On Monday, March 4, 2013 11:27:21 PM UTC-5, Pierz 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?
It's not that wild of a conclusion. The experiment shows that we cannot
assume that vision is the result of a passive process that relies on a
one-way path leading from light to eye to optic nerve to brain. The brain
actively shows that there is a path leading the other way as well, as the
whole organism seeks to see through the eye. This shows that there is
sensory-motor activity going on within the micro-level of the tadpole as
the rather under-signifyingly termed "plasticity" knows exactly what the
eyeball is, and finds a way to use it.
Try that with your computer. See what happens when you try plugging a
microphone into a DRAM slot, or listening to your car radio through the
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 post to this group, send email to email@example.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.