Greetings Keith and Ray,
NLP does not have any insight on brain structure or functioning, though it
was a latent interest among some of the original NLP developers, e.g Robert
Diltz.
The closest NLP comes to it is a metaphorical model which has no pretensions
to being technically accurate. It is primarily a linguistic model, based on
Korzybski's ever-pertinent semantic observations (see, e.g. SCIENCE AND
SANITY) and on a decision-making model ("TOTE"), which is dated, now.
The TOTE model and its successors have been very useful, in that they
provided a pragmatic map for psycho-cognitive interventions. These models
were created through linguistic probes and questioning of people as to how
they make decisions, what they need to 'change' (therapeutically), etc.
Cheers to all,
Lawry
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Keith Hudson
> Sent: Monday, August 19, 2002 10:40 AM
> To: Ray Evans Harrell
> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: Brain Tutorial(was RE: Brain is not a holograph)
>
>
> Ray,
>
> At 11:35 19/08/02 -0400, you wrote:
> >Gee Keith, I'm afraid that like your lecture on Music History this goes
> >against just about everything I ever learned about anything,
> now that IS
> >novel. I still like your economics theory better. Do you know
> >anything about NLP?
> >
> >REH
>
> I'm sorry if my answers to Lawry didn't suit. Please tell me precisely
> where I might have misinformed Lawry or anybody else on
> Futurework list. As
> wrote before, I'm very happy to receive criticisms of what I wrote from
> anybody well-versed in neurophysiology or neuroscience on this list.
>
> I don't know anything about NLP apart from it being an acronym for
> Neuro-linguistic Programming. It's never turned up in any of the books
> about the brain that I've read.
>
> Keith
>
> <<<<<<<<
> (LdeB)
> <<<<
> Greetings, Ray and Keith,
> Many thanks for your thoughtful and helpful postings on the idea of the
> holographic brain. I am taking the liberty of replying in this email to
> both of you, and of troubling you with some additional questions based on
> what you describe.
>
> 1) I do understand, Ray, the point you made about each cell containing all
> the 'information' of a person: our DNA is replicated in each of our cells.
> That the cells end up doing different things as the organism forms ( cell
> development) is, as I understand it, still one of the big mysteries in
> biology.
> >>>>
>
> The mechanism is known in principle. The devil is in the detail. In any
> particular cell in the body (liver, kidney, brain, etc) only certain genes
> in the DNA are activated. These produce the specific enzymes that are
> necessary in the production of the specific proteins that the
> cell requires.
>
> <<<<
> But I think that this passive, activatable coding is not quite the
> same as the coding of an idea, say, in the brain, no? That is,
> the functions
> of the brain are the results of collections of neuronal cells acting
> together, and not contained within a single neuron. Does this make sense?
> >>>>
>
> This is true. The components of a neural network in the cortex (the
> "thinking" part -- the outer covering) are not so much individual neurons
> as vertical modules of neurons. These are relatively slim columns of
> neurons from the surface down through the depth of the cortex
> (about 1/10th
> inch). In each module there are several thousand neurons
> belonging to five,
> six or seven distinctly different types of neurons. A message coming into
> the module will be shuffled up and down the module during processing and
> then emerge to pass on to a module in an entirely different part of the
> cortex. As training for a particular task progresses, or as a memory
> becomes consolidated, then the modules involved become increasingly
> specialised, quarantine themselves from the influence of neighbouring
> modules and firm up connections with modules elsewhere in the cortex.
>
> <<<<
> 2) Holographs.... If a holographic plate is shattered, does each
> piece then
> still depict the whole of the original picture, or just a part of
> the whole?
> >>>>
>
> Yes -- each small piece recreates a copy of the whole -- though not
> necessarily in as much detail.
>
> <<<<
> If brain function is generally resilient and can be restored
> though much of
> the relevant parts of the brain have been destroyed, could it not, instead
> of many duplicated learned act copies, be because the learned act is
> supported by a dense and redundant set of neural pathways?
> >>>>
>
> If a network relevant to a particular task or memory (or part of it) is
> destroyed then it has gone for good. There are no redundant pathways
> waiting to take over. If it's a memory then it will have gone forever. If
> it is a learned task, then it can only be re-learned by new, practical
> learning procedures in which the brain will (with great difficulty in the
> case of an adult) fashion a new network by suborning parts of other
> networks. The re-learned task will never be done quite as well as
> previously, and other skills belonging to the other networks will be
> degraded.
>
> <<<<
> If many of the
> neurons are destroyed, this restoration might be ensured by the undamaged
> neurons in the original network, with only a bit of re-learning, and, if
> necessary, re-growing of some of the missing neurons.
> >>>>
>
> Recent research indicates that missing (dead) neurons might be
> restored but
> this is at very early stages of being understood. It is entirely possibly
> that brain functions at a general level might well be restorable in the
> future, but it is most unlikely that the micro-precision that would be
> involved in the individual replacement of cells or modules will ever be
> possible. Alzheimer's, Parkinson's and other short-term memory functions
> might be curable, but the restoration of previous high-level skills will
> almost certinly be impossible.
