The Binding Problem [was Re: Bennett and Hacker: [...]]
k p Collins
kpaulc at [----------]earthlink.net
Tue Feb 10 15:59:23 EST 2004
I've deliberately Abstained from reading
the work of other Theorists, knowing that,
if their positions are Correct, then they do
not need any input from me, and, since
they're already established, their stuff will
Instead, I've endeavored to 'look-elsewhere'.
This said, I want to comment on one thing:
"the binding problem" [as I understand what
that Problem constitutes].
"Eray Ozkural exa" <erayo at bilkent.edu.tr> wrote in message
news:fa69ae35.0402100312.46e9deb8 at posting.google.com...
> It is confused, a *conceptual* confusion - to
> formulate the binding problem as the problem
> of combining data of shape, colour and motion
> to form the *image* of the object perceived
> (Crick, Kandel, Wurtz).
The Binding Problem:
I've never read an 'Official' definition of
"the Binding Problem". The way I've de-
fined it, in my own work is [roughly [I'm
explicitly-'defining' it for the first 'time'
as I write, here]:
"How does the nervous system 'know',
and direct its host organism's behavior in
ways that reflect such 'knowing', and with
respect to that, in the host organism's ex-
ternal experiential environment, which is
NDT provides a Testable Solution to "the
The fundamentals are discussed in AoK -
the way that the globally-integrated neural
Topology is =everywhere= ordered to
achieve =only= one 'goal' - the minimiza-
tion of topologically-distributed Excita-
tion and the maximization of topologically-
distributed Inhibition, or the minimization
of the ratio of topologically-distributed
Excitation to Inhibition - "TD E/I(min)".
All of this can be 'read' directly from the
Neuroanatomy, and a Proof of it is given
in AoK, Ap3.
But what about "the engram"? How are
specific 'memory' embodiments "Bound"
within TD E/I-minimization?
I've discussed all of this in long-former
posts here in bionet.neuroscience, noting,
then, that I'd presented a Solution to the
"Binding Problem", but, since no one did
any 'back-flips', I'll briefly reiterate that
To resolve the "Binding Problem", one
must explain how the genetic material
is selectively-activated so that its protein-
synthesis dynamics are seamlessly-inte-
grated within TD E/I-minimization - so
that nervous systems 'know', and direct
their host organisms' behavior in ways that
reflect such 'knowing', and with respect to
that, in the host organisms' external experi-
ential environments, which is 'known'.
To do this, the genetic material must be
selectively activated by the neural activation
that actually occurs within nervous systems,
and that select activation of the genetic mat-
erial must, simultaneously, be rigorously in
accord with TD E/I-minimization.
If this were not the case, then nervous system's
neural activation 'states' would run-free.
That is, behavior that would be manifested
would evoke further stimulation from the
external experiential environment that would
result in the occurrence of increased Excitation
within the nervous system.
The nervous system's activation 'states' would
diverge, instead of converge.
So, here is how the genetic material is selectively
The 'Coulomb forces' that are embodied in the
ionic conductances drive the genetic material
so that it's protein synthesis [including enzyme
production] tend, strongly, to occur in a way
that results in neurons' activations becoming
It sounds like a "just-so story", but it's not.
If it were otherwise, nervous systems' activ-
ation 'states' would, again, Diverge.
There is a 'Difficulty' inherent, however. It
derives in the way that folks 'want' explana-
tions to conform to what they 'perceive',
and the Simple stuff, above, seems, at first
glance, to 'thumb its nose' at 'perception'.
'Perception' is so 'clear', so 'robust', so 'rep-
licable', so 'etc.', that it seems 'contrary'-to-
'perception' that a Simple, monotonic energy-
dynamic could embody it.
But that 'monotony' :-] has been dealt-with
above - in the way that 'inappropriate' act-
ivation of the genetic material [which, as I've
discussed in long-former posts here in b.n,
does occur in Alzheimer's, etc.] =always=
results in nervous systems' activation 'states'
When nervous systems' activation 'states'
become Divergent, behavior also becomes
Divergent. Divergent behavior is Weakly-
focussed behavior. Weakly-focussed be-
havior cannot act upon the external exper-
inetial environment powerfully enough to
assure Survival, so the nervous system's
host organism Dies, and so does its nervous
So, it =must= be as was discussed above.
The rest, I've discussed in long-former posts
with respect to the always-down-hill-ness
of protein-folding's 3-D energydynamics.
Searching on 3-D energydynamics should
come up with most of the discussion, and
the rest of it can be found by searching on
terms that are unique to the discussions that
come up by searching on "3-D energydynamics".
What =all= 3-D energydynamics" that occur
within nervous systems do is occur in a way
that tends, strongly, to 'climb' the one-way
flow of energy from order to disorder that is
what's =described= by 2nd Thermo [WDB2T].
This is highly-functional be-cause 'climbing'
WDB2T results in 'movement toward' aug-
mented supplies of energy, which Optimizes
All of this is also highly-functional be-cause
WDB2T =permeates= physical reality.
WDB2T is an ever-present 'guidepost' with-
in physical reality.
Yes, there can be external experiential en-
vironmental conditions in which local WDB2T
'contradicts' other local WDB2T, but all one
has to do with respect to such 'contradictions'
is range-widely, until the =set= of local WDB2Ts
can be 'climbed'.
When one does so, one's genetic material is
selectively-activated with respect to the =set=
of local WDB2Ts, one's protein synthesis
occurs in a way that, literally, embodies 'appro-
priate 'movement' with respect to the set of
local WDB2Ts, and one 'Knows' how to
'move' with respect to that set.
K. P. Collins
More information about the Neur-sci