Re: Inernal meme?

Bill Benzon (
Mon, 18 Oct 1999 12:07:07 -0400

Date: Mon, 18 Oct 1999 12:07:07 -0400
From: Bill Benzon <>
Subject: Re: Inernal meme?

"Mark M. Mills" wrote:

> Are you convinced we know all the details of neural processing?

By no means.

> That
> these experiments tell us nothing new about perception?

This is a very interesting experiment. But I don't see that it tells us much
about how objects are recognized, if only because recognition happens
upstream from the thalamus.

> Where does such confidence come from?
> At a minimum, we are getting a better picture of pre-processing details.

We had to have that knowledge in order to do this work. The fact that this
experiment worked could be considered weak validation for some account of

> And, what about the program used to interprete the bit-stream, isn't it's
> design/parameter set telling us something about what the brain must be
> doing to make sense of the bit-stream?

I'd assume that the program was designed with some such theory in mind. But
what's going on in this experiment is a long way from a mechanism that maps
input patterns onto perceptual categories. It may tell us something about
input to such processing, but it doesn't tell us what that's processing is

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)