Brain-Mind: Know Thyself!
A Theory of Cognitivity for Artificial Intelligence
|                             The Environment                   |
|                ____________                _____________      |
|  _____________| The Senses |______________| The Muscles |___  |
| |                \ \ \ \ \      The Body     | | | | |      | |
| |         ________\ \ \ \ \__________________|_|_|_|_|____  | |
| |        |         \ \ \ \ \       |      Cerebellum     || | |
| |        |          \ \ \ \ \      | (Motor Habituation) || | |
| |        |           \ \ \ \ \      \___________________/ | | |
| |        |            \ \ \ \ \            / / / / /      | | |
| Feature Extraction:   | | | | | The Brain / / / / /       | | |
| |        |------------+-+-+-+-+----------+-+-+-+-+--------| | |
| | Oldest |Memories:  S| |M| |C| |||||||| |M| |M| |C       | | |
| |        |           e| |e| |h| |Concept |o| |e| |h       | | |
| |        |           n| |m| |a| |||||||| |t| |m| |a       | | |
| |        |           s| |o| |n| |Fibers| |o| |o| |n       | | |
| |        |           o| |r| |n| |||||||| |r| |r| |n       | | |
| |        |           r| |y| |e| |as the| | | |y| |e       | | |
| | Newest |Memories:  y| | | |l| |||||||| | | | | |l       | | |
| |        |            | | | |s| | Core | | | | | |        | | |
| |        |            | | | | | |||||||| | | | | |        | | |
| |        |            | | | | | |of the| | | | | |        | | |
| |        |            | | | | | |||||||| | | | | |        | | |
| |        |            | | | | | | Mind | | | | | |        | | |
| |(Future |Memories:)  | | | | | |||||||| | | | | |        | | |
| |        |________________________________________________| | |
| |___________________________________________________________| |

View the complete set of original, non-derivative AI theory brain-mind diagrams.

(Artificial Intelligence Theory Document No. Five of Five)

This paper was originally commissioned by and published in NOVEMBER Magazine.
Approximately five hundred (500) copies of the Summer 1981 issue were printed by
the publisher in Seattle WA USA, and about 170 free copies were mailed in 1981 to
contemporary (1980-1981) authors of computer-related articles in BYTE Magazine.

AI Algorithm Steps are the instructions for implementing the AI Theory of Cognitivity. achieved True AI functionality on 22 January 2008. is a tutorial Seed AI implementation in JavaScript.

     Once we know all there is to know  about the workings of the
human brain, we will have a choice of several  obvious approaches
to the task  of teaching students  the essential workings  of the
mind.  We could teach  about the brain-mind  in terms of  how  it
evolved through the eons,  or how it develops  in the life of the
individual, or how it functions in a mature specimen.

     This article presents the author's model  of the workings of
the brain-mind,  not in terms of sweeping generalizations  but on 
the ultimate and unambiguous level of the switching-circuit logic
of nerve cells.  You are invited to comprehend this mind-model --
to refute it if it is erroneous, or, if it makes sense to you, to
use it  in fulfilling  the  ancient  imperative,  "Know thyself!"  
Either way, you the sovereign mind are offered something to react
against, and possibly a revelation of your inmost mental nature.

     Of three obvious approaches  to explaining  the mind  inside 
the  brain  --  evolution,  individual  development,  and  static
functioning in maturity  --  this author chooses  the third route 
and seeks to describe your mature mind as you read and comprehend
this article.

     The other two approaches  --  evolution  of  the mind in the
species, development of mind in the specimen -- would  inherently
contain directions  for  the  starting-place  and  the  order  of
presentation  of all essential details  about the brain-mind.  In 
both cases,  we would simply describe  how a single-cell creature 
turned into a brain of one hundred billion cells.

     But let's take the hundred billion cells and find an obvious
point of departure for describing a model of the organization and
function  of  that purposive  web  of cells,  the brain.  Let  us
approach  the function  of the  evolved,  mature  mind  from  the 
obvious starting-point of sensory inputs into the mind.

     This article  leads you  through  a functional model  of the
brain-mind.   Although  the  brain  is  perhaps  the most complex
structure  on  earth,  it is  no more  than  a  three-dimensional
arrangement  of flows  of information.  The information-flows are
arranged in such a way as to achieve consciousness and thought.

     Each flow of information  is along  one of the dimensions of
the mind.  If you  are to comprehend  this  mind-model,  you must
understand  each   dimension   and  also  the  very   concept  of 
dimensionality.   The  dimensions  play  a  double  role  in this
article:  firstly  as the building-blocks of the mind  for you to
comprehend  both one by one  and as a grand edifice, and secondly
as the  chief  arguments  to convince you  of the validity of the 

     Dimensionality  is the  quality  of  being  dimensional,  of
having  dimensions.  The mind  is not  a  seething  lump  like an 
anthill,  but  a  strictly  dimensional  structure.  Although the 
brain  is  curved and convoluted, the  mind  inside  the brain is 
rigidly straight  (like a taut string or a beam of light)  in all 
its dimensions,  and  orthogonal  through ninety degrees wherever
the information  in one dimension  changes  its direction of flow
into another dimension.

     Although the mind exists within the brain, the mind is not a
material,  physical being.   The  mind  is  a structure  composed 
purely  of  information.  The  physical  structure  of the  brain
determines the informational structure of the mind, but these two
structures are  not identical.  Put it this way:  The brain holds
information,  and  information  holds  the  mind.  The  brain  is
organized physically, but the mind is organized logically.

     The  dimensionality  of the mind  is crucial  to its logical 
structure.  In some parts of the mind,  information  must be kept 
apart, while in other parts of the  mind  information  must  flow
together.  The dimensions  of  the  mind  serve  the purposes  of 
isolating and combining information.

     The first dimensional component of your mind is the straight
and linear record of its  sensory  input,  in  parallel  with the
straight  and  linear  "keyboard"  of its  motor  output.  Please 
examine the "mind-diagram" appearing with this article.
     A polarity exists between the mind and its environment.   An
environment  to develop in  is just as essential to the mind as a 
brain to exist in.

     A second polarity exists between our  sensory  perception of 
the environment and our motor manipulation of the environment.

     The two polarities -- organism/environment and sensory/motor
-- constitute sufficient logical differentiation  for the genesis
of an informational loop.

