IUBio

verbal vs. non-verbal memory

Cijadrachon cijadra at zedat.fu-berlin.de
Mon Jan 25 05:23:26 EST 1999


(To certain people: Skip.)

>Is normal scholarship dying???

Globally spoken or for people who panic if the remote control does not
work and they might have to get out of the seat, bed or hammock to
change the program sizzling over their senses?

And why should I look up anything if it is considerably easier to ask
someone else about it and save phone money and time for lazying?

There are people who  like to point out system titles, then there are
neuroshrinks and others who might summon up data quite neatly... 

>F. Frank LeFever, Ph.D.
>New York Neuropsychology Group
 
You are doing quite good in it.


>"John" <johnhkm at logicworld.com.au> wrote:

>... the most worrying trend I see is the attitude of too many who think so much can be explained
>in a few paragraphs.

If people wanted to transmit a lot energy data about the brain fast,
they'd not babble at meetings about the conscious self with words and
posters, but would straight start synching brainenergies enough and
docking with the other I and then zip data between the brains in a
subatomic speed that words might seem like something where in years
you cannot explain what you can transfer within hours to a brain.
There are people who remind me of people holding their eyes shut and
describing each other pictures with tones.  
If someone said that that is very short, I guess a longer "look" if he
is holding his eyes shut or if he can transcend and perceive the human
head as energies would tell me volumes about speed judgements.
;-)

>More worryingly, all these kooks who purport to having received some special
>revelation a la Calvinism, as if by some secret intuition they have
>discerned the truth while the rest of continue to see the world through a
>glass darkly.

Tell me the difference between you and someone reducing himself to
five senses and regarding others generalized with undifferentiated
terms and mocking their relevations without perceiving the
fascinations concerning according (sub)area data in the brain.

Some make their glasses dark.

Who censors too undifferentiated too much might land at a rather
censored dim view of what is. 

>I will be off line in the New Year. I sincerely thank all the 

>thinking and scholarly souls


And how scholarly and thinking souls are indeed...

> To them I urge one and all to continue the good fight, keep
>attacking the kooks and confusing the ignorant,

Now, that is what I call matter-of-fact scientific thinking.

I am sad that such a room is not having such a great scholary thinking
soul for a while.

Finally someone who understood what is important in science and for
souls, and now such remarkable intelligence is not going to be here
for a while.  :-(

> thereby opening the door to them learning something.
I do not know what kooks mean, but the ignorant tend not to be
learning but to be confused by such if they are very ignorant.

However you could use the methods against the ignoring, might make
someo wonder to what extent subatomically regarded a glass, darkly, is
an obstacle to perceive the world on human normal deflective ranges,
magically and with machines . 

>In a few months I hope to return 
Thy coming shall be aspired by the Ingorant awaiting Thy Confusing.

>and by then expect all and sundry here to
>provide me with all the great mysteries of human consciousness.
Ey, even if if they'd some day bother to define what they are meaning
and some year even arrive at the plural, I've got something else to do
than comparing those cell groups and systems and energy ranges. Like
taking a walk with a friend next to a lake or through a forest and
other stuff that I might find more important.
I believe that Carlos Castaneda wrote a book called Tales Of Power
mentioning something there considered the last secret.
If you alter that a little, it is quite fascinating.

> I could do with a good laugh.

Then maybe read your own stuff again when you understand the I areas
better.

>Thanks again 
You are welcome.

>and all the best for the New Year.
;-)

>John
>Permanently confused and very dazed.

>"In the mountains the shortest way is from peak to peak, but for that one
>must have long legs."
>
>Nietzsche, Thus Spake Zarathustra.

I take it that he could not spook around with his ghost?


In <368290C8.A4EBE2 at hotmail.com> shadowrunner at hotmail.com writes: 

>I'm looking for any information about neuro or physiologic difference
>between verbal and non-verbal memory.

There ain't just two.
Sequencer seems pretty non verbal.
(Once read some bloke in his book wondering why autists sometimes
understand words and sometimes don't seem to hear & understand words
spoken to them.)
With me myself it depends on "connectedness" to other systems, and
also if input or output is referred to.
But you better ask someone else for that, F.Frank LeFever, Ph.D. 
might have some theories about memory systems.

Talking about which:

>... I have found it usefuly to subdivide "non-verbal" memory as well.  n.b.: most
>people mean "visual" when they say "non-verbal", but of course we can
>think of some kinds of non-visual non-verbal memory.  Within VISUAL
>non-verbal memory, the most obvious (and so far best studied)
>disstinction is between "what" and "where" perceptual and memory
>systems.

Could you elaborate on that, especially the last sentence?

(If you can, with locations.)

Tough I guess that might be too much trouble, F.Frank LeFever, Ph.D.



More information about the Neur-sci mailing list

Send comments to us at biosci-help [At] net.bio.net