From: "Aaron Agassi" <agassi@erols.com>
To: <memetics@mmu.ac.uk>
Subject: RE: Differentiation/Merging of the senses
Date: Fri, 3 Sep 1999 09:30:11 -0400
In-Reply-To: <2CDFE2C8F598D21197C800C04F911B2034937E@DELTA.newhouse.akzonobel.nl>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk [mailto:fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk]On Behalf
> Of Gatherer, D. (Derek)
> Sent: Friday, September 03, 1999 5:47 AM
> To: 'memetics@mmu.ac.uk'
> Subject: RE: Differentiation/Merging of the senses
>
>
> Chris:
> Which aspect do you reject -
>
> (a) that we start-off with undifferentiated sensory processing that then
> becomes refined through exposure to nurture?
> (b) that we end-up creating hybrid expressions of meaning based on the
> entanglement of sensory data?
> (c) all of the above
>
> Derek:
> all of the above, it's just conjecture.
But then, what is not conjecture? These particular conjectures would seem to
enjoy the support of critical preference.
>
> Chris:
> does the 'fact' that sensory specific areas of the brain, if not
> exposed to
> their particular sense bias (e.g. due to blindness, deafness etc) are
> recruited by surrounding networks for different tasks? Doesnt this
> demonstrate the undifferentiated form of the brain in early development?
>
> Derek:
> No, it demonstratres a degree of neuronal plasticity, that's all.
How unusual for plasticity not to suggest some undifferentiated stage. This
is counter intuitive, to say the least.
>
> Chris:
> One
> example of this was the forceable closure of an eye during the first few
> weeks of life (in monkey). Later examination of the visual cortex showed
> that the network used by the other eye enchroached on and 'stole' parts of
> the network for the closed eye.
>
> Derek:
> Yes, Colin Blakemore's classic experiment. So what? The monkeys
> don't end
> up hearing sights or seeing sounds.
>
> Chris:
> These observations manifest a plasticity 'in here' that would include
> 'entanglements' where lack of exposure to sensory data reduces
> particularisation and the areas concerned are returned to a general state
> that lets them be recruited by near-by specialist regions.
>
> In this context, the newborn infant has a brain that is 'general' in form
> when compared to later particularisations due to nurture. The
> object/relationship distinctions, the what/where mappings, are
> there but not
> yet refined such that the border between them is not sharply
> defined, there
> are entanglements where a neuron or network of neurons are in a 'general'
> state and this general state is manifest as synaesthesia.
>
> Derek:
> Well, no because then everybody would be synaesthetic as part of their
> normal development, and it's quite clear that synaesthesia is a rare
> condition indeed.
If synaesthesia is, indeed, as has been suggested, part of a forgotten
preverbal stage, then synaesthenia could very well be part of normal
development. But there could still be normal development that does not
include then synaesthenia. Undifferentiation does not necessarily equal
encroachment.
>
> ===============================================================
> 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