     Your mind sits at one end of the loop  and contemplates your
environment  at the other end  of the loop.  Your environment  is
the whole cosmos, including your body, brain and mind.  Your mind
starts  out  as  tabula  rasa,  "a  clean  slate."   As your mind
develops and fills with knowledge,  it tries to mirror internally
the cosmos which it perceives externally.   Who can say  which is 
the agent -- the cosmos organizing minds,  or mind organizing the

     Your mind starts out as an empty, but vastly capacious, link
in the loop.   Information starts in the environment and flows in
one  direction  through  the  loop:  through your senses into the
mind,  and  from your mind  out through  the motor nerves  to the

     It takes a while for your  neonatal  pathways -- sensory and
motor -- to communicate  internally  and thus  to close  the loop
with the environment.   The sensory and motor pathways develop in
parallel along the temporal dimension of the mind.

     Although your mind is constantly  thinking and acting in the
present,  its  existence  stretches  off  into  the  past.  Every
thought which you think in the present,  shapes your mind for the
future.  Your mind is the sum of all its past reality.

     It is critical to your comprehension of this mind-model that
you  think  of  the  sensory  and  motor  pathways  as flowing in 
parallel, but in opposite directions along the temporal dimension
of the mind.  When we go on now to examine in detail the sensory-
input system, you must  keep in mind  that the  sensory and motor
systems develop and operate side by side in lock-step fashion.

     A human brain has the five commonly acknowledged  senses  of
vision, audition (hearing), the tactile sense (touch),  gustation
(taste),  and olfaction (smell),  plus a few other senses such as
the sense of balance and the somesthetic sense.

     According to this mind-model,  all the senses  feed into the
mind  in  parallel  in a flat array  like  a woven rug.  For each 
sense, be it vision or audition or smelling the flowers, there is
a flat channel of  perception and memory  flowing along the time-
dimension of the mind.

     The nerves  from the sense-receptors  travel  to the  brain.
Inside  the  brain,  the  sensory  information  from  vision, and
perhaps other senses,  undergoes the pre-processing  of  feature-
extraction  before  it enters  the mind.  In  feature-extraction,
basic  patterns  are discriminated  to reduce  the work-load  and
hasten the operation  of the  conscious mind.  In the brain there 
operates a principle of rendering automatic (and subconscious) as
many things as possible.

     After the information in any one sensory pathway has reached
the brain  and  gone through all required feature-extraction, the 
information  enters  the  mind  by entering  the permanent memory
channel for that particular sensory modality.   Short-term memory
and permanent memory are identical in terms of physical location,
but they differ with respect to the  associative processes  which
catalog the memory-traces  and control their future accessability
through  recall.   In  other  words,  short-term memory  is not a
function of location but rather of associativity.  This assertion
is supported better  by the  large-scale  mind-model  than by any
local arguments  which may appear  in this topical discussion  of

     The distinction  between  preliminary  portions of the brain
and the mind itself is  based upon  a functional demarcation line
beyond which  information  is free  to flow not  just  along  its  
original  dimension  but  orthogonally  sideways  out  into other 
dimensions of the mind.  In other words the mind is circumscribed
and defined by its own dimensionality.

     It is important  that you now  comprehend  both  a  specific
design  for  memory  and  a  general  concept  of  memory.  It is
axiomatic   that   whatever   macroscopic   information   can  be
transmitted  can also be recorded.  To record information  during
transmission, one simply captures samples of the information at a
rate quick enough to catch all instances of significant change in
the information.

     The brain-mind  records  the  informational content  of each
sensory channel by routing the information through what is both a
transmission channel and an extremely long series of engram-nodes.
Once each sensory  information-flow  passes  the demarcation-line
into the mind, the information in each sensory channel floods the
transmission  "fibers"  of that permanent  memory  channel.  Each
fiber in the memory channel is like a series of millions of nodes.
Within  the particular  memory channel  for each sense, there are
thousands  of  the  nodal  fibers.   Your  oldest  memories  were
deposited and permanently, unchangeably  fixed in the first nodes
of  the  lifetime-long   memory  channels.   At  each  moment  of
sensation and perception, all the  simultaneously occupied  nodes
among  all the memory fibers  of each memory channel  irrevocably 
fix their contents.   The group of nodes fixed on parallel fibers
at one moment in time is like  a "slice" of memory of that moment
in time.

     You start out  with  your sensory nerves and pathways  going  
through  any  required  feature-extraction  and then feeding into
immensely  long  channels  of  tabula  rasa  memory.  Your myriad
moments of experience are deposited in densely packed "slices" of
and by simultaneity.

     Each  sensory  (and motor)  memory  channel  is like  a flat
ribbon  flowing  across  the  logical  surface  of the mind.  The 
memory-ribbon  is composed  of thousands  of  nodal  fibers.  The
first  experiences  go into  the first  nodal slices.  Subsequent
experiences  have to travel  through  all the slices  of previous 
experience  to reach and occupy  fresh  nodal slices,  which will
then be  filled  and  fixed  with  the experience  of the moment,
before serving as a bridge to all future moments.

     Although it is critical for you  to understand the essential
characteristics of the permanent  memory  channels  in this mind-
model, these essential characteristics are  not  introduced  here
all at once.  Advance notice  can  be given,  however,  that each 
sensory memory channel serves three main purposes, simultaneously
and  everywhere  along the memory channel:  transmission, memory, 
and comparison.

     Each sensory memory channel is like a pipeline full of nodal
fibers.  The nodal fibers are already there, genetically provided
and  ready  to  receive  engrams  of  memory.   The  pipeline  is 
gradually filling up with memory slices all through your lifetime.
The memory-slices are so densely packed that you could live to be
over a hundred years old and not run out of fresh, unused, tabula
rasa  memory  locations.  The gradual fixation  or consumption of 
memory-slices is like a slow burning fuse,  so long that it takes
over a hundred years to burn to the end.  Even if you did run out
of fresh memory-spaces in your old age,  you would still function 
as an intelligent  mind  with full retention of your many decades 
of  old  memories  and  with  the loss  of  only  your ability to
remember  each  passing  moment  of the present.  You could still
speak, for instance, several languages  and do anything else that
you learned to do  before  your tabula rasa memory ran out.  This
assertion is another one which ought to be judged in the light of
the total mind-model.

