Re: Ectopic Eyes Experient: Supports my view of sense, Invalidates mechanistic assumptions about eyes.
On Thu, Mar 7, 2013 at 12:59 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > On 05 Mar 2013, at 19:39, Craig Weinberg wrote: > > > > On Tuesday, March 5, 2013 12:45:11 PM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote: >> >> >> On 05 Mar 2013, at 08:43, Jesse Mazer wrote: >> >> >> >> On Mon, Mar 4, 2013 at 11:27 PM, 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? >> >> >> 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." >> >> >> Even that would not be conceptually astonishing. My computer is not wired >> to anything, and I can still send you a mail. It would have meant only that >> optic cells have some wifi systems. Cute, without doubt, but still not a >> threat for computationalism. Improbable also, but who knows. >> >> Bruno >> >> > > If they were wireless from the start though, why use an optic nerve? > > > OK. That's show only that biological evolution did not invest in radio > waves. Why? Interesting question. Probably not enough profitable locally, > contrary to direct exchange of biochemical material. Interesting question indeed. Radio waves seem more energy efficient than sound, which requires a lot of muscle activity to produce. It could be a problem of irreductible complexity. You need to evolve both a radio transmitter and a receiver, each one useless without the other. The same is not true for sound. Hearing is an evolutionary advantage on its own, and the ability to vocalise comes almost for free from the breathing and digestive systems, that we need anyway. Telmo. > > Bruno > > > > > > Craig > >> >> >> >> >> >> 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-li...@googlegroups.com. >>> To post to this group, send email to everyth...@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-li...@googlegroups.com. >> To post to this group, send email to everyth...@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. >> >> >> >> >> http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ >> >> >> > > -- > 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. > > > > > http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ > > > > -- > 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.
Re: Ectopic Eyes Experient: Supports my view of sense, Invalidates mechanistic assumptions about eyes.
On 05 Mar 2013, at 19:39, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Tuesday, March 5, 2013 12:45:11 PM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 05 Mar 2013, at 08:43, Jesse Mazer wrote: On Mon, Mar 4, 2013 at 11:27 PM, 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? 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." Even that would not be conceptually astonishing. My computer is not wired to anything, and I can still send you a mail. It would have meant only that optic cells have some wifi systems. Cute, without doubt, but still not a threat for computationalism. Improbable also, but who knows. Bruno If they were wireless from the start though, why use an optic nerve? OK. That's show only that biological evolution did not invest in radio waves. Why? Interesting question. Probably not enough profitable locally, contrary to direct exchange of biochemical material. Bruno Craig 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-li...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everyth...@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-li...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everyth...@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. http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- 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. http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- 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.
Re: Ectopic Eyes Experient: Supports my view of sense, Invalidates mechanistic assumptions about eyes.
On Tue, Mar 5, 2013 at 5:43 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote: > > > On Tuesday, March 5, 2013 8:39:37 AM UTC-5, telmo_menezes wrote: >> >> Hi Craig, >> >> On Tue, Mar 5, 2013 at 1:44 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote: >> > 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. >> >> No, it just shows that we cannot assume that the eye has to be >> connected to the optic nerve specifically. > > > Yes, but I think that's only part of what it shows. It also shows that the > brain and spinal cord have the general intelligence to recognize and > integrate the eye as an eye. It's an active system. It's not just a matter > of saying that you can receive mail at more than one address, it is that > your mail will figure out where you are living without having instructed the > post office. Agreed, it does show that. I'm not going to claim that we have algorithms as good as the brain as doing this sort of thing, but we certainly do have algorithms that show a glimpse of this type of possibility, and they have been improving steadily. Unlike consciousness, there seems to be a viable way forward