RE: Study shows brain can learn without really trying

From: Vincent Campbell (
Date: Wed Nov 28 2001 - 12:34:34 GMT

  • Next message: Vincent Campbell: "RE: Study shows brain can learn without really trying"

    Received: by id MAA17848 (8.6.9/5.3[ref] for from; Wed, 28 Nov 2001 12:39:03 GMT
    Message-ID: <>
    From: Vincent Campbell <>
    To: "''" <>
    Subject: RE: Study shows brain can learn without really trying
    Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2001 12:34:34 -0000
    X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21)
    Content-Type: text/plain
    Precedence: bulk

            <I recall only one misread on my part, and the Dawkins excerpt in
    > was inherently confusing, perhaps even deceptive. Also, I did accept at
    > least one argument against Sheldrake, regarding the ability of birds and
    > fish to see 360 degrees around. However, it turns out they actually can't
    > see all around them, as I discovered later. Didn't need to yield on that
    > one after all.>
            Of course Dawkins is confusing and deceptive that's why he's a best
    selling author. (In case you're not clear I'm being facetious here).

            Birds don't need to see directly behind them, because flying
    immediately behind another bird is no good aerodynamically (much harder to
    fly in the disturbed air). For aerodynamic purposes then, birds fly to one
    side of each other (the classic case being the flying V of Geese), which
    puts birds well within their field of vision, which is indeed not 360, but
    far greater than ours. I don't know but I'd venture the same general point
    probably applies to fish. I think it was disputed, but I recall a misread
    of a piece about Cichlids as well.

            But I'm not here to point the finger, I was merely defending my
    reading of your comments. At the end of the day, all messages are open to

            <Do we have actual memories, or does the brain encode knowledge and
    > experiences for future retrieval? In other words, is memory reducible to
    > retrieval of stored information? The existence of a kind of memory which
    > is
    > somehow organic yet artificial-- be it genetic or neural-- has never been
    > proven and appears to be no more falsifiable than God in Heaven or the
    > Resurrection of Christ.>
            The problem of long term memory is at the forefront of neuroscience,
    and is a difficult one. But just because there's no empirical evidence yet,
    doesn't mean you can dismiss the possibility that it exists in the material
    of the brain any more than one can claim with certainty that it does. It
    seems far more likely that it exists in some state in the brain, as many
    other features of human perception have been demonstrated to occur in the
    brain, but that doesn't make it so, of course. I think it is falsifiable
    but it depends on what kind of question you ask e.g. 'is long term memory
    stored in brain tissue?' I think that this questionable is answerable.


    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)

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Nov 28 2001 - 12:45:06 GMT