     The flatness  of each memory-channel  matters  to the brain,
but  not  to the mind.  The serial order  or  arrangement  of the
nodal fibers  does not matter at all.  Note  that the information
recorded  in a flat  slice  of memory  is  certainly  not  "flat"
information.  The flat memory channel  for the  tactile sense  of
touch contains a sensory mapping of the whole surface of the body.
The flat  auditory memory channel  contains  a mapping of a broad
range  of frequencies  of sound.   The flat visual memory channel
contains  two-dimensional images  in a one-dimensional series  of
fiber-nodes.  The mind does not know  and does not care  that the
images are flat.  When the mind associatively  recalls  an image-
slice, the one-dimensional memory-slice springs to life as if  it
were the two-dimensional image seen through the eye.

     We are really  getting into  the dimensionality  of the mind
when we bring in the idea of associativity.  Sensory  information
flows  into  the mind  along  the time-dimension,  but  it  moves
sideways within the mind along the associative dimension.   Every
sensory memory slice is attached to a  "concrete associative tag"
that is like a fiber flowing  at a right angle to all the  fibers
in  the  flat  memory  channels  of  the  time-dimension.   These 
concrete associative tag-fibers are not shown in the mind-diagram,
because they would completely  black out  the mind portion of the
diagram.  They are called "concrete" (as opposed  to  "abstract")
because they coordinate by simultaneity all  the sensory  memory-
slices of  "concrete"  experience.  They are called "associative"
because they are the  mechanism  by which  the mind  associates a
memory-slice in  one  sensory modality  with memory-slices in all
other sensory modalities  and even  in the same sensory modality.
For instance, they are the mechanism by which you might associate
the sound with the image of a dog, and vice versa.

     A single  associative  tag  governs a whole memory-slice and
associates  it  with  all  the rest  of the mind.  It may look as
though  there  is  a tremendously  unworkable  ratio  of the vast
information  that can be contained in the slice  to  the unitary,
off-or-on information that can flow over the tag,  but it will be
argued  in this article  that the vast information  stored in any
sensory  memory  channel  flows sideways  to the core of the mind
solely  over  aggregates  of these unitary,  off-or-on  "concrete
associative tags."  In other words, each lifetime-long  permanent
sensory memory channel is quite isolated unto itself and does not
flow at its end into some region  of further  or final processing
of the sensory information.   Wherever the sensory memory channel
comes to an end, it just stops.   Let us hope that the end of our 
tabula rasa memory channels is so  remote  that we never reach it
in our natural lifetime.   (In an artificially  intelligent robot
we might recirculate the  memory channels  by looping  around and
erasing the oldest memory-slices  just before reaching the end of
the first full loop of the memory-slices.)

     Each sensory memory channel is isolated unto itself,  except
for the associative tags  which lead away  at right  (orthogonal)
angles from the  time-dimension  of the memory  channel.  Over an
associative tag, you can go from one sensory  memory channel into
the memory channels  of all other senses.  For instance,  you can
go from vision to audition, or from olfaction to vision.  But you
can go  only  at a right angle;  you can  not cross  directly  by 
associative  tag  from  a present memory-slice  to one  laid down
years  or  even   minutes   ago.   Each  associative  fiber  that
interconnects all the senses is a guarantee of simultaneity.  The
associative tags  are laid down  at each successive moment of the
fleeting  present, and they can  never  after  be disconnected or
altered.  As the poet says, "The moving finger writes, and having
writ, moves on."

     You must have  a thorough comprehension  of the sensory  and
motor plane or "grid" of the mind before you study the two levels
of superstructure by which  mankind  achieves rational intellect.
You can maintain that  thorough  comprehension  as we examine the
three levels of complexity which are operative at the peak of the
human central nervous system.  The three levels to be studied are:
     1.  The  sentient  plane  of  the  sensory/motor grid.  (The
         interface between the external world and the core of the
     2.  The  abstract  core  of  the  mind.  (This core brings a
         central nervous system  to the level attained by "smart"
         mammals, such as dogs.)
     3.  The  linguistic  spiral  in  the  abstract  core  of the
         rational mind.

     It is important to go level by level so that you see clearly
what  the  mind  is capable of  at each level  and  what is still
lacking.  You should  be certain  to understand  the situation at
each  lower  level  before  you study  a higher level.  As with a
ladder of evolution, each level makes sense by itself and without
reference to any higher level.

     So far  we have discussed  the  sensory  input  part  of the
sensory/motor grid, which is the flat, two-dimensional substratum
of the mind.  It remains only to explain the  role played  by the
motor-output  side  of the  grid,  and then  you  should  have  a 
sufficient comprehension of the first  of the three levels of the

     Let us call  this sensory/motor grid  at the lowest level of
mind  the  "sentient grid."   If we were  to examine an animal or
automaton that had only such a  "sentient grid"  at the summit of
its  central  nervous system,  that  creature  would be  severely
limited  in its capabilities.  It would have  the power  of brute
sensation, and its repertoire of motor behaviors might consist of
many  reflex  and  instinctual  actions  which  it would  be able
crudely  to  link  with  sensory  inputs   as  triggers  for  the
initiation (or cessation) of motor activity.   Now let us examine
the motor memory channels, in accordance with the mind-diagram.

     The  motor  memory  channels  are  the polar opposite of the
sensory  memory  channels.   The  motor  memory  channels contain
memory slices not of external experience, but rather of internal,
dynamic  activation  of themselves.   This difference is critical
for your understanding  of the sentient grid  at the bottom level
of the mind.  Motor memory is not passive, it is dynamic.  If you
make associative access to a motor memory node  on a motor memory
fiber,  you unavoidably send out a signal to contract a muscle at
the destination of the associated motor nerve.

     As  you  examine  the mind-diagram,  notice that the sensory
memory fibers flow in parallel with,  but never touch,  the motor
memory fibers.   Yet the  sensory  side of the mind controls  the
motor side of the mind.   "Concrete associative tag fibers"  flow
between the sensory and the motor sides of the sentient grid.  As
was  discussed  above  with reference  to the sensory modalities,
concrete associative tags  flow at a right angle to all the life-
long  memory  channels.  Just as the  memory  fibers  are  all in
parallel, likewise all the associative tags  in the flat sentient
grid flow in parallel.  By flowing in parallel,  the  associative
tags  preserve the historical record of each successive moment in

     If a central nervous system did not have memory  as a record
of experience (and as an  enabling mechanism for learning),  then
its  sensory  nerves  would have  to lead  directly  to its motor
nerves.   No  variations  of behavior  would be possible, and the
whole organism would be pre-programmed  genetically to respond to
stimuli always in the same way.