in terms of self-organising, decentralised systems. We know how to build them, to a degree, and we are getting better at it. We have (possibly incomplete) view of the first principles. One simple example is genetic programming. You give the algorithm a set of primitives to build programs towards a certain goal, and we've seen, over and over again, that the algorithm is capable of finding uses for these primitives that were not anticipated by the human designer. > >> >> > 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. >> >> The brain is always looking for patterns in its inputs that could be >> useful. > > > a computer is always scanning its ports and slots for activity also. That > doesn't mean you can just solder a DRAM card somehwere on the motherboard > and expect to use it. Sure, but that's just a restriction imposed by the von Neumann model of computation. Other models are possible where this is possible. > >> >> >> > 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. >> >> Or, the brain is just capable of recognising old patterns from a new >> source. > > > When you say that the brain is "just capable of recognizing", that is > already sense. You're not saying that this capability is just luck or > telepathy, you are saying that there is a particular sense interaction in > which neural tissue initiates ephaptic or other contact. It's not like the > patterns are leaking out of the eye in some formless way, it has to be > recognized that this organ as something which can be used as a sense organ > before it can get any signals out of it. This brings up the question also of > 'why have sense organs at all'? If the brain can just recognize old patterns > from new sources, why not just use anything you can touch as an eye or an > ear? Because specialisation is needed to attain things like light or sound sensitivity. >> >> >> > 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. >> >> We know of many algorithms (possibly equivalent) that could be used to >> achieve something like that. They could require human assistance -- is >> this what you want me to do? -- but so do humans. This, of course, >> provided you are willing to disregard interface incompatibilities that >> are outside of the control of a normal computer. But I can't see why >> hardware without such incompatibilities could not be built. It's just >> that there isn't any incentive to do it at the moment. > > > Sure, yes. The assumption of mechanism however, should lead us to expect > that primitive organisms would be like the early machines that humans have > built so far. Just as we have no incentive - why would biology have any > different incentive? The opposite seems to be the case - human machines are > founded on a rigid, unambiguous ontology, whereas biological organisms are > founded on flexibility and ambiguous relation between generality and > specialization. I don't find this surprising at all. Human-created systems are typically built from the
Re: Ectopic Eyes Experient: Supports my view of sense, Invalidates mechanistic assumptions about eyes.
On Tuesday, March 5, 2013 12:45:11 PM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > On 05 Mar 2013, at 08:43, Jesse Mazer wrote: > > > > On Mon, Mar 4, 2013 at 11:27 PM, 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? >> > > 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." > > > Even that would not be conceptually astonishing. My computer is not wired > to anything, and I can still send you a mail. It would have meant only that > optic cells have some wifi systems. Cute, without doubt, but still not a > threat for computationalism. Improbable also, but who knows. > > Bruno > > > If they were wireless from the start though, why use an optic nerve? Craig > > > > > 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-li...@googlegroups.com . >> To post to this group, send email to everyth...@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-li...@googlegroups.com . > To post to this group, send email to everyth...@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. > > > > > http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ > > > > -- 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.
Re: Ectopic Eyes Experient: Supports my view of sense, Invalidates mechanistic assumptions about eyes.
On 05 Mar 2013, at 08:43, Jesse Mazer wrote: On Mon, Mar 4, 2013 at 11:27 PM, 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? 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." Even that would not be conceptually astonishing. My computer is not wired to anything, and I can still send you a mail. It would have meant only that optic cells have some wifi systems. Cute, without doubt, but still not a threat for computationalism. Improbable also, but who knows. Bruno 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. http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- 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.
Re: Ectopic Eyes Experient: Supports my view of sense, Invalidates mechanistic assumptions about eyes.
On Tuesday, March 5, 2013 8:39:37 AM UTC-5, telmo_menezes wrote: > > Hi Craig, > > On Tue, Mar 5, 2013 at 1:44 PM, Craig Weinberg > > > wrote: > > 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. > > No, it just shows that we cannot assume that the eye has to be > connected to the optic nerve specifically. > Yes, but I think that's only part of what it shows. It also shows that the brain and spinal cord have the general intelligence to recognize and integrate the eye as an eye. It's an active system. It's not just a matter of saying that you can receive mail at more than one address, it is that your mail will figure out where you are living without having instructed the post office. > > 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. > > The brain is always looking for patterns in its inputs that could be > useful. > a computer is always scanning its ports and slots for activity also. That doesn't mean you can just solder a DRAM card somehwere on the motherboard and expect to use it. > > > 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. > > Or, the brain is just capable of recognising old patterns from a new > source. > When you say that the brain is "just capable of recognizing", that is already sense. You're not saying that this capability is just luck or telepathy, you are saying that there is a particular sense interaction in which neural tissue initiates ephaptic or other contact. It's not like the patterns are leaking out of the eye in some formless way, it has to be recognized that this organ as something which can be used as a sense organ before it can get any signals out of it. This brings up the question also of 'why have sense organs at all'? If the brain can just recognize old patterns from new sources, why not just use anything you can touch as an eye or an ear? > > > 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. > > We know of many algorithms (possibly equivalent) that could be used to > achieve something like that. They could require human assistance -- is > this what you want me to do? -- but so do humans. This, of course, > provided you are willing to disregard interface incompatibilities that > are outside of the control of a normal computer. But I can't see why > hardware without such incompatibilities could not be built. It's just > that there isn't any incentive to do it at the moment. > Sure, yes. The assumption of mechanism however, should lead us to expect that primitive organisms would be like the early machines that humans have built so far. Just as we have no incentive - why would biology have any different incentive? The opposite seems to be the case - human machines are founded on a rigid, unambiguous ontology, whereas biological organisms are founded on flexibility and ambiguous relation between generality and specialization. > Notice that I'm not attacking your theory, I don't grok it well enough > for that. I'm just objecting to this specific argument, because I find > there are simple explanations within the realms of we already know > about the brain. For example, we know that entire sectors of the brain > can be repurposed after an injury. > A brain repairing itself is a little easier to explain computationally (basically like RAID 5 drive rebuild.. data is stored in such a way that it can be reconstructed through triangulation of a missing drive). The idea of a new drive being inserted into some random slot directly and having the computer begin using it is a little different. The eye could be a tumor or some foreign object, it would have to have some way of recognizing what it is first before it could be useful. This doesn't make sense under the assumption of visual sense as a passive machine in which photons strike the retina, signals, travel to the brain, brain interprets. The brain has to be interpreting the eye itself, as a organ which it collaborates with, not just an abstract source of signals, as it would be in a computer. Thanks, Craig > Best, > Telmo. > > > > >
Re: Ectopic Eyes Experient: Supports my view of sense, Invalidates mechanistic assumptions about eyes.
Hi Craig, On Tue, Mar 5, 2013 at 1:44 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote: > 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. No, it just shows that we cannot assume that the eye has to be connected to the optic nerve specifically. > 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. The brain is always looking for patterns in its inputs that could be useful. > 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. Or, the brain is just capable of recognising old patterns from a new source. > 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. We know of many algorithms (possibly equivalent) that could be used to achieve something like that. They could require human assistance -- is this what you want me to do? -- but so do humans. This, of course, provided you are willing to disregard interface incompatibilities that are outside of the control of a normal computer. But I can't see why hardware without such incompatibilities could not be built. It's just that there isn't any incentive to do it at the moment. Notice that I'm not attacking your theory, I don't grok it well enough for that. I'm just objecting to this specific argument, because I find there are simple explanations within the realms of we already know about the brain. For example, we know that entire sectors of the brain can be repurposed after an injury. Best, Telmo. > > 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 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.
Re: Ectopic Eyes Experient: Supports my view of sense, Invalidates mechanistic assumptions about eyes.
On Tuesday, March 5, 2013 2:43:26 AM UTC-5, jessem wrote: > > > > On Mon, Mar 4, 2013 at 11:27 PM, 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? >> > > 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 > I don't think it was confusing, just that it suggests that biological sensory systems are robust and independent, not relying on a single fragile mechanism that has evolved. 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 everything-li...@googlegroups.com . >> To post to this group, send email to everyth...@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.
Re: Ectopic Eyes Experient: Supports my view of sense, Invalidates mechanistic assumptions about eyes.
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 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.
Re: Ectopic Eyes Experient: Supports my view of sense, Invalidates mechanistic assumptions about eyes.
On Mon, Mar 4, 2013 at 11:27 PM, 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? > 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.
Re: Ectopic Eyes Experient: Supports my view of sense, Invalidates mechanistic assumptions about eyes.
On 3/4/2013 8:27 PM, 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? I will if Craig can see through them. :-) Brent -- 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.
