Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id VAA11325 (8.6.9/5.3[ref pg@gmsl.co.uk] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk); Thu, 27 Jul 2000 21:32:14 +0100 Message-Id: <200007272029.QAA16790@mail2.lig.bellsouth.net> From: "Joe E. Dees" <joedees@bellsouth.net> To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2000 15:34:15 -0500 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: RE: Simple neural models In-reply-to: <LPBBICPHCJJBPJGHGMCIOEKHCHAA.ddiamond@ozemail.com.au> References: <200007261841.OAA08468@mail4.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: Thu, 27 Jul 2000 07:53:41 +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: 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? :-)
>
It is not possible to underplay your perspective.
>
> > 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.
>
You could not understand eother a solid fact or a good research
project to actually scientifically verify contentions if it bit you in the
bind.
> >
> >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.
>
That's the very definition of a failed academic; you failed in your
attempt to become one.
>
>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'?
>
Did you ever stop to consider that the reason what you are saying
is so different from what most of the people on this list are saying
is precisely because it is not memetics, nor even good analysis,
but exactly the sort of oversimplified, reductionistic and grandiose
idealism that one could expect of a junior college level keypuncher,
totally deviod of subtlety, profundity, nuance, and the most
important element, proof (hint: nonsense is unproveable because it
does not adhere to the reality one must utilize in such proof). You
have not the slightest idea of how to prove your pap, or even how to
present a logical, rational, reasonable, coherent and cogent case
for it, so you resort to word avalanches and snide and sneering
superciliousness, like the preening adolescent you are
progressively proving yourself cognitively to be. Well, such tactics
are not poor substitutes; in fact, they are not substitutes at all.
>
> 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.
>
The mania your screedish diatribves sugest is megalomania.
>
> 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.
>
Here's a typology at least as good as your doggerel rhymes; some
growl because they think it works, some gripe because they don't
work very well, some grovel to impress others, and some actually
grok the situation. Now just work out the growl/gipe/grovel/grok
interconnections, attempt to root 'em in bifurcations, recursions,
and other words ending in -ion (because the usage of such terms
appears hip and deep, and is in fact hip-deep), and finally top off
the sundae with the theory of everything cherry, that the structure
and function of human consciousness is rooted in the basic
lobotomy - er, dichotomy between fermions, with their tendency to
be firm, and bosons, with their tendency to be bossy, never
attempt to explain, ground or prove any of it, just keep repeating
the same tired old nonsensical absurdities interminably ad
nauseum, all the while shamelessly hawking your website
weirdness as if it were the academic equivalent of God's Gift to
Women, and we have Chris Redux!
>
> 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! :-)
>
Children would attempt to play "I'm rubber and you're glue" games
on an academic list.
>
> 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.
>
Actually, your map does not adhere to the territory; I have provided
numerous irrefutable counterexamples to your claim that the two
are contiguous.
>
> work harder please or dont respond at all, you are still wasting time.
>
You are so right; you are a waste of every one's time here. You
have no grasp of the complexities inherent in neural net
architectonics, and only an adolescent ability to woof and strut the
Church Lady's Superior Dance, which is a genuinely asinine
exercise, seeing as it is issuing from someone of such limited,
stunted and stultified abilities as yourself.
>
> 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 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 : Thu Jul 27 2000 - 21:33:07 BST