     When evolution introduces  memory  channels, it is essential
to buffer or separate the sensory and motor systems  so that they
do  not fuse together  and  so that  what intercourse occurs  can
occur  with  great  discrimination and precision.  Therefore, the
sensory and motor channels do  not  meet head-on, but rather they
attain  a close  proximity  and then  flow  in parallel.  At each
successive moment  in time and experience,  the sensory and motor
memory channels have the possibility of becoming linked by  nodal
fusing at both ends of the  particular  concrete associative  tag
fiber which was provided genetically  for  that moment  in  time.
The whole lifelong tapestry of experience has a fresh, new, blank,
concrete  associative  tag  fiber  for each moment of experience,
like a corduroy road made out of logs.

     But just  how do  the associative cross-tags link up sensory
experience with motor dynamism?  Why do we call it motor "memory,"
when no experience is recorded there?

     The motor memory channel is like a giant keyboard of a piano.
The purpose of the  motor  memory is not to record events, but to
cause them.  Or we could say that the purpose of the motor memory 
is to cause an event and then remember how to cause it again.

     In the infant organism of our sentient being, a mechanism of
"random  dynamics"  permits  various  motor  nerve cells  to fire 
spontaneously.  When  a motor nerve fiber  in  the  motor  memory
channel  fires, it causes  muscle-activation.   Then  information
starts flowing  in the sentient loop.   While the infant organism
randomly moves its limbs,  it experiences  aspects of that motion
through  its sensory apparatus  leading into  its  sensory memory
channels.  At each moment in time during the random motion, nodal
fixation at both end-regions of a concrete  associative tag fiber 
is associating passive sensory engrams with dynamic motor engrams.
Before long, control of the motor apparatus ceases  to be  random
and spontaneous.  Instead, associative control passes over to the
sensory side of the sentient grid.

     In the mature organism,  all motor activation occurs  across
associative  tag  connections laid down  in the past, and present
associative  tag  connections  are made solely for the purpose of
re-affirming   or  updating   or  strengthening  sensory-to-motor 
connections made in the past.

     This immediately previous statement  offers  an  explanation
why motor-learning time in infancy  is crucial to the development 
of motor skill.  During infancy, the organism  has the benefit of 
the random and spontaneous firing  of its motor control elements.
The sensory side of the sentient grid seizes  upon  these  random
firings and takes control of them.   Once a particular pattern of
sensory  memory  has taken  associative  control  of a particular
pattern of motor memory, all subsequent uses of that control-loop
are recorded  and thus re-affirmed  by concrete  associative tag,
and a habit of routine or skill becomes entrenched.

     Note that this mind-model offers an explanation for volition,
although  the explanation  is  different  for  each  of the three
levels of mind.   On the level  of the sentient grid,  and in the
absence  of  any  higher  superstructure,  volition  consists  of  
automatic response to the stimulus of a sensory pattern.  No lee-
way is allowed  in the response  to a given stimulus, but varying 
stimuli are allowed to elicit varying responses.

     Notice something general about the information-loop in which
the  sensory and motor  pathways  do not meet  but instead launch
into a parallel race into the future.   Remember, the interior of
the mind is trying to mirror  the exterior  of  the  environment.
Well, just as things are not steadfast and "hardwired" out in the
environment, likewise on the inside the associative sentient grid,
by  flowing  through  time  and  allowing  all  manner  of  novel
associative  connections,  can be  just as  varied and changeable
internally   as   the   environment   is   externally.   However,
an organism  with no nervous level  higher than the sentient grid
is forced to learn unchanging laws from its environment, and such
a sentient being is not free to make its own decisions by letting
logical data  freely  interact internally.  The sentient organism
lacks an  abstract  core of the mind  where the strict bondage of
stimulus-response  can be broken down  on the one hand  and goal-
directedly built back up again on the other hand.

     In other words, if you  comprehend  the associative sentient
grid which is the lowest of the three levels of mind, you are now
ready to proceed to the examination of the  second level of mind.
That is the  abstract core  which further buffers the sensory and
motor memory channels to such a degree that the formerly ironclad
and inviolable principle  of simultaneity in stimulus-response is
overruled in one way but kept intact in another.

     The  second  level  of  mind  is roughly  on a par  with the
central nervous system  of dogs  or monkeys  or horses.  Learning
and Pavlovian conditioning are possible.   The organism can be so
"smart" as to impress humans and to generate a sense of kinship.

     After eons of evolution, when an organism attains the second
level, the sentient grid of the first level  is still present and
operative in the now  more evolved  organism.   The sentient grid
neither withers away  nor changes significantly in its operation.
Indeed, in the literature about brains you will find  a generally
accepted principle  to the effect that lower levels of brains are
designed to operate  rather independently of higher levels in the
event of  successive  breakdown or impairment  starting  from the
topmost levels.  The principle is that the higher level dominates 
by consistently inhibiting  the  lower  level,  so  that,  if the
higher level is damaged or removed,  the lower level is no longer
inhibited  and  functions  in a role  perhaps  of inadequacy  but
certainly of the best coping ability  that the impaired brain has
to offer.

     The second level  of the mind-model  is that of the abstract
core of the mind.  If this second level seems ridiculously simple
to  you,  wait  until  we  fashion  from it  earth's most complex 
mechanism  on the  third level.  But you are correct  if you deem
simple  the innovation  worked upon the sentient grid to raise it
to the second level.  The innovation  is so simple  that  perhaps
you will now deign to consider how easily evolution  (which "does
not  make  a  leap")  could  have  stumbled  upon  the  wonderful

     In  the  sentient  grid  of level one, there are two massive
neuronal flows  at right angles to each other.  The  one  massive
flow is that of the permanent memory  channels, both  sensory and
motor.  These memory channels  flow  along  the time-dimension of
the  grid.  The  other  massive  flow  is  that  of  the concrete 
associative  tag fibers  which cover  in blanket fashion  all the
memory channels  so as to provide their  only  internal avenue of
connection.  Every  associative tag fiber  is at a right angle to
whatever memory fiber it touches.  A  memory  fiber flows through
the time-dimension, but an  associative  fiber  is frozen at, and
indeed represents,  a particular, concrete moment in the lifetime
of the organism.

