Hi, thanks for the refs.
I followed the one link, and 'disagree'
with what I read there.
As far as I'm concerned, the "Binding
Problem" requires the explaining of
selective DNA activation and protein
synthesis, in a way that's rigorously-
coupled to experience.
Thus, experience and the Biology
are "Bound-together" in a cause
and effect way that leaves no 'surmises'.
Which is what I've done, although
no one's told me, yet, that they agree :-]
Cheers, ken, [k. p. collins]
"AlphaOmega2004" <OmegaZero2003 at yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1188d999fea106c7937ffd74b7782213 at news.teranews.com...
>> "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'.
>>http://www.imprint-academic.demon.co.uk/SPECIAL/02_10.html>> And, try Chalmer's site, specifically:
>> What is the Unity of Consciousness? (with Tim Bayne). In (A. Cleeremans,
> 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