Ectopic Eyes Experient: Supports my view of sense, Invalidates mechanistic assumptions about eyes.
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? -- 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.
Ectopic Eyes Experient: Supports my view of sense, Invalidates mechanistic assumptions about eyes.
Supports my view of sense, Invalidates mechanistic assumptions about eyes. The genie about the reality of sense just doesn't seem to want to stay in the bottle... Craig http://www.newswise.com/articles/ectopic-eyes-function-without-connection-to-brain *Experiments with tadpoles show ectopic eyes that "see"* > > Newswise — MEDFORD/SOMERVILLE, Mass. (February 27, 2013) – For the first > time, scientists have shown that transplanted eyes located far outside the > head in a vertebrate animal model can confer vision without a direct neural > connection to the brain. > > Biologists at Tufts University School of Arts and Sciences used a frog > model to shed new light – literally – on one of the major questions in > regenerative medicine, bioengineering, and sensory augmentation research. > > "One of the big challenges is to understand how the brain and body adapt > to large changes in organization," says Douglas J. Blackiston, Ph.D., first > author of the paper "Ectopic Eyes Outside the Head in Xenopus Tadpoles > Provide Sensory Data For Light-Mediated Learning," in the February 27 issue > of the *Journal of Experimental Biology*. "Here, our research reveals the > brain's remarkable ability, or plasticity, to process visual data coming > from misplaced eyes, even when they are located far from the head.” > > Blackiston is a post-doctoral associate in the laboratory of co-author > Michael Levin, Ph.D., professor of biology and director of the Center for > Regenerative and Developmental Biology at Tufts University. > > Levin notes, "A primary goal in medicine is to one day be able to restore > the function of damaged or missing sensory structures through the use of > biological or artificial replacement components. There are many > implications of this study, but the primary one from a medical standpoint > is that we may not need to make specific connections to the brain when > treating sensory disorders such as blindness." > > In this experiment, the team surgically removed donor embryo eye > primordia, marked with fluorescent proteins, and grafted them into the > posterior region of recipient embryos. This induced the growth of ectopic > eyes. The recipients’ natural eyes were removed, leaving only the ectopic > eyes. > > Fluorescence microscopy revealed various innervation patterns but none of > the animals developed nerves that connected the ectopic eyes to the brain > or cranial region. > > To determine if the ectopic eyes conveyed visual information, the team > developed a computer-controlled visual training system in which quadrants > of water were illuminated by either red or blue LED lights. The system > could administer a mild electric shock to tadpoles swimming in a particular > quadrant. A motion tracking system outfitted with a camera and a computer > program allowed the scientists to monitor and record the tadpoles' motion > and speed. > > Eyes See Without Wiring to Brain > > The team made exciting discoveries: Just over 19 percent of the animals > with optic nerves that connected to the spine demonstrated learned > responses to the lights. They swam away from the red light while the blue > light stimulated natural movement. > > Their response to the lights elicited during the experiments was no > different from that of a control group of tadpoles with natural eyes > intact. Furthermore, this response was not demonstrated by eyeless tadpoles > or tadpoles that did not receive any electrical shock. > > "This has never been shown before," says Levin. "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." > The findings suggest a remarkable plasticity in the brain’s ability to > incorporate signals from various body regions into behavioral programs that > had evolved with a specific and different body plan. > > "Ectopic eyes performed visual function," says Blackiston. "The brain > recognized visual data from eyes that impinged on the spinal cord. We still > need to determine if this plasticity in vertebrate brains extends to > different ectopic organs or organs appropriate in different species." > > One of the most fascinating areas for future investigation, according to > Blackiston and Levin, is the question of exactly how the brain recognizes > that the electrical signals coming from tissue near the gut is to be > interpreted as visual data. > > In computer engineering, notes Levin, who majored in computer science and > biology as a Tufts undergraduate, this problem is usually solved by a > "header"—a piece of metadata attached to a packet of information that > indicates its source and type. Whether electric signals from eyes impinging > on the spinal cord carry such an identifier of their origin remains a > hypothesis to be tested. > > Research reported in this publication was supported by grants from the > National Institute of Mental Health of
