--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "James F. Newell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Stu, > > But if you are a responsible scientist, then you do have a > responsibility to try to disconfirm the theory with specifid data and > logic. That is the way science is supposed to work. One person gives > his theory, with specific data and logic, not opinion, and then other > people try to disconfirm it, using specific data and logic relating to > the data and logic of the scientist who first proposed the theory. > Either the theory can be disconfirmed or it can't, but the process of > challenging a theory requires sincere, good quality work. > > To just say that in your opinion, a theory with data and logic is not > true, is to really say nothing at all. >
I thought I was very clear and gave a number of references to current articles on visual processing that contradict the 90's era model you have been using. To summarize: 1. Visual processing is non-linear. Roughly like parallel processing concurrent with serial processing (this is an over simplification). 2. The optic nerve carries signals to two parts of the brain, first the Brain stem which cues unconscious reactions. The other signal moves to some 30 area of the brain for deeper analysis. 3. A fair amount of visual processing (faces for example) are "pre-programed" in template-like structures. This reduces the need for number-crunching as your model suggests. 4. Child development experts have observed many visual processes that develop as the physical brain develops. Baby's are not born with skills to be learned. As pathways develop visual processing develops. You argue some sort of apriori skills that a baby necessarily must have to analyze raw visual data. Even though this argument is flawed, it does not automatically suggest apriori knowledge from past lives. A better explanation of these "skills" would be coded in the genetics of past generations. Theoretically and logically yours, s.
