rezabek1037 at iscsvax.uni.edu
rezabek1037 at iscsvax.uni.edu
Fri Mar 13 16:27:29 EST 1992
In item 186 the author speculates that the developmental structure of the
brain, from its initial cellular structures way back in the wash of genetic
lineage, may have simply been designed to latch onto any bit of information
which might come along; the "spaghetti code." I think, however, that one other
interpretation should see light in this regard: that the brain's basic program
is for a sort of continuous self-transcendence. A brain must be able to adapt,
within the course of one life-time, to the mental equivalents of outer
phenomena which force a SPECIES to adapt over many benerations.
So. The brain starts out, as a baby, with little to hold on-to. Its input is
eating up its perceptions, however, and when the developing brain encounters
something which it cannot immediately take into account, something for which it
does not already have a working conceptual model, it has a choice: stay put at
that arrested level of "encompassion," so to speak, or develop a world-view
which can encompass all which brought that brain to that point PLUS the new
disequalibriating concept. Thus the brain is set to go on living until it
encounters something ELSE that it had not accounted for. Perhaps the reason
that this underlying pattern is assumed in early developmental psychology but
merely a conceptual given (devoid of the exponential development so prevalent
in younger nervous systems) is that there comes a point in the development of a
human at which society's conditionings track it towards a rut in which it may
stay without having to encounter TOO MUCH disequalibriating information. It is
quite possible that much of "intelligence" lies in the capacity to learn, but
that this capacity is difficult to test, because once you get a human nervous
system back onto this exponential course of learning, so to speak, it is
difficult to wean of yet AGAIN.
At any rate, that is one particular model of the mind's "physical" development.
I'll tie it in to our "computer-person's" querry by presenting a pet theory of
a friend: that the reason that computers cannot be brain-like is that they
operate binarily and human brains are capable of operating holistically;
analogical thinking, connecting seemingly un-related data "in a flash," so to
speak. I've seen few interpretations of the holographic model of consciousness
(and the universe in general) that didn't lapse into SOME sort of mysticism;
but the same was true in the early days of layman's speculation on quantum
mechanics. So. I'll FLAME ON as per the holistic model of human consciousness
and watch the show...
The pity, of course, is that Empirical Data is difficult to get in this regard.
Science can study BEHAVIOR through scientific method, but not PERCEPTION or
PROCESS. You have to be INSIDE THE MIND BEING EXPERIMENTED ON to do that. And
THAT rubs Objectivity precisely the wrong way. "Subject and object one and the
same?! An absurd notion, to be sure."
More information about the Neur-sci