In article <4m7l2l$bto at newsbf02.news.aol.com>, enticy1 at aol.com (ENTICY1) writes:
|> You see features... Your brain sees the results of photons striking the
|> rods and cones.
Your point? (Hopefully not that the latter invalidates the former).
|> Cat cells do not function in the same synchronicity and same frequency as
|> human cells and the two are NOT comparable.
What does 'function in the same synchronicity' mean? 'same frequency' - frequency
of what? The two are not comparable? That means thousands of neuroscientists are
wasting millions of dollars, I guess. Either that or you don't really know what
you are talking about.
|> You are committing the Observational Illusion of noticing how something seems
|> to work and dictating that it therefor must be caused by the same thing.
I cannot parse this sentence. What does it mean to 'commit an illusion'? What
does the rest of the sentence mean?
|> >(Note that my theory predicts that the operation of the BG in neonates
|> must be radically different from adults (or older children), since
|> ___neonates display essentially random behavior with almost no topdown
|> selection.____)
|>|> This confuses knowledge with processing and the conclusion is absurd. No
|> topdown so it must be random?
No, it is random therefore there is no top-down control.
Do you have anything interesting to say? Why are all your posts devoid of
information?
Paul