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 transmission. Craig -- 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 [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
