In <35BFF1CB.A2B77C60 at papyrus.mhri.edu.au> Stephen Wood
<swood at papyrus.mhri.edu.au> writes:
>>> The "ganged fibres" are simply redundant parallel nerve fibers
>> holding a concept--which is in turn a collection of associative
>> tags--which are neuronal fibers leading from the abstract con-
>> ceptual fibers to the concrete engrams in the sensory channels.
>>>>OK, lets get serious. Published journal articles please (rather than
>non-reviewed web sites) to show the neural basis (and I mean in terms
>neurons, synapses and neurotransmitters) of 'redundant parallel nerve
>holding a concept'. I mean, what is your proof of any of this? Are
>conceptual fibres pyramidal cells? Granule cells? Interneurons? Basket
>Purkinje cells? What? And by the way, I'm uncertain of your use of
>since you seem to be suggesting that actually they aren't redundant
------Never thought I'd find myself defending Mentifex, but evidently
------you endorse the vulgar "definition" of "redundant". Redundancy n
------in the nervous system is considered useful. Redundancy in
------communication is considered useful. Needless to say, people
------drawing these conclusions are considering the implications of the
>> Concepts above are "deep" in the Chomskyan sense that they under-
>> lie, at the profoundest level, the linguistic generation of ideas.
>> When a thought forms as the dynamic interaction of the "deep" con-
>> cepts, activity bubbles upwards through the "shallow" lexical
>> concepts, where rigid structures of Chomskyan syntax fetch words
>> and morphemes stored in auditory memory to create a new sentence.
>> The auditory system then consciously hears itself think that idea.
>>>>Again, prove it. There's a number of suggestions that people don't
>language (see Pinker for a start), but in a kind of mentalese. This
>seems to suggest that the auditory system does not hear itself think
>(for a start the _auditory_ system responds to external sounds, not to
>subvocal speech - have a look through some functional imaging
-------Yes; and there are some striking dissociations of meaning and
-------phonology ins some conditions (especially some strokes).
>>> Dr. LeFever, sometimes History taps a man on the shoulder and he
>> must choose to take advantage of that tide in the affairs of men
>> which leads on to fortune. Please consider such options as wear-
>> ing to your meetings a nametag or button: "Ask me about
>> Be either the great debunker of Mentifex or the great Dr. LeFever.
>> Or be both! Or alternatively, give up on Mentifex and get on with
--------I probably do spend too much time on the newsgroup (my bedtime
--------relaxation). I do present my research fairly regularly to
--------International Neuropsychological Society and to Society for
--------Neuroscience (occasionally to National Academy of
--------Neuropsychology, Academy of Neurology, others), but whether
--------you'd consider it "serious", I don't know. What do you
--------Sincerely, Buffy the Vampire Slayer--aka Great Dr. LeFever.