Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id NAA14227 (8.6.9/5.3[ref pg@gmsl.co.uk] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk); Fri, 19 May 2000 13:39:38 +0100 Message-ID: <2D1C159B783DD211808A006008062D31CEB1C0@inchna.stir.ac.uk> From: Vincent Campbell <v.p.campbell@stir.ac.uk> To: "'memetics@mmu.ac.uk'" <memetics@mmu.ac.uk> Subject: RE: Why are human brains bigger? Date: Fri, 19 May 2000 13:37:28 +0100 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) Content-Type: text/plain Sender: fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk Precedence: bulk Reply-To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
No, there's no problem.
I see what you're saying about levels of perception, and I'd agree, and you
have got the main point in a nutshell I was trying to make, that certain
behaviours, clearly evident in other organisms like insects, but also
apparent in humans (although far less obviously) are conducted without the
need for conscious thought- breathing for example.
So, I think this related to the statement that Chuck made about all actions
requiring beliefs. It does depend on what you call an 'act', mind you, and
this I think needs clarifying.
Vincent
> ----------
> From: Robin Faichney
> Reply To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
> Sent: Thursday, May 18, 2000 6:42 pm
> To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
> Subject: RE: Why are human brains bigger?
>
> 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 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 : Fri May 19 2000 - 13:40:05 BST