     The innovation  in the  second  level -- the  tiny  step  in
evolution -- involves the lifetime-long  memory fibers  that flow
along the time-dimension.   On the  merely  sentient level, these
fibers are supposed  to contain  either  sensory or motor memory,
because  they are connected  either to sensory input  or to motor 
output.  In a level-one system, all memory fibers are "dedicated"
-- either to  sensation  or to  motor activation -- and since the
fibers  are  not  free, the  level-one organism  is not free.  If
evolution had never progressed beyond level one,  we humans might
still be starfish or barnacles.  But  the step  or stumble  among
the dedicated memory fibers was unavoidably,  beckoningly easy to
make, and somehow  somewhere  long ago in the primordial eons the
great escape was made and they got loose!  Some of the supposedly
dedicated memory fibers got away from their origin as elongations
of the pathways  to the  external  world.  Getting loose from the
external world, they became creatures of the internal world - and
rational mind was on its way.

     The  brain-mind  diagram  of  this article  is actually more 
descriptive of  level two  than of  level one or three.  Note the
central  core  of time-dimensional  memory  fibers  which are not
attached and not dedicated to either the sensory or motor side of
the mind-grid.  Since these memory fibers at the core of the mind
are unattached and undedicated, we call them "abstract" fibers.

     Once evolution stumbled  and let loose of a few of the life-
long memory fibers, these formerly dedicated, now abstract fibers
turned  around  and  took over  the course  of evolution.  As the
embodiment of the negentropic principle, they became an "abstract"
vault of the mind and an ordering force.  They set about creating
internal  order  within  the  mind.  On level two  they passively 
accepted order  from without,  and next on level three  they will 
actively impose order from within.

     Throughout this article, the term  "abstract  fiber"  refers
only  to fibers  in  the  abstract  core  of the mind.  The  term
"concrete  fiber" refers only to the associative tag fibers which
lie  at right angles  to the time-dimension  of both the abstract
and the experiential fibers.   So there are three types of fibers
in  this  mind-model:  experiential (sensory or motor), abstract,
and concrete.

     When the  abstract  fibers  got loose from their dedication,
they did not  lose  their ability  to store memories within their
nodes that lie along each fiber like a chain of beads.  They lost
neither   their   orthogonal   juxtaposition   to  the   concrete
associative  fibers  nor their ability  to fuse nodes and thus be
tagged  by the associative fibers.   Since they no longer had any
direct  source  of memory data,  either  sensory  or  motor,  the
abstract fibers could henceforth be filled  with memory-data only
by receiving inputs sideways from the  concrete associative tags,
and that indirect, abstract function is what they fulfill even to
this day.  An  abstract  fiber  in  the core  of the mind  serves
associatively as  a unifying fiber  which crosses time-boundaries
and  interconnects  potentially  all  original  and  re-occurring
instances of the experience of a particular pattern of perception.
A sensory memory fiber is for sensation; an abstract memory fiber
is for perception.

     In order to understand how an  abstract memory  fiber works,
you  must  keep  in  mind  the  two-fold  mechanism  of  original
association and subsequent reaffirmation.  The original, neonatal
sensory inputs to level two of the mind  flow first directly into
memory nodes in the sensory memory channel and thence indirectly,
associatively, via  the  concrete  associative  tags, into memory
nodes  in the  abstract  memory  channel.  In a newly constructed
organism (such as a baby), the first memory deposits are of a low
level of complexity.  The abstract memory channel stands ready to
receive and record  whatever  inputs  are fed  to it  across  the
associative tags.  Therefore, in the earliest  moments of  memory,
identical engrams are formed in the  sensory and abstract  memory
channels.  At its neonatal origin, the  abstract  memory  channel
mirrors the sensory memory channels.  Remember, the abstract core
of the mind is trying to mirror the external world, which it must
perceive through the medium of the sensory channels.

     However,  as  time  goes  by,  each  abstract fiber  becomes
extremely differentiated from  its neighbors.  The original level
of complexity  of the data  in the abstract memory channel  is on
the order of  off-or-on  and  yes-or-no.  This irreducibly simple
logical content is the mirrored reflection of a jumble of data in
the sensory  memory  channels.  The sensory memory channels never
actually  become  organized  internally,  but the abstract memory
fibers do become organized.  Order develops  within  the abstract
memory  channel  through the  incessant and potent  mechanism  of
associative reaffirmation.

     Please examine the abstract memory channel from the point of
view of identical contents  being held in both the sensory memory
channels and the  abstract  memory channel.  Suppose that through
the eye a particular feature, such as  a geometric line, has been
seen  and  recorded,  first  in  the visual  memory  channel, and
simultaneously by associative tag in the abstract memory channel.
Every subsequent time that  that particular feature is seen again
along the  same  sensory  memory fiber, two important events will
occur.  The one rather simple event is that the sensation of that
feature will be recorded  one  more  time  within a freshly fixed
node at that point along the sensory memory fiber where the march
of time is presently fixing nodes  by simultaneity across a wide,
associative  front.  Meanwhile,  as  the  signal  of  the  sensed
feature travels along the sensory memory fiber and briefly floods
the fiber at every point, the originally fixed node is faithfully
doing its duty as a comparison  device.  By simple unitary logic,
it recognizes the (umpteenth)  reoccurrence  of the signal of the
same sensed feature with which it was originally fixed or written
as an engram.

     The sensory memory node, stimulated by the transient signal,
blips out a signal across its associative tag over to the related
node  on  the  related  abstract  memory  fiber.  Now in turn the
abstract  memory  node, stimulated  by  the transient associative
signal, blips out a signal which travels down the abstract memory
fiber to where unfixed tabula rasa nodes are being fixed by every
data-laden  moment  of  the  present.  So  now  we have  a mirror
phenomenon occurring  in both the sensory  memory  fiber  and the 
abstract memory fiber.   The associative tag fiber of the present
moment fuses across nodes  on both  the abstract memory fiber and
the  sensory  memory  fiber.  Thus the  logical  content  and the
"dedication"  of  the  abstract  memory  fiber  are reaffirmed by
simultaneity in the present moment of perception.

     The  concrete  associative  fiber  of the present  moment of
perception will fuse with sensory and abstract nodes wherever two
or more signals are present orthogonally.   Suppose that  the eye 
of the organism  is seeing  an image or pattern  composed of many 
features.  Each  extracted  feature floods its own sensory memory
fiber within the visual memory channel.  The concrete associative
fiber of the present,  which is activated by an internal clock of
the brain, fuses nodes with any feature-fiber that is momentarily
being activated  by the total sensation  of the image or pattern.
Therefore,  this   concrete   associative   fiber  is  henceforth
irrevocably linked  to the group  of features  which comprise the
seen image.   Henceforth this associative fiber can either recall
the image internally or recognize the image seen again externally.
The  concrete  associative  fiber  is  now  an  associative "tag"
attached to the image.

