In article <9404272000.AA07826 at bambi.ccs.fau.edu>, tomh at BAMBI.CCS.FAU.EDU
(Tom Holroyd) wrote:
> Saying there is a "motor program" for something like spinning is no more
> useful than saying there is junk-DNA for it, I would hazard.
That would depend on your definition of motor program. It may be a good
idea for the two of you to each define motor program before further
> One is led
> to ask, "where is this motor program stored?" and "how is it switched on?"
Are both of these questions necessary and sufficient for understanding how
motor program results in specific intrinsic behaviors?
> such as in nest building or web spinning. There need not be any program
> for web spinning at all, merely a small set of other behaviors.
Wouldn't all of the programs comprising the different subsets constitute a
web spinning program?
> Spinning is just a natural consequence of the
> interactions (couplings) between the various subsystems,
Why isn't this a complex program made up of many simpler subprograms?
> varying the conditions
> can produce different behaviors from
> otherwise similar circumstances.
Doesn't this merely mean that the program is plastic or capable of changing
based on previous experience (learning)?
> If you vary things smoothly enough you
> can even see transitions from one mode of behavior to another. What you
> are probing in such cases is not a "motor program" but the self-organized,
> emergent pattern formation process.
This looks like a definition. I am obviously not familiar with this, so
expand on this a little further? It almost sounds like you have the
formation (behavior?) independent of the motor movements which make
up the behavior. I am probably way off base here...
jstream at girch1.med.uth.tmc.edu