the liver and the brain
David at longley.demon.co.uk
Sat Sep 4 06:16:34 EST 2004
In article <41392480 at dnews.tpgi.com.au>, John Hasenkam
<johnh at faraway.?.invalid> writes
>"dan michaels" <feedbackdroids at yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:8d8494cf.0409030853.7911b8bf at posting.google.com...
>> > >In contrast, since ungulates pop out into the world being able to walk
>> > >and run within hours, I was also wondering that their visual systems
>> > >might also be similarly advanced, as compard to humans and other
>> > >animals like you mentioned. Do they have to "learn" what a lion looks,
>> > >or might their visual systems already have some hard-coding regards
>> > >this?
>To come at this from a tangent, it is interesting to recall studies showing
>how axons for varous senses, after injury, can end up projecting to regions
>other than their "programmed" targets. Auditory axons will project to visual
>areas, perhaps explaining the echo location noted in some blind individuals.
>Not many studies on this but the few are surprising in their results.
>Results such as these suggest a top down guidance of axonal projections, but
>I'll freely admit I find that very spooky.
What's even more "spooky" (although predictably so) is the far more
prevalent (and unquestionably demonstrable) empirical finding that
people (cf. Michaels, Zick, Ozkural, Legris, Savain, Navega etc as a
small but sadly representative, sample) make the "connections" that they
do make - *and yet fail to make far more useful and reliable others*.
What should attract more interest than it does is the fact that people,
as a rule, so tenaciously hold onto, and mutually reinforce their naive
intensional heuristics or prejudices despite abundant (*extensional*)
evidence to repudiate or replace them.
How people align themselves in their public responses to the above
assertion can, I suggest, be taken as a fair, pragmatic & extensional
indicator of their scientific acumen.
More information about the Neur-sci