Science in the News

John H. johnh at faraway.xxx
Mon Jan 13 16:18:48 EST 2003


There is clear evidence, Tunisian desert ants navigation. Swallows and navigation. 2 dimensional for sure but ain't that much different. 
Eyes do not track a fast moving target, anticipaton is required. The eyes actually jump ahead to the anticipated target location. Hence not innate per se because the brain and or retina must learn to anticipate trajectories. We may think we are constantly watching the ball but then we think we are conscious of all that we are thinking ... .I don't see that we need brains performing fancy maths to make these predictions, there is no evidence to support it and we resort to that explanation because that is how we consciously perform such tasks. Perhaps a 'style' of Bayesian analysis at work here but trying to reduce neural processing to some complex mathematical process seems to be rather dubious to me. If neurons can do maths that well then will someone please explain why I'm so bad at it?


John H. 

Kenneth 'pawl' Collins" <k.p.collins at worldnet.att.net> wrote in message news:6MBS9.31815$p_6.2679705 at bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
  "Fly Ball or Frisbee, Fielder and Dog Do the Same Physics", By YUDHIJIT BHATTACHARJEE

  http://www.nytimes.com/2003/01/07/science/physical/07FRIS.html

  Quoting from the article:

  "Researchers say there is no clear evidence to show whether organisms have an instinct for the calculus involved in pursuing a target, or whether they learn it unconsciously, by trial and error."

  It's all just TD E/I-minimization.

  Quoting from the article:

  "Some believe that while the neural mechanisms used in computing an interception course are hard-wired in the brain, specific tasks must be learned."

  It's all just TD E/I-minimization.

  Quoting from the article:

  "Both dogs and humans seem to have the innate ability to track an object flying through three-dimensional space by using information in the two-dimensional image on their retina," Dr. Shaffer said. "Through experience, they learn to apply this instinct to catch a ball or a Frisbee."

  =Everything= that happens within the nervous system happens in 4-D, hich is just 3-D energy gradients' 3-D directionalities 'pointing' to each other. All nervous systems do is 'strive' to 'blindly' and automatically achieve TD E/I-minimization within this 4-space.

  Quoting from the article:

  "The ability to make smooth pursuit eye movements appears very rapidly over just a few weeks of development," Dr. von Hofsten said. "Such rapid emergence indicates that the ability for predictive tracking is a result of new connections being established in the cerebral cortex rather than something that the infant learns from experience."

  It's 'hilarious' - he thinks that, if the subjects were blind, they'd still be able to do it.

  What's my 'point'? 

  The fact that viable sensory reception is required discloses that even that which is considered to be 'instinctual' [in this visual-tracking problem] is actually subject to activation-dependent neural trophy - that is, it's subject to learning.

  Sometimes, my eyes just fill with tears when I witness the rampant stupidity that derives in the 'group-think' that's coersed upon grad students in Neuroscience.

  When will folks in Neuroscience call themselves to task in the realization that our Science is too important fore it to be relegated into the hands of a 'social club' mentality, in which any old hot-air 'argument' gains 'the nod'.

  Folks in Neuroscience must learn to think and argue, critically.

  And stop publishing the same errors over and over again at 5, 10, 20, etc. -year intervals.

  It's 'hilarious'. Folks in Neuroscience 'get together', and accept any ol' B.S. as long as it's embedded in the 'neuroscientifically'-correct social context.

  And what's really 'hilarious', all the Jackasses that agree to 'acquiesce' in this way, also 'conspire' to lock-out folks like me who will not forsake Science in order to gain admission to the 'club'.

  It's Pathetic.

  It makes me want to throw-up.

  People are Suffering and Dying all over the place; others to 'frustrated' that they've taken to 'terrorist' Murder, etc., etc., etc., and 'neuroscience' just ho-hums its Responsibilities with respect to all of this.

  Hell, 'neuroscience' is flat-out sticking its tail between its legs and running away from it's Responsibilities.

  Publishing the same ol' B.S. over and over again.

  "Ain't it grand?"

  Wake-up!!!

  K. P. Collins

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://iubio.bio.indiana.edu/bionet/mm/neur-sci/attachments/20030114/37d6fa71/attachment.html


More information about the Neur-sci mailing list