>phyllosophy (email@example.com) wrote: >: In article <firstname.lastname@example.org>, email@example.com >: (Christopher Michael Jones) wrote:
>: > Whoa Whoa, WHOA!! Hold on there buckaroo. The Brain's "program" is not >: > determined by the DNA sequences needed to create the brain. The Brain >: > evolves and makes its own program. By saying that our DNA uniquely codes >: > our "brain programs" you are saying that babies do not need to learn or >: > know anything new. This is clearly wrong, and your method for >: > calculating the size of the brain's "program" is incorrect. >: > >: > : That's about the same as Windows95 or Microsoft Office.
>: Yes. The fascinating thing about the brain is that not only does its >: innate hardware limit how complex a software program will run on it, but >: its software actually changes its hardware. As the brain develops its >: hardwiring up to about age 10 or 12, neural paths are being created >: through the thinking that goes on via the software programs. Connections >: are still being made and modified throughtout life, but most of later >: learning is just in software upgrades. So early education is CRITICALLY >: important if you want a faster processor!
>Also keep in mind that the structure of the brain's memories do not limit >memory or processing to an amount proportional to the amount of data, but >rather reuses much as "objects" or a "toolkit" which produces a phenomenon >I find very similar to current data compression techniques.
>This is also, as you know, the reason the human mind naturally puts things >into its "baskets" and "categories".
>I find it quite unfortunate that there are so many real and would-be social >scientists and self-styled commenators that don't bother to follow these >findings.
>: True stuff. New stuff. From neuroscience.
>True stuff. New stuff. From those little astrology deals rolled up in >tubes at the gas station.
I find the Mackers paper mats fairly informing too :-) Did you know they originally competed butt naked in the aincent olympics!