On Mon, Mar 4, 2013 at 11:27 PM, Pierz <pier...@gmail.com> wrote: > Really Craig? It invalidates mechanistic assumptions about eyes? I'm sure > the researchers would be astonished at such a wild conclusion. All the > research shows is brain plasticity in interpreting signals from unusual > neural pathways. How does that invalidate mechanism? >
Yes, I was confused at first by the statement in the first paragraph that the eyes "can confer vision without a direct neural connection to the brain" (maybe Craig was confused by this too?), but it seems that by "direct neural connection" they just mean an optic nerve wired directly to the brain, bypassing the spinal cord like the optic nerve normally does, since later in the article they do mention the eyes were connected (indirectly) to the brain via the spinal cord: "No one would have guessed that eyes on the flank of a tadpole could see, especially when wired only to the spinal cord and not the brain." Jesse > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Everything List" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. > To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. > Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. > > > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
