|
Post by Tamrin on Mar 15, 2012 21:10:37 GMT 10
Regardless, the question remains. Was the part of the brain learned? I suggest you are putting the cart before the horse here. An ability does not determine behaviour. Of course we cannot do what we cannot do. But that does not mean that we will do or are even inclined to do whatever we can. On the one hand, we are capable of countless behaviours which do not interest us, or which we would wish to avoid, or which would never even occur to us. On the other hand, we may well be inclined to do what we cannot (or can no longer) do.
|
|
|
Post by Tamrin on Mar 16, 2012 8:55:37 GMT 10
|
|
|
Post by brandt on Mar 16, 2012 10:31:12 GMT 10
Of course humans can learn. There is even a rumor that I learned to type. I was unaware of any researcher claiming that humans don't learn?
Having an ability does not necessarily influence behavior. Not having an ability certainly does influence behavior. You should not misunderstand where I am coming from. Evolution does not need to be proven as it stands now as the best theory for the origin of species that we have available and it has the most support. I am unlikely to disprove evolution. An experiment is not developed to support a theory. A theory provides the origin of hypotheses which are then tested.
For example, face recognition. Knowing what we know about how faces are processed in the brain and have faces are scanned by the eyes we can develop novel hypotheses that can be tested. On the same token, evolutionary theory provides for testable hypotheses. Yes, animal models are sometimes used and they are valid. There is some novel work, that is still in its early stages, about change detection. Artifacts (buildings, cars, fences etc.) elicit less attention than cows, dogs and other things like that. Starting with evolutionary theory one could predict (hypothesize) that this result would be shown. Not rocket surgery. So what does this mean? Not a lot to people that are not interested in this. It would be helpful information for a few people that I know that spend most of their time in studies of perception.
To an earlier post: I see no reason to view instincts as inflexible.
|
|
|
Post by brandt on Mar 16, 2012 10:31:48 GMT 10
I use evolutionary theory, when I do use it, as a foundation on which to develop hypotheses.
|
|
|
Post by Tamrin on Mar 16, 2012 16:53:21 GMT 10
Of course humans can learn. There is even a rumor that I learned to type. I was unaware of any researcher claiming that humans don't learn? My comment was in reference to your hounds. As for your hounds, bearing in mind that we both agree they can learn behaviours...
|
|
|
Post by Tamrin on Mar 16, 2012 16:56:26 GMT 10
Having an ability does not necessarily influence behavior. Not having an ability certainly does influence behavior. Where we have an ability we have a choice.
|
|
|
Post by Tamrin on Mar 16, 2012 17:01:06 GMT 10
For example, face recognition. Recognition of faces or whatever is not a behaviour.
|
|
|
Post by Tamrin on Mar 16, 2012 17:04:47 GMT 10
To an earlier post: I see no reason to view instincts as inflexible. Can you suggest a non-colloquial, working definition of "instinct" on which we might agree?
|
|
|
Post by Tamrin on Mar 16, 2012 17:07:03 GMT 10
I use evolutionary theory, when I do use it, as a foundation on which to develop hypotheses. I am glad to hear it is applicable to evolutionary psychology.
|
|
|
Post by Smithee on Mar 16, 2012 20:10:52 GMT 10
I am not well schooled on the neuroscience side of things but a close friend of mine is and I generally go to him to hear about some of the most recent work and even the classic works so that I can get a better understanding. Ask him about instincts and the Hypothalamus and its relationship to the Cerebral Cortex which is especially developed in humans.
|
|