the liver and the brain

David Longley David at
Sat Sep 4 06:16:34 EST 2004

In article <41392480 at>, John Hasenkam 
<johnh at faraway.?.invalid> writes
>"dan michaels" <feedbackdroids at> wrote in message
>news:8d8494cf.0409030853.7911b8bf at
>> > >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.
David Longley

More information about the Neur-sci mailing list