IUBio Biosequences .. Software .. Molbio soft .. Network News .. FTP

The Binding Problem [was Re: Bennett and Hacker: [...]]

AlphaOmega2004 OmegaZero2003 at yahoo.com
Tue Feb 10 17:40:11 EST 2004

"k p Collins" <kpaulc@[----------]earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:LCbWb.19803$jH6.4430 at newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net...
> Hi Eray.
> 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
> be Published.
> Instead, I've endeavored to 'look-elsewhere'.


And, try Chalmer's site, specifically:

What is the Unity of Consciousness? (with Tim Bayne). In (A. Cleeremans, ed)
The Unity of Consciousness: Binding, Integration, Dissociation. Oxford
University Press, 2003.

Andreas Engel, Pascal Fries, Pieter Roelfsema, Peter Konig, & Wolf Singer,
Temporal binding, binocular rivalry, and consciousness (and discussion)

Marius Usher & Nick Donnelly, Visual synchrony affects binding and
segmentation in perception

> 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
> 'known'?"
> NDT provides a Testable Solution to "the
> Binding Problem".
> 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
> Solution, here.
> 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.
> Why?
> 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
> activated:
> 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
> TD E/I-minimized.
> 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'
> becoming Divergent.
> 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
> system.
> 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
> Survival.
> 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.
> Hence "Binding".
> K. P. Collins

More information about the Neur-sci mailing list

Send comments to us at biosci-help [At] net.bio.net