Another perspective?: (deep/surface is a dichotomy and so all possible
descriptions of the relationships are 'known'....)
Cijadrachon wrote in message <3613035d.47744380 at news.zedat.fu-berlin.de>...
>mentifex at scn.org (Mentifex) wrote:
>>> Please first read up on the Default Standard Model of Mind online at
>I already see the stuff you write here:
>>>> /^^^^^^^^^^^\ Deep Structure: Surface Structure /^^^^^^^^^^^\
>> /visual memory\ ________ / auditory \
>>| /--------|-------\ / syntax \ |episodic memory|
>>| | recog-|nition | \________/---|-------------\ |
>>| ___|___ | | | | _______ | |
>>| /image \ | __V___ ___V___ | /stored \ | |
>>| / percept \ | /deep \------/lexical\----|--/ phonemes\| |
>>| \ engrams /---|---/concepts\----/concepts \---|--\ of words/ |
>>| \_______/ | \________/ \_________/ | \_______/ |
>>>First of all: No definition of which aras you count into the mind and
>which ones not.
>No discerning of different systems with visual memory in the brain.
>No magical understanding of the brain.
>No language structure understanding of the brain.
>No recognition understanding of the mind.
>- No definition of "episodic memory"?
>- No definition of "deep concepts"
>And so on.
>>How about some day you get a vague idea either about the human brain
>ar about building artificial intelligences, before keeping sending
>them totally ... models like that one and others,
>and naming them something to do with " THE STANDARD model of mind"
>>There is nothing stnadard about it but the standard of you being wrong
>in lot of you rmodels.