verbal vs. non-verbal memory

kkollins at kkollins at
Sun Dec 27 23:47:55 EST 1998

I discussed, a while back, the fact that "language" (to which verbal
memory is correlated) is just an evolutionary addd-on.

In my response to the poster's Q, I was addressing "memory", period...
the physical encoding of energy gradients in the form of microscopic
trophic modifications to the neural topology ("micromods"), and I stand
on what I posted. I know of no evidence that can support a position that
holds that different memory "modalities" (ie. "verbal" vs. non-verbal)
proceed via different encoding mechanisms.

What you are discussing is more-complex than is the "memory"-encoding
problem. You are discussing global, memory-dependent,
information-processing dynamics.

With respect to these larger dynamics, my position remains as it's
discussed in AoK, Ap9... "functional multiplexing".

But that's not what you're discussing. What you're discussing is not an
information encoding thing. You're discussing a global-system
integration thing.

Yes, lesions, or genitic non-"normal" stuff, can result in
externally-observable stuff that is correlated with the ability to store
and recall information. But these externally-observables correlate with
global-system integration deficits, and not with "memory" deficits.

Consider an analogy... "memory" is like the pieces of a jigsaw puzzle...
typically, their coloration and shape vary from piece to piece, but
they're all made in the same generic way... a picture mounted on
cardboard, then stamped to cut the shapes, and broken apart.

Externally-observable stuff pertaining to the global-system integration
problem is analogous to there being pieces of the jigsaw puzzle
missing... one recognizes these deficits by their being "holes" in what
would otherwise be "seamless" information-processing.

Your comments, quoted below, correlate with the latter, but not to the
former. When I commented, I was addressing only memory's encoding. I'd
discussed the global-integration problem previously.

All this having been said, I expect that it'll be a while before folks
grasp what's been said, and that the majority of folks in Neuroscience
will agree with you and not me. The distinction I've described between
the physical encoding of "memory" (the creation of micromods, and the
global-integration, in which memory within Neuroanatomically-"distinct"
areas of the global system is cross-correlated and integrated) is not
yet recognized outside of my own work. It's been the case that both have
been construed as constituting "memory". That's in error, however.
"Memory" is "just" the physical encoding of energy gradients, and
there's no modality-specificity in such that I'm aware of. What there is
is, as is discussed in AoK, Ap9, "functional multiplexing" (it's akin to
"tuneable insulation" within electrical circuits)). But functional
multiplexing is not correlated with "modalities"... it's correlated with
the global optimization of the "engineering" of the brain... that is, if
the brain can process information more efficiently by using this or that
neurochemical, it does, and this means that various neurochemicals can
be incorporated within the energy-gradient-encoding dynamics of
widely-varying Neuroanatomically-"distinct" areas of the brain.

It's been the case that folks've been hindered in their comprehension of
brain function because all of this hadn't been gotten straight, and kept
straight while collecting, and analyzing, experimental data.

Most of modern ("molecular") Neuroscience has been studying only the
"memory" problem. Because it's largely disreguarded the neural topology,
it's been "stymied" in its efforts to explain brain function because
brain function cannot be explained only in terms of "memory"... brain
function cannot be explained without translating every Neuroanatomical
"twist" and "turn" into Maths which map the internal energy gradients
with respect to external energy gradients.

An appropriate analogy for this modern Neuroscientific approach is to
take a sledge hammer to your PC, smash it into real small pieces, then
explain its functioning... the methodology beats itself over the head.
K. P. Collins

Thomas A. Martin wrote:
> I must disagree with kkollins reply.  There is plenty of evidence to support
> a anatomical (physical) distinction between these two types of memory.  For
> example, people who sustain a traumatic brain injury may have trouble with
> verbal memory while non-verbal memory may be unaffected, or vice versa.
> While it is often the case that both types of memory are often similarly
> affected by an injury this disassociation offers support for some
> distinction between these forms of memory.  Further examination of
> neuroanatamy books would shed light upon your question.
> TMartin
> kkollins at wrote in message
> <3682EDEA.BBD77039 at>...
> >There's no Physical distinction between "the two"... the "two's" only
> >the one thing.
> >
> >You've "just" been misled by folks who've run off with your tax money,
> >'cause that's what their Profs taught them to do, and the Profs' Profs,
> >before them, and so on... back to the Beginning when all there was was
> >Ignorance.
> >
> >Ignorance had been "perpetuated", in this way, be-cause folks had not
> >comprehended the way the brain processes information. In an Absence of
> >an understanding of the way brains process information, the way that
> >brains process information tends strongly to value Learned Ignorance
> >because it's Familiar.
> >
> >Understanding how brains process information is the "door" through which
> >one escapes the Tyranny of Ignorance (because Ignorance is Tyrannical, I
> >refer to it as the "Beast"... it's "time" we banished such into the
> >Nothingness whence it came). ken collins
> >
> >[I can explain if you want to hear more. kpc]
> >
> >shadowrunner at wrote:
> >>
> >> I'm looking for any information about neuro or physiologic difference
> >> between verbal and non-verbal memory.
> >>
> >> Thanks to reply by mail to:
> >> shadowrunner at
> >>
> >> Seth

More information about the Neur-sci mailing list