Esoteric, Philosophical and / or Technical Posts Welcome
> At the risk of getting too esoteric or philosophical
Not a problem.
Yes - I understand these issues and the physics involved. And one can use philosophy to explain certain things and to produce some arguements along the lines of what we 'see' is - well, we really can't say because we can't know what is real and what is not. Unfortunately, philosophy can take things to the extreme of "...do we even exist or are we some part of the imagination of someone else or something else..."
My major in college was biology with minors in chemistry and anthropology. My senior thesis was on neuron cell dendrite to dendrite and axon to axon connections - which in the 1970's was poorly understood. The context was always axon to dendrite. The purpose and interaction of dendrite to dendrite connections, for example, was just starting to be investigated. I have a relatively strong background in human physiology and biological processes to the molecular 'engine' level.
> The picture that we see, however, is not out there, but
> totally in our heads. There is really no way of knowing
> what the world "really" looks like.
For me what ties together the validity that what we see is pretty close to what is there is that two people can look at the same object or scene and each will describe the same basics. So even if you and I 'really' see (for example) the color (frequency) red differently, we will both describe it as 'red' because that's what we learned as youths. There are some interesting studies in colour blindness which also come to bear on issues like this.
Secondarily is tactile feedback of the nervous system to certain things. Stick your hand in a fire and I'll bet it won't be there very long. I do not believe this is solely a part of a system of learned response. If you interview someone who has been badly burned they will argue pretty strongly that the pain and tissue destruction is real and not a figment of someone elses imagination.
One thing I did learn that I think is really interesting is that the spinal cord its self learns. Responses to certain stimuli over time bypass the brain entirely. In some cases the brain is 'notified' of the stimuli-reaction 'event', but with some stimuli the brain doesn't get so much as an e-mail to let it know the stimuli-reaction 'event' took place - the routing is entirely limited to the spinal cord.
Bring on the esoteric, philosophical and/or technical talk any time. I'm ready!
> At the risk of getting too esoteric or philosophical
Not a problem.
Yes - I understand these issues and the physics involved. And one can use philosophy to explain certain things and to produce some arguements along the lines of what we 'see' is - well, we really can't say because we can't know what is real and what is not. Unfortunately, philosophy can take things to the extreme of "...do we even exist or are we some part of the imagination of someone else or something else..."
My major in college was biology with minors in chemistry and anthropology. My senior thesis was on neuron cell dendrite to dendrite and axon to axon connections - which in the 1970's was poorly understood. The context was always axon to dendrite. The purpose and interaction of dendrite to dendrite connections, for example, was just starting to be investigated. I have a relatively strong background in human physiology and biological processes to the molecular 'engine' level.
> The picture that we see, however, is not out there, but
> totally in our heads. There is really no way of knowing
> what the world "really" looks like.
For me what ties together the validity that what we see is pretty close to what is there is that two people can look at the same object or scene and each will describe the same basics. So even if you and I 'really' see (for example) the color (frequency) red differently, we will both describe it as 'red' because that's what we learned as youths. There are some interesting studies in colour blindness which also come to bear on issues like this.
Secondarily is tactile feedback of the nervous system to certain things. Stick your hand in a fire and I'll bet it won't be there very long. I do not believe this is solely a part of a system of learned response. If you interview someone who has been badly burned they will argue pretty strongly that the pain and tissue destruction is real and not a figment of someone elses imagination.
One thing I did learn that I think is really interesting is that the spinal cord its self learns. Responses to certain stimuli over time bypass the brain entirely. In some cases the brain is 'notified' of the stimuli-reaction 'event', but with some stimuli the brain doesn't get so much as an e-mail to let it know the stimuli-reaction 'event' took place - the routing is entirely limited to the spinal cord.
Bring on the esoteric, philosophical and/or technical talk any time. I'm ready!