     Although the associative tag  may connect  to many fibers in
the  sensory  memory  channel,  it can connect  to as few  as one 
single fiber in the abstract memory channel.  Thus a single fiber
in the  abstract  memory  channel  can come  to represent a whole
class of fibers in the sensory memory channel and lo, an abstract
concept is born.

     If you pause to think, you  may  see how it makes sense that
often  multiple  fibers  will be activated  in the sensory memory
channel while only  one  or  a few  fibers  are  activated in the
abstract memory channel.   In the neonatal period, there may be a
releasing  mechanism  which  lets  loose  of only  a few abstract
fibers at a time.  Or the  abstract fibers  may compete to be the
first abstract fiber to be reaffirmed by the associative tag over
to a bundle  of  sensory fibers  comprising  a pattern.  The main
thing is, each abstract memory fiber can serve as a reaffirmative
collection-point  for  associations  to a whole class  of similar
sensory  patterns.   Voila -- pattern  recognition  occurs.   The
abstract fiber is not in the thick of sensation; it stands aside
and is abstract.

     An abstract  memory fiber  (spoken of  in the singular here,
although a gang  of thousands of logically fused fibers is meant)
can become the physical and logical seat of a concept in the mind.
For  instance, a dog  that  knows and recognizes  its master will
have  at least  one  abstract  memory  fiber  which serves as the
ultimate, concentrated  association-point  for memory-information
related to the dog's master.  This assertion is so serious and so
evocative  of hasty disbelief  that it is  now time to invoke the 
force of the dimensionality of the mind.

     The  level-two  mind  has two dimensions, the lifelong time-
dimension and the simultaneity-dimension.   Within  the level-two
mind (and the level-three mind),  memory fibers flow  in parallel
and only along the time-dimension.

     You know  from experience  that your mind has held a concept
of something or other,  such as a concept of the sun around which
our earth orbits.   All your knowledge of the sun is tied to that
concept,  and that concept is tied to the word "sun."  Of course,
your conceptual knowledge  of the sun  could be broken down  into
ingredient concepts,  such as the concepts  of warmth or light or
chariots.  But it seems  as if  you have one unitary point within
your mind where all the constituent concepts  are subsumed  under
the  operative  concept  of "sun."  So the dimensionality of your
concept  of "sun" is punctiform.   If  your concept  of sun  were
triangular or circular,  you would not be able to focus your mind
upon the same pinnacle of conceptuality  each time that you think
about the sun.

     But your concept of the sun is not only unitary,  it is also
quite constant over time.  Just as a point extended through space
becomes  a line,  likewise  a unitary concept  held constant over
time can best be represented, both physically and logically, as a
unitary fiber (or its logical equivalent, a gang of fused fibers)
flowing along the time-dimension of the mind.  The dimensionality
of a concept  is double:  it is  punctiformly  unitary  and it is
chronologically linear.

     Does it seem  ridiculous  that this  mind-model  claims that
perhaps a single gang  of fibers in your brain holds your concept
of a thing such as the sun, or of your pet dog, or of yourself --
your concept of ego?  But think:  the concept-fiber  is operative
not  by  itself,  but  by virtue of  the myriad  associative tags
leading  from  it.   Many  concepts  are  interrelated  and  they
contribute  to the composition of one another.  Conceptual fibers
are associated  not just to sensory data, but also to one another
within the  abstract  memory  channel.  Therefore a slice of your
abstract memory channel is  like  a  conceptual  topography.  The
maze of concepts is like a stick-forest of interrelated points of
knowledge.  Concepts are neighbors or relatives  of  one  another
not by physical proximity, but by logical proximity.

     Your pet dog has  a stick-forest  of concepts, but, alas! he
has no words  (or symbols)  attached to them and therefore he can
not manipulate them in a rational way.   Even though your dog may
hear  words  quite  often,  he does not develop the use of words.
Your baby, however, quickly develops the use of hundreds of words.
How is the level-three mind of your baby different from the level-
two mind of your dog?

     On the third level of mind,  rational intellect springs into
being in a process whereby rigid  informational  structures arise
amid  the  hodgepodge  informational milieu  which was level two.
These new structures arise as the means to express  relationships
among concepts.  They are to some degree  logical  structures and
to a larger degree linguistic structures.  The structures  remove
the mind from the bondage of immediate,  concrete experience and
allow the genesis of abstract thought.

     We  can  first  examine  the  existence  in  the  mind  of a 
vocabulary of words solely with respect to level two, and then we
can describe the level-three structures  which govern these words
in linguistic thought.

     Let us discuss the relationship between word-memories in the
auditory memory channel and image-memories  in  the visual memory 
channel.  Let us confine our discussion to concrete  nouns  which
are readily linked to concrete images.

     First  of  all,  the  association  between  the  two  memory
channels is a two-way street.   Activation of the image can evoke
the word in auditory memory, and activation of the word can evoke 
many images in visual memory.  Note that "word" here is singular,
but "images" is plural.  This difference obtains because a single
word can serve as a control-symbol for a whole class of images.

     For instance, if you see any  one of many varieties  of dog,
the word "dog" can come to mind  in your auditory memory channel.
If many people  listening  to a story  hear  the word "dog," they
will  probably  summon  up  quite   varying   images  of  dog  to
instantiate the concept of "dog."

     Humans  with  words  as   control-symbols  have  an  extreme
advantage over the level-two minds of animals.  The word attached
to a concept  makes that concept  utterly and fluidly manipulable
within the ratiocinative structures of the mind.  Even though the
word is an extended  string  of phonemes, it behaves logically as
if it were a unitary point.

     Indeed, in the level-three mind,  each word is attached to a
unitary point, namely an abstract conceptual fibergang associated
with the word in the abstract memory channel.

     In a level-one mind  that contained  words, there would be a
direct associative link  between  an image and  a word.   In  the
level-three mind,  concrete associative tags do not flow directly
between  images  and  words.  Instead, from  the  sensory  memory
channels  the associative tags  make  contact with  the  abstract
conceptual fiber, which is the  focal embodiment  of a particular 
concept and which serves  as a unifying point for the development
and  linguistic  activity   of  the  concept.   If  a  linguistic
structure  is going to control  a vocabulary of words,  each word
must have  a sort of  "handle"  upon it,  by which the word, as a
symbol, can be controlled.  That handle is an abstract conceptual

     The abstract memory channel  is a set of all abstract memory
fibers.  An abstract conceptual fiber is an abstract memory fiber
which happens to hold a concept  (by gathering up the associative
tags of a concept).  Therefore the set of all abstract conceptual
fibers is a subset of the set of all abstract memory fibers.

