Perceptual Structure

Glen M. Sizemore gmsizemore at triad.rr.com
Wed Oct 18 15:39:46 EST 2000

Glen: My first inclination was to write a rather long
piece, and even wrote a lot of said piece. However,
eventually I decided that it wasn't worth it (after all,
you didn't respond in a very thoughtful fashion to
what I wrote previously). Anyway, though, there is
one statement you make that goes to the heart of the
matter and it is worth commenting on briefly,
despite that it is unlikely that you will "get it":

Ian: The whole body is involved in seeing in that it
acts as  a data-acquisition apparatus where acquired
data (information) is not perceived until  it's been
proceeded in the brain. This is  empirically-based
basic physiology. If it  is not accurate, I've not seen
that shown.

Glen: The statement: "This is  empirically-based
basic physiology" is particularly telling. In short, it is
nothing of the sort. First of all, that the brain "acts
like a computer" and is thus describable in similar
terms such as "data-acquisition apparatus" or
"processed [I assume you meant "processed" and
not "proceeded"] in the brain" is pure assumption.
The hypotheses tested by most of sensory
neurobiology are not aimed at "testing" whether or
not the assumption is true (that's what makes it an
assumption). Thus, the measurements made of the
nervous system do not support either the notion that
the brain is "like a computer" or that "information is
processed" and then utilized in any way.

I agree that sensory neurobiology involves empirical
observations of the nervous system that are related
in orderly ways to behavior, but THAT is what there
what you argue is pure assumption and is not, and
cannot, be addressed by the kind of data you are
talking about.


More information about the Neur-sci mailing list

Send comments to us at biosci-help [At] net.bio.net