Re: Physics Myth (?) #1

[brian whatcott <inet@INTELLISYS.NET>]

At 11:25 4/28/00 -0400, Richard Bowman wrote:
> On Fri. 20 Apr 2000, Wes Davis wrote:
>
> >     The film documenting this experiment is shown to our
> > biology students each year.  It's an amazing experiment
> > showing that the inversion is an acquired response, rather
> > than being hard-wired.  Who would have thought to ask
> > the question???  Amazing.
>
> But to be more precise scientifically, is this not simply a demonstration
> that our brains can stop inverting an image it receives and not a
> demonstration that the initial capability is not hard-wired?
>
> (Just in case you did not see the original question by Tom Sandin, the
> experiment in question is that of the brain eventually stopping inverting
> images seen by a person who has been outfitted with an optical devise that
> inverts the images before the image enters the eye.)
>
> Richard
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Dr. Richard L. Bowman

Richard's counterproposal would involve a hard wired arrangement
( = immutable signal flow) and an image reversal or processing mechanism.

The original proposal has an active image processing mechanism.
This has obvious merit from Occam's viewpoint.

There is a plausible explanation.
 It can be demonstrated that neural growth can follow a pre ordained
path using markers or gradients.

 But there is great difficulty in arranging big neural bundles to connect
in a pre ordained order on a target of small area.

  There seems to be a preference for 'switching' signals into a desired
order by sampling features of the unorganized connection state.

You could point to the ease of making random connections for
old fashoned telephone cable pair connections at intermediate manholes,
and defining signal names end to end one time only.


brian whatcott <inet@intellisys.net>
Altus OK