"dog" <dog at dog.net.uk> arrogantly barked:
>lkh <lkh at cei.net> burbled:
>>engelking at earthlink.net enunciated:
>> >Also, do scientists understand how basic units of information are stored
>> >in the brain yet? I guess this cognitive science (?).
>> The brain is a wavelet process within static, passive components
>> (neurons) that is transmitted via synapse connections that insure a
>> single direction of signal passage. ...
>i take it you're not talking about processes in the neurological sense
>(protrusions of the cell membrane). in that case, what *are* you talking
>about? a brain is a physical object.
So is a building but it is what goes in inside it that matters.
>a process is an ordered change over
>time. this identification of the two things pushes the imagination a bit,
>don't you think?
I suppose you would likewise state a radio is a radio and the signals
within mean nothing? In most cases transistors are active components
in such devices. Not so in brain. The architecture provides the
framework by which such ordered change occurs.
>you're surely not serious that neurons are static, or that signals only
>travel in one direction.
You have got to be kidding. If signals traveled in more than one
direction no coherency would be possible. When directions are effected
by diseased cell structure signals are corrupted. Or have you not
heard of Alzheimers?
>neurons and their connections have to be some of
>the most dynamic things under scientific study. both pre- and postsynaptic
>learning have been established,
No it has not. IF that were the case poor Roger Penrose and Stuart
Hameroff's work on Orch Or would be futile.
>as neurotranmitter reuptake mechanisms have
>been shown to affect the behaviour of presynaptic neurons, not to mention
>the effects of recurrently connected networks.
Try not to confuse the circuit with the signals that travel it.
>> I can assure you that any other theory of brain function is simply not
>> correct. This combination theory ... is the only
>> examination of brain function that is not based in the observance of
>> the outcomes of brain.
>when you say "outcomes of brain", are you talking about the results of
>experiments conducted on the brain?
Of course not. Intelligence is HOW the brain thinks not WHAT the brain
does.
>in which case your theory doesn't leave
>much to endear one to it:
Sure it does, when one thinks it through intead of standing on straw
argument.
>the only theory of brain function where the
>actual results of studying brain function are not taken into account. if
>not, again, what *are* you talking about?
You will have to study. The most destructive method of observation is
to assumption. Look for the cause.
>engelking: although some scientists are convinced that information in the
>brain really comes down to discrete units, there is a great deal of
>evidence to suggest that this is not the case, and that representation in
>the brain is essentially a parallel, distributed, analogue affair.
Correct. Now you are talking about the same thing. But the definition
of discrete states is in need of discussion. As is the definition of
parallel and distributed. The brain is analog. But the mentality that
looks at brain from a binary computer perspective is simply not
correct, regardless if the conclusion is then analog.
lkh
Lee Kent Hempfling...................|lkh at cei.net
chairman, ceo........................|http://www.aston.ac.uk/~batong/Neutronics/
Neutronics Technologies Corporation..|West Midlands, UK; Arkansas, USA.