>
> >>>>
> It would be very
> interesting to compare the recovery rates of brain-damaged individuals to
> the time it takes new pathways to be adopted by learned acts that
> have been
> damaged, and the growth of new neurons where the original
> redundancy was not
> adequate.
> >>>>
>
> There is no redundancy, as mentioned above. This is one of the most
> prevalent myths about the brain. Every single neuron in the brain of an
> adult is constantly in heavy use in carrying out a specific act *or* it is
> kept alive at a low level of activation. Don't bank on the
> possibility that
> the brain can restore any sort of high-skill task.
>
> <<<<
> 3) If synapses deteriorate with lack of use, might the opposite
> not also be
> true: and if this is so, might it not be possible that carrying out mental
> exercises would actually strengthen specific brain functionings?
> >>>>
>
> Yes, indeed. Synapses strengthen with use. However, there can be
> no general
> mental exercises which can strengthen synapses -- only the the practice of
> specific skills, either those already known or the learning of new ones.
>
> <<<<
> Gosh!
> Might it be possible to train two entirely independent neural
> networks to do
> the same thing, but locate them in different parts of the brain,
> so that if
> one part were damaged, the remaining network would be able to carry on the
> functioning, unimpeded?
> >>>>
>
> Not in any way possible. The whole adult brain is already occupied with
> dense, dedicated network of modules with highly specific
> functions. Neurons
> are cells needing a relatively huge consumption of oxygen merely to keep
> them alive. Redundancy would be a considerable waste of resources
> and would
> be a survival handicap.
>
> <<<<
> If a person 'can't make up their mind' about
> something, might among the reasons for this be that indeed a person has
> developed to independent neural nets for the same function, but that they
> are just sufficiently different that in some number of cases,
> they end up in
> conflict with each other? More speculation, I know...your thoughts?
> >>>>
>
> Yes, something like that. Decision-making in this sort of case is located
> in the frontal lobes. Based on the perceptions involved in the particular
> circumstances of the problem, the frontal lobes would be trying out
> competition 'on paper' between two or more alternative resolutions by
> repeatedly invading alternative circuits with the processed results of the
> perceptions that arrive from the rear cortex. Sooner or later, one of the
> alternative circuits will be strengthened at the expense of the other, and
> then it will send a message to the motor strip of the cortex that
> will then
> carry out the strategy decided upon.
>
> <<<<
> 4) On this matter of Wernicke's areas and the sensory channel
> that is being
> activated to handle a thought ("tomato"): are you saying that in
> Wernicke's
> areas cells carry out sensory specific operations
> (visual/tactile/auditory,
> etc.)? And that a few cells destruction might cut off a given channel's
> access to the thought?
> >>>>
>
> Yes.
>
> <<<<
> If this is an adequate summary, how does the idea of synesthesia
> fit in, in
> which experience or memory of a thing in one channel triggers a fuller
> experience of it in other channels? For example: If I ask you now to
> "imagine walking down a street in a quiet village, and you pass
> by the open
> door of a bakery...."
> >>>>
>
> There's no reason why some networks of modules should not activate other
> networks that have long ceased to be heavily used.
>
> <<<<
> What is happening here, in Wernicke's areas, if anything?
>
> 5) I can well imagine that functions of analysis and thinking are
> distributed throughout the body and that the 'brain is human and limbs are
> servants' model is lacking.
> >>>>
>
> 'Brain is human and limbs are servants' is about right. However,
> bunches of
> non-cortical neurons at locations in the spinal cord and elsewhere are not
> *your* servants, but servants of perceptions from the outside (e.g. the
> automatic withdrawal of a hand from a hot object).
>
> <<<<
> Why does this seem to make immediate sense to
> me? In information technology, we are coming to realize that dispersed
> decision-making centers, meshed together through redundant
> networks, may be
> the superior design, in terms of speed of action, local wisdom, overall
> wisdom, repair, and resilience to outside damage or attack. So it may be
> that the human or other organisms, faced with the need for all of
> these for
> hundreds of millions of years, have 'figured it out' (and I do
> NOT mean this
> teleologically!) through the processes of evolution, and adopted this kind
> of architecture for our organic information systems.
> >>>>
>
> My opinion is that you can't make comparisons between the organisation of
> the modules of the cortex with the organisation of individual humans.
> Entirely different stimuli are involved. It's true that big business (and
> large universities) have long realised (but government civil servant
> departments have generally not) that it can best function by devolving
> responsibility and control to as "low" a level as possible.
>
> But successful strategies and actions devised by the brain have, in fact,
> been arrived at by successive series of highly-competitive interactions
> between modules and networks of modules. The brain is more accurately
> described as heirarchical rather than democratic (although the hierarchies
> can suddenly switch -- as in schizophrenia).
>
> I can't comment on what remains, I'm afraid.
>
> Hope the above is helpful,
>
> Keith
> >>>>>>>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------
> ----------
> --------------
>
> Keith Hudson,6 Upper Camden Place, Bath BA1 5HX, England
> Tel:01225 312622/444881; Fax:01225 447727; E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> ________________________________________________________________________
>
