Nolarbeit Theory Journal: 13 NOV 1978 (Request For Discussion)

Raymond A. Chamberlin raych at tsoft.net
Fri Dec 18 22:33:12 EST 1998


On 10 Nov 98 12:30:54 GMT, uj797 at victoria.tc.ca (Arthur T. Murray)
wrote:

>
.............
>

I don't get it.  Why did this post show up in sci.med.vision, when
it's heading says only bionet.neuroscience?  These Mentifex characters
must be into ESP. . .or else they're good hackers.

>I guess we have to have pipeline word-decoding, or else there
>could never be any variations from a strictly spoken standard for
>a word.

Of *course*, there's sequencing for speech, in both speaking and
hearing.  Most more-or-less phonetic writing is mainly written or read
with a lot of the phonic sequencing which was learned first, of
course.  Of course, ideograms work differently.  But I don't
understand what content there is in the above statement.  Certainly
*any* standard has "variations" in the real world, regardless of
whether there are any "pipelines" buried in it.  And certainly the
brain works fundamentally on the basis of stereotypes, whether
politically correct or not, not categories; that's what neural nets
are all about.

After my mother had a stroke, her speech nearly always came out
sequenced all wrong, by word and phoneme.  I was amazed to also find a
sample of her writing which did the same.

Ray (Mentifex:  They have pipelines in their pipe dreams yet.)



More information about the Neur-sci mailing list