= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
thomblake comments on Inhibition and the Mind - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (29)
Seems like it would be hard to test. You looking for a long-term bet?
Bald assertion here
I think it will have to be long-term. I'll even make a more general hypothesis that this applies to all infant reflexes of all species: for any reflex that can reappear in the adult under abnormal circumstances, the system producing it is a functioning part of the healthy adult.
What are some examples of observations or conclusions that would lead to you winning this bet? Likewise losing.
Good question. A candidate for deciding the bet would arise if:
Someone investigates some infant reflex in some species, that reappears in the adult under reproducible abnormal circumstances.
They physically locate the mechanism producing it in both cases and demonstrate it to be the mechanism, and the same mechanism in each case, not just a chance mimicry.
They examine that mechanism in the healthy adult.
Then I lose if it is present but having no effect, which might be demonstrated by excising it.
I win if it is found to be a functional part of the nervous system with an identifiable function.
Bet to be decided by the first such candidate that comes to the betters' attention.