fromderinside
Mazzie Daius
- Joined
- Oct 6, 2008
- Messages
- 15,945
- Basic Beliefs
- optimist
It seems to me that in some models (perhaps those where it is said that, for example, 'the mind only has access to what the eyes provide for it') there is a tendency to explain processes in a very linear, uni-directional way ('in one end, out the other') which tends to involve saying that whatever inputs arrive at the organism externally are what are eventually processed, and by implication that nothing else but those external inputs is being processed. I might call this a 'brain as a camera' model.
FDI wrote
The nervous system has access to color information as the result of light passing through specific bandwidth frequencies of light before language is present for the person to express her choice of sense value. Plenty of time to build a color library. Even one that is accessed inappropriately. So until you have measures from individuals through other than vocal or written modes you have no evidence. Actually I think synesthesia is an interpretation problem in association NS.
As one who believes the human is an evolved being it would be ludicrous for me to presume that some construction of a color library would not already be in place at birth. Two very obvious reasons that is probably so without need to reference literature. Brains are known to be active prior to birth. I once mentioned Donald Lindsey on site. I invited him to visit FSU when I was Psychobiology Fellow in 1975. As you may know he was first to recorded EEG from (his soo) a fetus in 1938- OK so that's evidence. Second the visual system is known to be active prior to birth. So it would be stupid to presume I'd believe otherwise, since it is possible such changes took place before even that through normal taking advantage of mutation evolutionary processes.
My complaint centers on one making claims using unknown attributes as Synesthesia indicates. One would need evidence at least as strong as that for Williams syndrome to rule in prenatal existence of capabilities and conditions. So Skepticalbib who has intellectual heartburn claims hand waving. Please don't compound the insult by making other ad hoc judgements based on his over the fence statements which lack support.
Ah ruby sparkes' "given the sheer awesome complexity of the trillions of crisscrossing interconnections, feedback loops and waves of activity" stare at the night sky and wonder approach. Except it isn't a wonder thing. It's mostly a determined thing that owes it's design to successful application and modification of it's abilities and functions through time. You see trillions, I see hundreds, maybe 10s even. Knowledge is a creeping thing. Having it makes connections while those who only look see chaos and mystery.
BTW one can be a hard over input-output gee while still being un-stupid enough to demand or provide evidence. It all comes down to what in and what out. Look at what's being done with the Standard Model.
I marvel at the way you take your intentions and weave them in to support your position. Foam on fluff. Impressive.
I think I'm being a bit over the top here. Sorry.
Last edited: