necessary CLARIFICATION:
but, of course, such "supersystem configuration" dynamics [AoK, Ap5] are the
mechanism through which "local specialization" develops.
"of course", via studies that disclose, for instance, that =early= organic
damage, is 'just' re-'engineered' during the course of 'normal' nervous
system function, leaving only subtly-detectable behavioral-trace stuff [as
when the 'normal' 'language centers' are, through disease or instrumental
trauma, obliterated early-on, but 'language' develops anyway, elsewhere
within what's left of the brain].
it's in such instances that we Witness the Awesome 'engineering' of our
nervous systems in some of its True depth.
they begin as the most-extraordinarily-capable Generalized-Processors.
then, all 'two' rapidly, via experience, most of the information-processing
capacity innate within them is 'blindly' and automatically 'cast-out' as if
it's so much 'garbage'.
of course, that such will happen is built-right-in, but because what's been
going on in-there had not been understood, it, virtually-always, over-shot,
mostly because the propensity was 'amplified' within educational systems
[the full spectrum, from home to grad school, and career establishments]
that assert a "haste makes waste" [Ben Franklin] pace of progress. because
of the work inherent inconstructing the highest-'level' supersystem
configuration stuff ["prefrontal constellations"; AoK, Ap7], 'thought' must
have its 'leisure', lest its underpinning stuff be prematurely
"whittled"-away [AoK, Ap5].
anyway, i Apologize to you, Tom. i should've =Honored= your point about
"local specialization" in my initial reply. of course it's in-there. it's
just that it comes to be in-there as a function of the stuff with respect to
which you raised your [gentle [Thank You] 'challenge']. i should've
better-Honored its stuff, instead of, unthinkingly, giving your "local
specialization' 'point' short-shrift..
i had a laugh, on myself, when i returned, this day, and saw that i'd
totally agreed with that with respect to which i'd 'disagreed', wanting
'two' much to address its mechanism.
"oh well."
i'm tired, and there's predation, elsewhere in our midst, simultaneously.
got my 'Guard' up a bit 'two' strongly, and more than a bit 'two'
overly-generalized.
Sorry.
cheers, Tom, ken [k. p. collins]
Kenneth Collins wrote in message ...
>>Tom Breton wrote in message ...
>>"Kenneth Collins" <k.p.collins at worldnet.att.net> writes:
>>>>> the argument that a larger overall brain size is correlated with
>>> information-processing capacity is hard to defend because all things
else
>>> being proportional, because of the longer fibers necessary, an
>overly-large
>>> brain suffers a penalty in energy consumption and/or convergence
>>> 'time'.
>>>>Convergence time... It's odd that we don't ever hear about that when
>>science-popularizers are chortling that "women use both halves of
>>their brains and men don't". (to accomplish specific tasks, but that
>>usually goes unsaid)
>>100% of the brain is used 100% of the 'time'. [note: this's not the same as
>saying 100% of the brain's information-processing capacity is used 100% of
>the 'time'.] most of the 'time', convergence occurs in the 'easiest' way.
>>>>>But anyways, local specialization makes me doubt the theory that large
>>brain = large convergence time for tasks of interest.
>>it's not "local specialization", but experience ["practice"] that enables
>"expert" informaqtion-processing speed. this happens be-cause the
>system-configuration information is stored and retrieved in a way that's
>exactly-analogous to the way that externally-relevant memory details are
>stored and retrieved. the system configuration 'memories' are constructed
>over relatively-long 'time' courses, through the doing of
>information-processing work, and after they're constructed, they are
invoked
>of-a-piece, which makes the relatively-large instance of
>information-processing commensurately-rapid. [commensurate to the prior
>quantity of system-configuration work performed].
>>this's is some of what i addressed in my prior post, as is quoted below.
>>all things being proportionate, the smaller brain [at a limit of what's
>in-there being sufficient], converges more-rapidly and consumes less energy
>in doing so [which further augments information-processing power because
>less 'time' has to be 'wasted' searching for and consuming 'food'].
>>the TD E/I-minimization that i write about is a form of 'making the brain
as
>small as practical, with respect to this or that information-processing
>task, expressly to minimize such factors.
>>such minimization maximizes information-processing 'power'.
>>of course, all of this occurs in an extremely-dynamic way, which is why
100%
>of the brain is used 100% of the 'time'.
>>k. p. collins
>>>>>> [which is another viewport into the hyper-/hypo- trophy stuff. to
>maintain
>>> overall minimization of energy consumption, and overall 'timely'
>>> convergence, requires a hypertophy-hypotrophy 'off-setting'. this, of
>>> course, can be 'stretched' a bit if it's the case that an individual
>>> experiences greater than 'normal' "leisure" ["leisure", here, is not
>>> necessarily a state of "ease".]]
>>>>>>--
>>Tom Breton at panix.com, username tehom. http://www.panix.com/~tehom>>
