HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_013183.jpg
1.21 MB
Extraction Summary
1
People
0
Organizations
0
Locations
0
Events
1
Relationships
3
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Academic text / scientific book page
File Size:
1.21 MB
Summary
This document is page 267 of a scientific text regarding neuroscience, specifically discussing 'Glocal Memory' and 'Calvin's Model of Distributed Attractors in the Brain.' It critiques a theoretical approach by a scientist named Calvin (likely William H. Calvin) regarding how memory is distributed versus localized in the brain. The page bears a 'HOUSE_OVERSIGHT' Bates stamp, indicating it was produced as part of a congressional investigation, likely related to Jeffrey Epstein's extensive funding of and association with various scientists and academic projects.
People (1)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Calvin | Scientist / Subject of discussion |
Refers to William H. Calvin, whose model of 'Distributed Attractors in the Brain' is being analyzed.
|
Relationships (1)
The text critiques and offers alternatives to Calvin's scientific theories on memory.
Key Quotes (3)
"In Calvin's glocal approach, global memories are attractors and local memories are parts of attractors."Source
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_013183.jpg
Quote #1
"We suggest a possible alternative, in which global memories are attractors and local memories are particular neuronal subnetworks..."Source
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_013183.jpg
Quote #2
"In the next couple decades, as neuroscience tools improve in accuracy, our understanding of the role of glocality in human memory will doubtless improve tremendously."Source
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_013183.jpg
Quote #3
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (1,472 characters)
13.6 Glocal Memory
267
267
Fig. 13.2: Calvin's Model of Distributed Attractors in the Brain
hypotheses interesting and highly promising, yet feel it is also important to separate out the notion of glocal memory for separate consideration.
Regarding specifics, our suggestion is that Calvin's approach may overemphasize the distributed aspect of memory, not giving sufficient due to the relatively localized aspect as accounted for in the [QKKF08] results discussed above. In Calvin's glocal approach, global memories are attractors and local memories are parts of attractors. We suggest a possible alternative, in which global memories are attractors and local memories are particular neuronal subnetworks such as the specialized ones identified by [QKKF08]. However, this alternative does not seem contradictory to Calvin's overall conceptual approach, even though it is different from the particular proposals made in [Cal96].
The above paragraphs are far from a complete survey of the relevant neuroscience literature; there are literally dozens of studies one could survey pointing toward the glocality of various sorts of human memory. Yet experimental neuroscience tools are still relatively primitive, and every one of these studies could be interpreted in various other ways. In the next couple decades, as neuroscience tools improve in accuracy, our understanding of the role of glocality in human memory will doubtless improve tremendously.
Regarding specifics, our suggestion is that Calvin's approach may overemphasize the distributed aspect of memory, not giving sufficient due to the relatively localized aspect as accounted for in the [QKKF08] results discussed above. In Calvin's glocal approach, global memories are attractors and local memories are parts of attractors. We suggest a possible alternative, in which global memories are attractors and local memories are particular neuronal subnetworks such as the specialized ones identified by [QKKF08]. However, this alternative does not seem contradictory to Calvin's overall conceptual approach, even though it is different from the particular proposals made in [Cal96].
The above paragraphs are far from a complete survey of the relevant neuroscience literature; there are literally dozens of studies one could survey pointing toward the glocality of various sorts of human memory. Yet experimental neuroscience tools are still relatively primitive, and every one of these studies could be interpreted in various other ways. In the next couple decades, as neuroscience tools improve in accuracy, our understanding of the role of glocality in human memory will doubtless improve tremendously.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_013183
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document