In article <slrn7rng5c.t5h.rlanyon at plato.wadham.ox.ac.uk>,
rlanyon at plato.wadham.ox.ac.uk wrote:
> On Thu, 19 Aug 1999 02:25:54 GMT, *Hemidactylus* wrote:
>> > I also recall Karl Lashley as being
> > attributed with the engram idea before.
>> IIRC, Lashley published a paper called "In search of the engram" or
> some such. His take was basically that it was foolish to try and pin
> down the engram to a specific site in the brain, based on lesion data
> in the rat where no matter which bit of cortex he ablated, the animals
> would eventually learn some tasks somehow.
>>
Does this relate to field theory or equipotentiality, issues discussed by
Donald Hebb in _The Organization of Behavior_?
Field and potential also have a certain developmental context. I think
perhaps Driesch's work on sea urchins fits in here historically, at least for
developmental organization. I also recall discussion of morphogenetic fields.
Maybe all that is shared here is the underlying holism of the concepts? Isn't
there a contrast between switchboard connectionism and field theory for
neural organization?
--
Scott Chase
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
