Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id TAA10506 (8.6.9/5.3[ref pg@gmsl.co.uk] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk); Thu, 18 May 2000 19:52:59 +0100 From: Robin Faichney <robin@faichney.demon.co.uk> Organization: Reborn Technology To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk Subject: RE: Why are human brains bigger? Date: Thu, 18 May 2000 18:42:28 +0100 X-Mailer: KMail [version 1.0.21] Content-Type: text/plain References: <2D1C159B783DD211808A006008062D31CEB1B4@inchna.stir.ac.uk> Message-Id: <00051819013007.00537@faichney> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Sender: fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk Precedence: bulk Reply-To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
On Thu, 18 May 2000, Vincent Campbell wrote:
>There was a recent programme on Channel 4 called 'Phantoms in the Brain'
>where this was explicitly explained and demonstrated, with a patient having
>the condition. He could register the movement of an object on screen,
>either up, down or to the right, but was not aware of what the object was,
>and this was defined as blind sight, in the programme- if it's wrong, them
>I'm wrong.
Maybe we're both right. Explained this way, I can see it as an example of
blindsight, though not a defining one, because there, as I said, the subject
will report seeing nothing, or at least nothing relevant to what they
demonstrate, by their behaviour, that they do in fact perceive,
apparently unconsciously.
>Of course we don't know for certain that reptiles aren't perceiving things
>to some extent, but I have seen it demonstrated where animals of various
>kinds exhibit standards behaviours when confronted with obvious fakes- e.g.
>reptiles responses to fake flies, fish responses to fake fish, and I
>remember once seeing a demonstration of the territoriality of Robins, when
>males would attack things not even very bird-like in shape that had a
>prominent red area about the same siz at that of the Robin's red breast.
>Now, in order to behave in such ways surely implies a lack of perceptual
>depth in recognising more than a few simple features of prey or rivals, and
>yet these kinds of animals survive.
I think you'll find that, unlike myself, the robin bird uses the lower-case
"r". :-)
The fact that "fakes" are obvious to us, doesn't mean they should be obvious
to the animal -- that depends on their perceptual system. By bringing in
blindsight, you highlight the distinction between behaviour and perception,
showing that there can be a reaction to what is not consciously perceived.
But where the perceptual system is, let's say, somewhat less fine than our
own, then there will inevitably be a reaction to "obvious" fakes. Both
behaviour and perception will be "downgraded", there is no implication as to
any discrepancy between them, and blindsight is irrelevant.
Another possible interpretation is that the perceptual system might be just
as capable as ours, but the reaction is triggered at an earlier, more course-
grained stage of processing than are most of our's -- again, having no
implication as to anything much like blindsight.
Umm, now I think about it, I guess a reaction triggered prior to consciousness
*is* like blindsight! But is that what you meant? I can't see it in what
you wrote. Or am I just hopelessly confused on this one? :-(
-- Robin Faichney===============================This was distributed via the memetics list associated with the Journal of Memetics - Evolutionary Models of Information Transmission For information about the journal and the list (e.g. unsubscribing) see: http://www.cpm.mmu.ac.uk/jom-emit
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu May 18 2000 - 19:53:26 BST