brain and mind

x011 at Lehigh.EDU x011 at Lehigh.EDU
Wed Apr 19 08:03:50 EST 1995

In article <34 at>, gord at (Gordon Kendall
Gray) writes:
>reply to gord at
. .........C U T ..........
>>>>>Can we agree that the brain is an information processer and
>>>>>that thought is the form taken by the processing?
>        This brings us to the next question about the form taken by
>the information being processed - Is it analog or is it digital?
>Subsidiary question - how can we decide this when the information
>is carried by pulses (please note the plural!) In a digital
>computer the pulses are arranged to appear at precisely defined
>times from which they cannot be allowed to depart, but at those
>times they can be present or absent. Coincidence detectors (known
>to computer engineers as NAND and NOR circuits) detect pairs of
>pulses occurring simultaneously - in a brain the same principle
>operates in lateral inhibition and the circuits are very much like
>NAND and NOR in structure.
>        I had to mention this because the similarity of the
>circuits is irrelevant to the analog vs. digital issue and causes
>serious confusion - what is crucial concerns the timing between
>pulses - the pulse recurrence frequency (PRF).  The raw information
>coming from receptors takes the form of continuously variable PRFs,
>unlike the rigidly defined ones in your computers, where the
>position of the pulse in time or space has numerical significance
>as powers of 2. The form of information in the brain is therefore
>by definition analog information and it has to be carried through
>in that form to the effectors that are being brought into play.
>There is no analogue-to-digital-to-analogue conversion system -
>what elaborate form of natural selection could produce it? Genetic
>engineering might produce it but that is a very long way off.
>Meanwhile, one might ask "Is it worth the effort involved?"
>        The fact that a brain is an analog information
>processer is profoundly important when we consider its potential
>flexibility as compared to that of the most powerful PC or a Cray:
>- Because it is dealing with a continuously variable form of
>information, it has the potential of assuming at any single
>instant, any one out of an infinite variety of configurations,
>unlike the digital computer whose range of possible configurations
>is limited by the number of bits the hardware can hold. This much
>is true of even the simplest brains.  It is therefore pointless to
>speculate about "bits", "bytes" or "megabytes" in a brain since it
>doesn't use them.
>        Does someone ask "What about Memory?"? In all probability
>someone does, and certainly it should be asked because its
>existence is a material fact that needs to be understood
>and explained. The number of cells that can be involved directly in
>the act of remembering in any brain is most certainly finite, not
>infinite. The underlying question is - How can a finite number of
>cells activate an infinite range of information states?
>        Any answer to this must take into account the difference
>between the way in which the cells of a body remain stable in
>relation to their environment and the stability of the
>memory components in a computer. Magnetic recording is the most
>stable form used in computers, but capacity recording, which must
>be replenished at regular intervals, is used in the RAM.
>Continuous replenishment is the principle operating in long-term
>memory in the brain but the construction of short-term memories
>may begin with capacity recording in oligodendrocytal myelin (See
>"Memory in Myelin" Gray, Coppock and Gray, 1994).
>        Continuously variable replenishment rates, which affect PRFs
>in axons, therefore can cause memories to break through to
>consciousness by means of phase discrimination similar to aural
>detection of sound-source positions. These are active memories -
>the only ones we can ever know and are subject to the same
>continuous variability as are the direct perceptions coming
>through the receptors. Reminiscences are always being triggered by
>more objective experiences of the moment because they are
>super-impositions on pulse-trains.
>        The continual and continuously variable replenishment of
>every cell and its components in the body is what makes even memory
>as it is in the brain continuously variable, therefore taking the
>form of analog information.
>                Gordon K. Gray
We all have our theories that we believe are likely to be true.  Only
time and experimentation will give us the truth.  The current model I
like to answer your question is my theory.  This does not mean it is
correct.  I have enjoyed the experience of learning so much that even
if it turns out idiotic I would still invest the time again to develop the
model.  In mistakes learning and progress can occur.  If you want a
copy of the neuroprocessing model let me know.  It is 78k long and
I can email it to you.  Enclosed is an abstract.  Ron Blue x011 at
The correlational opponent-processing theory is a homeostasis
integration psychological immune theory that would connect phenomena
such as sensation, perception, habituation, memory, representations,
learning, cognition, personality, psychopathology, paradoxical
integration, emotion, and evolution of the mind under a unified theory.

Perception/learning/cognition may be viewed as an effort to assimilate
and accommodate all experience into neuro-energy-efficient quasi-
holographic correlational opponent-processing recordings.

Stimuli causes brain wave modulations which interact with carrier or
reference wavelets.  This interaction creates a quasi-holographic
stimulus wavelet.  The opponent-process creates an opposing quasi-
holographic memory wavelet.  Through this process the correlations or
associations of experience are encoded to memory.  Every wavelet,
regardless of source or type, triggers an opposing wavelet.  The
function of the opposing wavelet or feedback is to diminish the
intensity of neural processing.  A wavelet potential is stored or hard
the interconnections between nerve cells.  The wavelets are quasi-
holographic and allow recovery of information due to the interaction of
reference carrier wavelets and stimuli, thought, motor movement, and
emotional arousal.

       Neuro Net
       Quasi-holographic wavelets
       Representations, copies or models
       Sensations and Perceptions
       Conclusion and applications from COP theory
            Defense Mechanisms
            Brain damage
            Brain Tape
            Computer Model

More information about the Neur-sci mailing list