ELEPHANT TO CHRIS RE REFERENCES TO HIGHLY EVOLVED BIOLOGISTS:
CHRIS HAD WRITTEN:
>>>> (1) There is enough evidence around to validate the conjecture
>> that in the
>>>> human brain, and in the brains of other lifeforms, the
>> distinction is made
>>>> of the particular and the general and from this emerges the concepts of
>>>> objects and relationships.
RICHARD ASKED:
>>> Which studies is this taken from?
ELEPHANT TRUMPETED:
>> There's Millions of them to choose from. They are the same ones that
show
>> how consciouness has evolved to it's highest form in the lesser-crested
>> biologist.
CHRIS THEN WROTE:
> :-) yes there are a lot! however here is a list of useful refs that cover
> the ONE:MANY, WHAT/WHERE, OBJECT/RELATIONSHIPS expressions in scales from
> neuron to neural groups to the 'top' of the list, the neocortex... first set
> of refs favour the single frequency detection of the more 'object' side -
> that that favours 'what' and so when particularised we get WHO and WHICH..
> all 'dot' or 'point' oriented terms...
ELEPHANT:
~:---() Could please explain the quote-marks here around 'object'? An
object is an object. And what has frequency got to do with this, if you
please?
CHRIS HAD WRITTEN:
> REFs:
>
> Ivry, R.B., & Robertson, L.C., (1998)"The Two Sides of Perception" MITP
>
> STRONG evidence for a left being high pass filter -- the fundamental -- vs
> right being low pass -- harmonics and so interference patterns. (left is
> more 'object' right is more 'wave'). The left sets the KEY (Single context)
> within which harmonics 'play'.
ELEPHANT:
This appears to be written in code. What is a 'filter' when it's at home?
Re "harmonics and so interference patterns" - I normally expect a verb...
couldn't you indulge me just this once? It's just that this is the way I
(am evolved to) understand things.
CHRIS HAD WRITTEN:
> For recent work on the *neuron* as a frequencies detector see in particular
>
> Hutcheon,B., & Yarom, Y., (2000) "Resonance, oscillation and the intrinsic
> frequency preferences of neurons" Trends Neurosci. (2000) 23, 216-222
>
> At the neuron level, axon is more pulse; dendrites more wave.
ELEPHANT:
~;. - <::> ....?
CHRIS HAD WRITTEN:
> For a 'middle' position see:
>
> Tallon-Baudry, C., & Bertrand, O., (1999)"Oscillatory gamma activity in
> humans and its role in object representation" Trends Cognit. Sci. (1999) 3,
> 151-161
>
> As well as:
>
> Zatorre RJ, Mondor TA, Evans AC "Auditory attention to space and frequency
> activates similar cerebral systems." IN Neuroimage 1999 Nov;10(5):544-54.
>
> And:
>
> Pardo PJ, Makela JP, Sams M "Hemispheric differences in processing tone
> frequency and amplitude modulations" IN : Neuroreport 1999 Sep
> 29;10(14):3081-6
>
> For a good detailed summary (!) on cell communications etc see
>
> Loewenstein, W.R., (1999) "The Touchstone of Life" Penguin Books.
>
> For a summary on complexity, emergence and creation of memory systems from
> 'simple' neural connections see
>
> Holland, J.H., (1999)"Emergence" OUP.
ELEPHANT:
There's so much to learn, so little time. Er, can we skip that bit though,
and cut straight to an explanation of how a study of guey stuff can tell us
anything about the subject-object distinction? I'd like to be told why it
might be worth my while reading through this list, if that's OK. Is it OK?
CHRIS HAD WRITTEN:
> The neurochemistry favours the object(ONE)/relationships(MANY) distinctions
> as wellm encoded in the affects of the dopamine/serotonin/acetylcholine and
> the neuropeptids on behaviour...
ELEPHANT:
As I understand it, the "well encoded" expression is a neat bit of evasive
language which allows for the possibility that things are the other way
around: ie that the metaphysical distinction between object - subject is
something which the guey stuff has come to exhibit ("encode"). All very
interesting for students of guey stuff, but besides the point as far as the
metaphysics is concerned. I could perhaps be persuaded that the papers you
cite are worth reading for an insight into the metaphysics, but I won't be
unless you deploy the occasional sentence, and connect them into an
argument. When an argument gets hinted at, it is that changes in the guey
stuff affect behaviour. This seems to invoke the old rationalist input-
output model of psychology which MOQ-like pragmatists rejected years ago
(see John Dewey, 'the reflex arc concept in psychology', the psychological
reveiw, 1896, and in all the good collections on pragmatism).
Yours still blinded by the brighter lights of science,
Puzzled Elephant.
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - horse@wasted.demon.nl
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:00:53 BST