the liver and the brain
lesterDELzick at worldnet.att.net
Sat Sep 4 13:17:02 EST 2004
On Sat, 4 Sep 2004 12:16:34 +0100, David Longley
<David at longley.demon.co.uk> in comp.ai.philosophy wrote:
>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.
This is hardly remarkable, David, whether for the reasons you cite or
because the people involved think they are correct. You fail to note,
however, that you are in exactly the same category as those you
stigmatize and chastize. You fail to explain why your own verbal
behavior is any more original and less slavishly imitative than that
of others. You're a behaviorist. That's the bottom line. We already
knew that. And nothing you've said so far has shed any light on the
subject of behavior as defined by behaviorism as a first cause.
Regards - Lester
More information about the Neur-sci