flefever at ix.netcom.com(F. Frank LeFever) wrote:
> the brain as made up of parallel processers,
Yes. Who was the one musing about three placies where data is going
to? ... (Not to mention frontal cortex parallel processing powers.)
One more where I have been wondering, too, and there might be other
locations.
But those three are of seperate ones, I thought you had figured that
one out.
Two are the two huge CPUs of the brain.
What do you believe oneself and it are using the frontal cortex for?
>so there may be much more "throughput" than would be possible with a single channel
>serial processer,
There is something about the world throughput that is seeming odd.
Though the second emotion generator might be throughput and the sort
of relay station towards the front very much seems so.
And I do not know enough about the neocortex areas.
> howsoever many "computations" might be possible in a
>given period.
I guess I better skip theories popping up about the front and loads of
not single but sort of single channel parallel serial processors.
Sort of bunches of parallel hardtoexplainies, with along their lines
sort of serial evenmorehardtoexplainies.
(Ever seen one talking about stuff to do with the front and maybe
complex thinking for which it is usually needed, and for thinking
making a sort of continual forward movement interrupted by specific
stopping points or mentioned evenmorehardtoexplainies, which might
also be spotted on brain maps?)
..But maybe that was nonsense.
>re lines of evidence: ranging from clinical pheonomena (as exemplified
>in cases such as my Deep Dyslexia patient and my Propagnostic patient,
YOUR patient.
Yeah, guess the ones you possess would have to be patient.
I think I'd rather order your coffin than have someone like you
declare me so.
What do you do, drug them straight as you seemed to express that that
is something you like with some, which fits "headblind eyenerve-
cutting in delighters" or come up with some other stuff?
My soandso category stuck into term
and my soandso category stuck into term.
How charming, that would really boost up my ego if I were someone
seeking help and would sure make many many axons flower.
If I just read part of what you write I can get why some might even
prefer deep dyslexia.
>to cite just two interesting experiments of nature) to much heavy-duty
>anatomical/physiological work.
How about you cite them more explicitly and stop seeing them as
categories.
And describe of each individuals differences compared to Mr. Averagie.
>F. Frank LeFever, Ph.D.
>New York Neuropsychology Group
>(& NYAS)
>>In <garyjaz-1111981702270001 at usr-66-184.globaleyes.net>
>garyjaz at globaleyes.net (Gary Jasdzewski) writes:
>>>>Recently I posted to this group a question about the reasons why
>cognitive scientists (linguists, psychologists, etc.)
Actually I find the term cognitive together with linguistic and psycho
stuff still pretty weird, as it is not the cognito ergo sum thinking
areas that are doing the structuring of syllables and words and
senteneces, nor the emotion generators.
And as main own thinking centers are sort of the equivalent of an old
frequency selector into the cingulate gyrus and other areas, there is
something funny to taking about the most sense censored branches since
thousands of years of human research into the mind; with science
basically proclaiming that the five sense left of over a hundred
senses, best are ignored, too,
On another level it is nearaly as funny as homo sapiens.
>>should pay attention to the neurosciences.
>>I haven't received many replies, sad to say.
Has it occurred to you that maybe there are not that many reasons to
think about why one should?
Do you want some birds eye-nerves cut or some hippocampus taken out of
someone or stuff like this?
If not, what is the point?
In books about MBD / MCD there should be some stuff about language in
some of those, and Valery Kourinsky seemed rather busy with languages,
too.
Sort of like two extremes.
In in all I do not get where neuro is supposed to help you there.
Point at a map at Broca's and say:"Here language is structured"?
And with emotional relations they have not even come to understanding
the main functions of the main emotional sectors yet, and till they
are understanding the thousands of subprograms just of the two main
areas that could take a while
Maybe you should more say what it is that you are wanting exactly.
If you just want to categorize people into something like
"MY Diddeltrop patient and MY Hurzelfurz patient are two interesting
experiments of nature", then I guess you can get that here.
Might be simpler if you are asking people what they are having, why
they think that they are having it, what they sense is different in
them and then figure out wise solutions if they don't find any or do
the old wise trick of sending them onto some special yourney, if thata
should work out, then they might get better in other languages, and
perceive so much about very different cultures, that the new inputs
should later the own.
Old trickie, here back then the called it pilgrimage, in other places
it might be some Shaman sacred travel thingies, but it results in that
the people get away from where they are stuck and get flooded with so
many inputs and the high feeling of having some sacred or otherwise
important task making them feel more important, that it should not
really matter.
>However, I did run across an idea called the '100 step constraint' in a marvelous
>>book called _Speaking Minds_. The idea is that the brain is not fast
>>enough to perform more than 100 computations in something like 300
>>milliseconds, and so any cognitive theory must take this into account.
> Is anyone familiar with this idea? Is it well known in your field? What
>are the numbers used to calculate it?
No, I am not familiar with it, so obviously not all cognitive theories
take it into account, which to me is sounding pretty arrogant as an
assumption anyway.
Basically you are not even giving the sectors nor the computations, so
that if I were to look at a place with thousands of concert fans and
hundreds of them hopping around near the stage while the Pink Floyd
folks are singing, are that computations?
And if so only if I perceive their faces clearly, or also if they are
a blurry moving mass for me?
If I am linked with another brain occipitally enough so that the faces
are gone, but not with other centers straight, and that on different
ranges, the focus around taking in 4 cupic meters for each, then that
is how many computations?
Such is nonsense because brains are too different.
Even if I just were to juggle with three balls and do the throws
called shower and try to do them fast, then that mighttake more
powers, as watching T.V. with far more points moving.
I did not meet one brain that was like the next, and processsing
powers are seriously very, very different,
and as long as you are not even saying which sectors you are referring
to, I guess the next neuro could tell you that there might be more
"firings" even just in one sector than you mention there, and maybe
also more cells computing stuff inisde, so that what you are saying
there is not making sense.