anart said:
Buddy said:
With the topic post and first few replies in mind, I offer the following:
I think a case can be made that vision is probably 10% of the actual data entering our eyes at a given moment and 90% visual memory. That might offer an insight into some examples of 'seeing with eyes closed'.
My understanding is that it's closer to 20% input from the optic nerve and 80% input from the brain, but that doesn't really detract from your point.
Thanks.
anart said:
b said:
The details of this 'case' might consist of some info Laura provides in the Wave chapter on addiction dealing with relationships between the various parts of the brain and levels of processing which includes the limbic system's involvement. Additionally, Gabor Mate is noted for describing how human infants are born pre-mature, requiring a few more years for their brain circuitry to develop.
I think these are very tenuous connections you're making, but perhaps you just need to (
concisely) explain?
A newborn infants' brain still needs much post-birth development. In learning 'machines', such as we are, the connections between internal elements (within the cerebral cortex, for example) far outnumber 'windows' (eyes and ears, for example) to the outside world. I think you are more correct than I in that roughly 20% of neural connections are direct connections to the 'windows' so to speak, while roughly 80% of the nerves connect with each other. This allows for so much of the bottom-up and top-down processing Laura described while using 'road' and superhighway' as metaphors. At least, that's what I was thinking.
anart said:
b said:
In fact, up to about 6 months old, an infant is said to be naturally able to distinguish or produce every sound in virtually every human language. Within a mere four months, however, nearly two thirds of this capacity has disappeared or been been diminished.
Do you have data to back that up, I'd be very interested in it.
There are two points to the main idea:
Jakobson (1941/1968) proposed that: (i) infants babble the sounds of all languages; (ii) there is discontinuity between babbling and first words; and (iii) phonemes are acquired in a universal order. Since then, all of these hypotheses have been rejected on empirical grounds and the importance of the prelinguistic foundations of phonology has been recognized.
However, questions about the relationship between babble and words, the timing and extent of the impact of the ambient language on early speech perception and production, and individual differences in phonological development continue to energize research.
_http://www.york.ac.uk/media/languageandlinguistics/documents/staff/publications/Velleman&Vihman%20ch%202.pdf
.
Here is the main reference I like most:
J. F. Werker and J. E. Pegg, “Infant speech perception and phonological acquisition,” in Phonological Development:
Models, Research and Implications (C. Ferguson, L. Menn, and C. Stoel-Gammon, eds.), Parkton, MD:
York Press, 1992.
_http://infantstudies.psych.ubc.ca/uploads/forms/1254849567WerkerPegg_1992.pdf (27 pages)
And here is a couple more:
Speech Perception:
Finally, yet another major finding of research on speech perception is that the ability to map the acoustic signal onto linguistic representations has its origins in the perceptual processing of early infancy (see PHONOLOGY, ACQUISITION OF). It is now known that infants come to the task of speech perception with highly sophisticated abilities to process the speech signal (for review, see Jusczyk 1995). This includes the ability to distinguish nearly all (if not all) of the phonetic contrasts used in the world's languages and the ability to categorize variants of speech sounds in a linguistically relevant manner (Eimas et al. 1971). For example, young infants will spontaneously group together instances of a given vowel (e.g., /i/) that are produced by different speakers and hence are quite distinctive acoustically (Kuhl 1979). These initial abilities of the infant to perceive speech become tuned in accord with the sound structure of the native language over the course of development, such that infants gradually change from "language-general" to "language- specific" perceivers of speech. This attunement process begins very early -- for example, within days of birth, infants show a preference for their native language (Mehler et al. 1988). It continues to unfold in a complex manner over the course of development, with major changes occurring during the first year of life (Best 1994; Jusczyk 1993; Kuhl 1993; Werker and Pegg 1992). Understanding the nature of the earliest abilities of infants to perceive speech, the way in which these abilities become tuned in the course of learning a particular language, and the role of this attunement process in the overall course of LANGUAGE ACQUISITION, remains a major challenge in the study of spoken-language processing.
_http://ai.ato.ms/MITECS/Entry/miller.html
-------
In human infants, categorical discrimination has been demonstrated as early as 1 month of age: the infants reacted as if they perceived a sudden shift in the series of phonetic (consonantal) segments along an acoustic continuum, at the same point as the adult-defined boundary between two phonemic categories. These effects have been obtained along various acoustic continuua, and it appears that infants can discriminate virtually every speech contrast used in one of the world’s languages; it also seems likely that prior to 6 months of age, infants are performing their analysis of speech sounds solely on the basis of acoustic differences, which are sufficient to permit categorical discrimination.
Investigating Phonological Representations: A Modeling Agenda
_http://www.psychology.uiowa.edu/faculty/gupta/pdf/gupta.cmss93.pdf
Other infant studies publications:
_http://infantstudies.psych.ubc.ca/research/publications
anart said:
b said:
It makes sense from the viewpoint of 'conservation' of resources,
Why would something as vastly powerful and complex as the human brain need to conserve resources in the way you seem to be suggesting? It doesn't make sense, though it is a good wiseacre.
Perhaps you're right. The meaning behind 'conservation' of resources might be better phrased as 'path of least resistance' or similar. At any rate, 'use it or lose it or bury it deeply' is what I had in mind. I would wonder why man is not already demonstrating his vast potential if something were not being conserved. Especially, seeing as how our brains can trick us into believing we can't take another step when we're extremely tired, yet, in fact, there is energy and ability available--it's just being conserved or held back.
anart said:
b said:
So, for the first few years of life, the social experience and immediate physical environment literally shapes cerebral morphology. It guides the wiring of the brain through the most intensely formative years of human life, determining, among other things, which of the brain's sections will be enlarged, and which will shrink.
I don't think it's that hard and fast and I think neuroplasticity proves that - the brain is capable of MUCH more than we know. Perhaps it's your usage of words like 'shrink' and 'die off' that is the issue - I don't think it's that linear or limited.
Perhaps the wording is the problem because neuroplasticity is a concept involved in my point as well, starting with birth.
anart said:
b said:
So, once the neural circuitry has been established and the child has been trained to see what everyone else sees and to ignore what everyone else ignores, visual memory of what has been seen before can be put to use. IOW, conservation can take over the majority of visual function too. Visual memory does not rely on the eyes being open, thus 'seeing' (to some extent) with the eyes closed.
I do think that what is not reinforced by culture (the child's family/friend/etc.) is eventually ignored and phased out, due to the necessity of psychological comfort (i.e. survival), and that is one of the reasons why so many children see what adults can no longer see. It's part of the hypnotism of this reality and falling into confluence with that false reality. I also think the brain is the key to that, since in the brain lies our reality. I just think that you're jumping to some illogical conclusions above. It's not that the brain shrinks or we don't have the hardware, it's that we "choose" to not use it and the brain's pathways conform to that choice. Of course, by "choose" I don't mean consciously, not usually at least. fwiw.
That makes sense. Basically, the paragraph you're responding to intends to indicate a link between two ideas 1) the kind of thing that happens when you visually scan your environment and fail to notice what you're looking for or fail to notice something that is different from the moment before because visual memory is filling in the gaps. 2) In the case of an eidetic memory or a vastly improved physiological condition such as what people are achieving on here which may lead to such, I suggest phenomena that appears to be 'seeing with the eyes closed, may be some kind of natural, though unaccustomed, event due to the above.
Thanks for your feedback.
