Synopsis and Epilogue

Abstract

In Part 1 of this work, a threefold analogy was drawn, with respect to input-output relations in the behaving organism

• First of all, from a perspective of post-Renaissance philosophy, it was argued that the overt premises for a logical inference do not unconditionally dictate the conclusions which might be derived therefrom. There is required in addition a statement of the general framework of ideas within which premises and conclusions are to be linked, this framework generally being hidden in the statement of a syllogism.

• Secondly, in twentieth century learning theory the relation between stimulus and response is not an unconditional one: again one requires an additional category of information, defining the dimension of the stimuli and/or responses which are significant for a particular learning task.

• Thirdly, a biological counterpart to these philosophical and psychological ambiguities can be seen in the style of connectivity in the cerebral cortex. Cortical neurons have insufficient connections to perform the associative operations which the animal apparently does perform, if one is limited by organizational principles presently understood. Thus, cell assemblies representing objects cannot be addressed uniquely by individual component stimuli which are images of that object. Likewise, the cell assemblies representing response intentions cannot be addressed uniquely by the objects which should trigger appropriate responses.