     Thus far  in  our  discussion,  a concept  has  a tripartite
existence  within  the brain-mind.  Firstly, the word exists as a
short string of sounds within the auditory memory channel.   Note
that  no word  will exist at only one memory location  within the
auditory memory channel,  but rather  each word  will be recorded
there in hundreds or thousands of historical instances, depending
upon how frequently the word is used.  Furthermore, be very aware
that,  since  each  instance  of the word  is  the same string of
sounds (phonemes), all  instances of  a word  within the auditory
memory  channel  are  logically  equivalent.  Since  the auditory
memory  channel  is not just a transmission-channel, and not just
a memory-channel, but also a comparison-channel, any one instance
of a word can quickly be compared with all other instances of the
same or even a similar word, so that a word existing in thousands
of spots  within the auditory memory channel  functions as if all
the spots were interconnected, as indeed they are.  To illustrate
this point, think  of the word "dog" and how you  can  conjure up
many different images of "dog."

     The second part  of the tripartite existence of a concept is
at the  abstract conceptual fiber  for the concept.  The abstract
conceptual fiber is the main and focal seat of the concept within
the  mind.   From  the  abstract  conceptual  fiber, thousands of
concrete associative tags flow across the sentient  mind-grid  to
make reference to and control word-engrams in the auditory memory
channel.  If you hear  (or think)  a particular word through your
auditory memory channel, that word instantly gains access, across
at least  one  of the concrete associative tags,  to the abstract
conceptual fiber for that word so that your understanding of that
concept  is activated  within  your mind.  Likewise,  if, in  the
interplay of concepts within your mind, that  particular  concept
fiber is activated, the following scenario takes place.

     From  the activated  concept-fiber,  thousands  of  concrete
associative  tags  flowing in parallel are activated in parallel.
Only  one  of them has to reach  the word-engram in your auditory
memory channel for that word to be activated and flow through the
channel  to the present-most end  of the consumed portion  of the
tabula  rasa  channel.  In all likelihood,  many of the tags will
gain access  to the word, but, since it is  the same word  in all
instances, your mind  will hear just  one  standard production of
the  constituent  sounds  of  the  word.  Note, however, that the
parallel  activation  of thousands  of concrete  associative tags
serves, by  sheer redundancy, to make for  an extremely  reliable
mechanism for the internal recall of words during verbal thought.
Note also that your auditory memory channel  is a self-perceiving
channel.  Although  word-engrams  are controlled  en masse by the
abstract conceptual fiber outside of the auditory memory channel,
we are consciously aware  of the words  only  as they flow within
the auditory memory channel.

     The  third  part  or area  of the tripartite existence  of a
concept within the mind is spread out over all the sensory memory
channels  which  are  associatively  connected  to  the  abstract
conceptual fiber of the concept.   If the concept is evocative of
images  (or sounds or smells or feels or tastes),  then  from the
abstract  conceptual  fiber  many concrete associative tags  will
flow out  orthogonally  over to the sensory memory data which the
unitary concept represents.  An abstract conceptual fiber  may be
associatively  connected  to many visual images, not all of which
are  necessarily  identical  or  even  similar  to  one  another.
Remember, a word is always the same, but most images will have at
least  minor  differences.   Such a  state of affairs  is fit and
proper, because a word is an unchanging symbol, while an image is
just a variable slice of the rich pageantry of experience.

     An abstract conceptual fiber  reigns supreme  as the unitary
point under which or toward which all the constituent information
of a concept is subsumed.  The abstract concept develops or grows
by the accretion  of  concrete  associative tags  over time.  The
abstract conceptual fiber is not itself a symbol, but it is often
attached quite fixedly to a symbol, namely a word in the auditory
memory channel.

     The abstract conceptual fiber governs both the word attached
to aconcept and also the sensory data associated with the concept.
An abstract conceptual fiber  can have  concrete associations not
only to sensory engrams, but to other abstract conceptual fibers.
This ability  of a concept  to exist  within a network of related
concepts allows the genesis of such truly abstract and intangible
concepts as our notions of "honesty" and "courage."

     Remember  that  all  the abstract conceptual fibers  flow in
parallel in a flat plane along the temporal dimension of the mind.
The logical relationships  among  abstract conceptual fibers  are
determined   not  by  physical  position,  such as  contiguity or
proximity,   but  solely   by   interconnection   over   concrete 
associative tags.  Thus,  although the fibers lie in a flat plane
across the surface  of the brain-mind,  their associative  inter-
connections  can   generate  the  analog  of  superstructures  or
hierarchies among the abstract conceptual fibers.

     To discuss the psycholinguistic nature of language,  we must
for the first time in this article  introduce  the notion  of the
control of one abstract conceptual fiber over one or more  (i.e.,
thousands) of other abstract conceptual fibers.  Up until now  we 
have discussed  how one fiber might influence another fiber,  but
not how one fiber would dominate another.

     The ability of a neuron to require the summation of multiple 
inputs, before firing, permits some fibers to control others.  In
that portion  of the abstract memory channel  which we may hence-
forth call the "linguistic cable," some abstract fibers gradually
take on the role  of governing and dominating  whole  classes  of
other fibers.  For purposes of simplicity and clarity, we discuss
here only two linguistic classes of words:  nouns and verbs.

     As an  infant learns  nouns, he  or she  also subconsciously
assigns abstract fibers in the linguistic cable to the control of
the whole class of nouns.   As each new noun is learned, concrete
associative tags are bonded from general noun-control fibers over
to the abstract  conceptual  fiber  of the particular noun.  From
the noun-fiber  in turn  a concrete associative tag  goes  to the
engram of the word in the auditory memory channel.  Gradually the
noun-control fiber latches on to a burgeoning  "family" of nouns,
all segregated conveniently as a class so  that they  will remain
distinct when other parts of speech are learned.

     Suppose that the infant,  seeing and recognizing  an object,
wants to name that object in a blurt of speech.  The "wanting" is
actually  the build-up  of logical tension  within  the  abstract
memory channel.  The general noun-control fibergang  is activated
by the confluence  of all the logical tension  stemming both from
the perceived object  and from the internal state  of the infant.
This  general  noun-control  fiber-gang  sends  a  blanket  semi-
activation signal to all the nouns in the vocabulary of the baby.
In a way, all the noun-fibers are being invited to activate their
word-engrams in the auditory memory channel.  But, because of the
multiple-input requirement,  no noun-fiber can fire solely on the
basis  of the blanket  semi-activation  signal  going out  to all
nouns as a class.  Only that noun-fiber can fire which is already
or simultaneously semiactivated, so that the two semi-activations
cause full activation,  and a recall-signal is fired  over to the
word-engram in the auditory memory channel.

