IUBio

We are feature detectors

Paul Bush paul at phy.ucsf.edu
Wed May 1 20:33:06 EST 1996


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



More information about the Neur-sci mailing list

Send comments to us at biosci-help [At] net.bio.net