
> feeding back into roots).
you obviously have not gone through recursion in detail where it shifts into
dynamics, complexity/chaos etc or are you still trying to underplay my
perspective by over-exagerating yours? :-)
> 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.
And?....your throwing 'facts' again without following them up. You need to
do better Joe as in what where the results, conclusions etc other than the
your general statement re focus/field/fringe? If you cant flesh-out more
then the above paragraph serves no purpose other than some sort of
self-promotion.
>
>Of course, I can hardly expect an admitted failed academic such as you to
grasp such work.
>
Cant stop with the insults can you. I do grasp it but if you find that fact
a problem then just dont worry about it, we would not like to have you to
see me as in any way 'same' would we? :-) BTW I was never an academic since
I dropped out before I got a degree. To me a failed academic is someone who
becomes an academic but achieves nothing. Hmmm... is that what you fear Joe?
all the effort you have put in will lead nowhere? you just become 'another'
academic? You fear those with different perspectives since you cling so hard
to your own? you would prefer all on the list to be of 'likemindedness'?
In any model of brain/mind you have to be able to describe the differences,
you seem to prefer to deny them as some sort of anomoly. I am not interested
in you other than what is behind 'you' so throwing 'facts' without linkage
does not help other than it suggests a more object-oriented mind. Your
manner of expression in the above paragraph suggests mania; a bias to
details, quantitative precision and the use of that to 'hide' behind.
Suggests an interest in BINDING/BOUNDING; problem solving, the beginnings of
things, the 'new' but from a 'behind' perspective; organise, to map. From a
binding perspective, do you consider yourself Enlightened, aware?. Do you
get distracted a lot? wonder off on other paths and keep having to bring
yourself back? Of all of the books you have, how many have you read
cover-to-cover? The other link under the same general typology (rationalist)
is BOUNDING-- the scientist who organises, categorises and so makes maps to
deal with the underlying fear.
This type of binding is where you take all of your facts and bind them to
yourself as a sort of defence system; when threatened you 'throw' them. That
is ok but can be a problem if what you throw lacks depth since they just
bounce off. :-) Nothing you have thrown so far has stuck! :-)
The bound bias uses the map, can confuse map with territory and
qualitatively the map is seen as better than the territory! (as in "that
cant be right! the map says so...") You dont find what I say on your map so
I must be wrong, right? your map is too narrow.
work harder please or dont respond at all, you are still wasting time.
Chris
------------------
Chris Lofting
websites:
http://www.eisa.net.au/~lofting
http://www.ozemail.com.au/~ddiamond
===============================================================
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 - 22:38:56 BST