     Remember, the baby is seeing an object out in the real world.
The perception of that object causes associative  links to filter 
through  and  semi-activate  the one noun-fiber  within the whole
class of nouns.  The desire  to speak  a word  causes the general
noun-control fiber to send the blanket signal to all noun fibers.
Two semi-activation signals -- the blanket one  and  the specific
one -- meet in the appropriate noun-fiber  and cause it to fire a
recall-signal over to a word-engram stored in the auditory memory
channel.   In this system,  if the infant has not yet learned the
most appropriate word  for the perceived object,  he or she  will
blurt out  some nearly appropriate word  which  bears the closest
associative  relationship  to  the  perceived  object.  The  word
chosen by the baby may sound funny to adults,  but it makes sense
within the mind of the infant.

     In like manner,  an abstract control-fiber  for each part of
speech  governs all the members  within the class of that part of
speech.   When the infant goes on from learning nouns to learning
verbs,  likewise general verb-control fibers govern all available

     Once we clearly make the point here that one  abstract  gang
of control-fibers for a particular part of speech  can govern all
the members of the class of that part of speech, we have finished
the fundamental description  of level three  of the mind  and  we
have described the part-of-speech building-blocks  which  make up
the  sentence-structures in natural human languages.

     If we describe a particular human language, we move from the
internal domain of genetically provided, universal deep  features
of the  level-three mind  out  to the external field  of cultural
tradition.  We see the innate ability of the mind to segregate or
classify various parts of speech, and we see the cultural ability
of the mind  to concatenate  part-of-speech  control-fibers  into
sentence structures.   The combinatorial power  of the linguistic 
portion of the abstract memory channel  allows many influences to
affect and determine the dynamic operation of sentence structures.
These influences  can include  considerations  of  number, logic,
time or tense,  emotion,  and so on.   Any semantic consideration
that can  be conceptualized (preferably  subconsciously)  can  be
represented  as a control-fiber  which figures in the composition
of sentence structures within a natural language.

     This paper does not attempt  to formalize the representation
of  natural  language  within  a  machine  mind.  We  avoid  such
formalization by means of utter simplification, and then we leave
the elaborate formalizations to the expert professional linguists.

     Our utter simplification of human language  consists here in
treating language  as if it had  only two parts of speech:  nouns
and verbs.   We want to simplify language so utterly that readers
will, on the one hand, grant that noun-plus-verb is the essential
core  of human language,  and, on the other hand,  comprehend how
this design for a mind  generates utterances  consisting of noun-

     Therefore,  instead  of formalizing  an elaborate design for
one of the natural languages,  we ask  the following common-sense
questions.  Is it not clear,  that a mind,  which  can  grasp the
concept  of the doer  of some action  and then link that concept,
expressed  as a noun,  with  another  concept (that of the action
itself expressed as a verb)  has performed  the basic  linguistic
feat  which  is  both  representative  and  definitive  of  human
linguistic achievement?   Is not  everything else  refinement and

     This design  does not beg the question  by declaring an easy
system of syntax and  by ignoring semantics.   The foregoing bulk
of this article  has laid  the semantic groundwork  for proposing
that  part-of-speech  control-fibers  are  the semantic building-
blocks which the mind  concatenates into the sentence-structures,
or syntax, of a human language.   This informal simplification of
language is  meant  as  a  common  meeting-ground  for  a view of
language and a view of the brain-mind.

     Each abstract-memory control-fiber gang for a part of speech
becomes a node  on  a sentence-structure  of  concatenated nodes.
The nodes are concatenated by a spiral of linguistic habituation.
Just as an associative tag  fetches a word stored in the auditory
memory channel,  another associative tag,  attached to the end of
the stored word, sends a signal  back  to the sentence-structure,
reporting that the task of one node is complete  and that now the
next node should go into operation.   Thus dynamic control of the
semantically  driven  process  of sentence-generation shifts back
and forth between the abstract memory channel where the syntax is
stored and the auditory memory channel where the words are stored.
This  shifting  back and forth,  although it happens  in the flat
plane of the mind grid,  is extended  over time  and is logically
complex enough to be the flat analog of a spiral  winding through

     Each use of a sentence-structure  reaffirms  the habituation
of  the  sentence-structure.   Any  typical node in the sentence-
structure can be added or deleted  by the habituational device of
practice.   The associative tags  which operate under the (short-
term)  domination  of  a sentence-structure  exercise  their  own
(long-term) domination over the sentence-structure by reaffirming
and habituating it.  Change is caused from without, but then each
subsequently identical loop of the spiral  takes hold of what was
initially change and habituates it into a long-term structure.

     The  concatenated  nodes  of sentence-structures  within the
abstract memory channel  reach over, so to speak, via associative
tags and string together  words and morphemes within the auditory
memory  channel.   We  hear  our  own  verbal thought  within our 
auditory memory channel.

     When  this system  of  generating  sentences  is  worked  in
reverse,  it comprehends  sentences  by decoding the associations
among concepts conveyed by the linguistic sentence-structure.  In
the comprehension of a sentence, new associative links are formed
among  the  abstract  conceptual  fibers  in  the abstract memory
channel of the receiving mind.   The sentence is recorded both as
an episode  in experiential memory  and as a slight rearrangement
of the associative links  among abstract conceptual fibers in the
abstract memory channel.

     In this system,  an incoming sentence  does  not  have to be
believed.  The entrenched, pre-existing associative links  in the
receiving mind  can withstand and overwhelm the links asserted by
the linguistic structure of an incoming sentence.

     This design seeks to explain how a multi-lingual speaker can
keep his or her languages apart and  avoid  running them together
while speaking.   Since  the vocabulary items  are all segregated
down at the deep levels, they  remain  segregated  at the highest
level, that of the particular language.

     If  you  build  an artificial mind, do not try to program it
like a computer.   Build it, turn it on, and commence teaching it.

Return to top; or to sitemap; or to
[For the above link to work, copy to your local hard disk
and name it Mind.html in the C:\Windows\Desktop\ directory.]

SourceForge Logo