Xref: utzoo sci.psychology:223 rec.birds:536 sci.bio:1094
Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!husc6!mailrus!ames!amdahl!drivax!braun
From: braun@drivax.UUCP (Kral)
Newsgroups: sci.psychology,rec.birds,sci.bio
Subject: Re: Intelligent Parrots, or Self-deception and Gullibility.
Message-ID: <3339@drivax.UUCP>
Date: 14 Apr 88 21:26:37 GMT
References: <1988Mar4.162334.18184@utzoo.uucp> <4299@blia.BLI.COM> <1988Mar9.132722.3364@mntgfx.mentor.com> <2495@geac.UUCP> <2535@saturn.ucsc.edu> <762@actnyc.UUCP> <2231@ttidca.TTI.COM> <2550@geac.UUCP> <2282@ttidca.TTI.COM>
Reply-To: braun@drivax.UUCP (Kral)
Organization: Digital Research, Inc.
Lines: 35

In article <2282@ttidca.TTI.COM> hollombe@ttidcb.tti.com (The Polymath) writes:
>I'm beginning to see that "hard-wired" is a poor choice of metaphor when
>dealing with the brain.  In a sense, the brain programs itself by changing
>its "wiring", so anything it does can be called hard-wired.  I think the
>original intent was to define instinct as behaviors hard-wired at birth,
>requiring no further training.  The nature of the brain is such that
>proper stimulus may elicit a learned behavior.


I agree somewhat.  Did anyone see the PBS special on the brain broadcast a
couple of weeks ago?  There was a great experiment where (gee, I wish I could
remember details, like *names*) brain tissue was excited to generate a current
between neurons.  As the current was produced, the path between the neurons
(help me out with names here) became more efficient at carrying the current,
and the neurons changed to, all to facilitate 'message carrying' on that
'path'.  The implications relative to this topic are (in my opinion) this:
Some paths are already established at birth.  Others are not.  Some beings are
more capable of making these paths more effecient (learning), others not.  So
it seems to me we are just talking about a matter of degrees, and 'hardwired'
now seems to mean the inability to change, rather than just an inate or
apriori-learned action.

(Another neat experiment was performed on an epileptic which had had the two
halves of his brain disconnected.  If he saw a picture with two objects, his
left hand could only draw the picture on one side, his right hand could only
cope with the other image -- other details about how he represented the image
reflect on the analytic vs artistic functions of the two halves.)

etc.


-- 
kral 	408/647-6112			...{ism780|amdahl}!drivax!braun
		Think Globally   ...  Act Locally
DISCLAIMER: If DRI knew I was saying this stuff, they would shut me d~-~oxx