SpaceBanter.com - View Single Post

Kali

In article z1UKf.441837$qk4.430985@bgtnsc05-
news.ops.worldnet.att.net, posted Wed, 22 Feb 2006 07:03:59
GMT, Dr. Why says...

"Kali" wrote in message
.. .
In article _L6Kf.428442$qk4.333241@bgtnsc05-
news.ops.worldnet.att.net, posted Sun, 19 Feb 2006 23:00:10
GMT, Dr. Why says...

"Kali" wrote in message
.. .
In article Wm3Kf.41820$id5.19657@bgtnsc04-
news.ops.worldnet.att.net, posted Sun, 19 Feb 2006 19:08:38
GMT, Dr. Why says...

[...]

Please be more specific, Kali.
I have read all the websites and found nothing to indicate that I'm
believed
to be incorrect.
Perhaps I missed something?

Please provide evidence for your claim that "humans are
...genetically fearless human beings".

Okay, I shall provide evidence, but please be patient now as I have other
duties that must come first.

Take your time.

I've provided references to a body of evidence that contradicts
your claim. Look up "visual cliff" experiments with 6 month old
infants, in which they fear a perceived drop-off. They didn't
learn to feel the fear, it is innate. In other words, we are
hard wired to experience fear. It is important to our survival.
If you say that we are genetically fearless, then you'll need to
back up your statement with sound reasoning about evidence.

[...]

As usual, you and others are mistaking fear for something else.
Assume for the moment that I'm correct, please, Kali.
If they indeed are noting fear in these 6-mo. old infants incorrectly,
what
else could it be?

Would you like a hint?

Actually, something straightforward would be nice for a change.
But okay.

Drop a live mouse in a deep tub of water.
It scrambles in an attempt to escape drowning, and it eventually gives
up.
As you may say, though not yet dead, it has resigned itself to its fate.

Exhaustion is resignation to one's fate?

If you provided an example of a field mouse being chased by a
cat, who "plays dead", you might have something interesting.
Animals of prey will do this. Do *you* know why? Want a hint?

Now you reach in and save the mouse, let it run around a bit, then toss
it
back in the tub.
What is the difference in the way the mouse behaves from its first
attempt
to escape the tub?

You tell me.

Figure out why the mouse gave up the first time, and you will know what
the
infants are really feeling.

Exhaustion? Helplessness? What does this have to do with infants
who will instinctively avoid a visual cliff?

Don't believe me?

Actually, I'm having trouble understanding how you are putting
things together. There is an assumption that you seem to have
made about a 2nd trial stressed rat that I wouldn't make, and
then you suggest it has something to do with infants in the
visual cliff experiment. And I really, really don't know how any
of this suggests that "humans are genetically programmed to be
fearless."

Conduct the infant experiment yourself, but this time, after "saving" the
infant, subject the infant once more to the visual cliff.
You will note the same difference in behavior that you noted in the
mouse.

And the difference is? Just leave the infant out and tell me
what you think the mouse does. The rats I've worked with, when
they are put in water over several trials, generally behave the
same way; they swim and swim and swim until you take them out.
If we left them in, I imagine they'd become exhausted and drown
after a while.
Dr. Why

Kali
--
A bore is simply a nonentity who resents his humble lot in life,
and seeks satisfaction for his wounded ego by forcing himself on
his betters. - H. L. Mencken

It's obvious to me that you've been playin' wif me.

We'll see who's been playin'...

If you are indeed into neuroscience, which I doubt, then it must be at the
most rudimentary level.
No matter, Kali, because things have changed.

I was just speaking with Darla, and she reminded me of one of our
directives.
If humans already have evidence for something, and they are presently just
misinterpreting the evidence, then we can only guide you.
We cannot "silver platter" it for you.

Darla, this is B.S. You know it. I know it. Let's stay in the
real world just a little while longer before you trot off into a
coma with a Virgo

In the case of the mouse, the first time in the water and the mouse gives
up, feels helpless, long, long before it becomes exhausted.
But you take the mouse out, then put it back in the water, and it won't stop
trying to escape until it becomes completely and totally exhausted.
Because the second time it knows something it did not know the first time:
there just might be a chance, however tiny, to escape.
If you were truly into neuroscience, you would have known about this long
tried and true experiment.
It's a classic.

"If you were truly into neuroscience..."

I think the problem here is in how we each define fear. My
definition of fear is operational, and involves ANS response,
amygdala, etc. So to me, fearlessness is about the absence of
this response. You seem to be talking about perseverance in the
presence of fear. The mouse is indeed experiencing a fearful
state, Darla. And humans persevere in spite of their fear. This
is not fearlessness, only an observation of apparent
fearlessness. It is a literary definition, not a scientific
definition.

As for the fearless gene, you already have the platter and it's not silver.
The evidence is there before you easily found and just as easily
misinterpreted.
Your science found this evidence without any help, but has not yet realized
its significance.

The fearless gene. If I hadn't given you the benefit of the
doubt, I would have stomped on this fast and hard at the get-go.
But I went along with you, assuming you had overstated your
knowledge, and that through discussion I could come to
understand your point of view and your definitions, and let you
off the hook politely.

It is still my wish to let you off the hook politely. But I do
resent your allegations.

When it comes to fear, you're just going to have to go back and begin at the
beginning.
And stop judging observations and experimental results through a veil of
fear.
This is the greatest human barrier of all.

Stop projecting your fear onto others. Well, hell. First, define
"fear" in Darla World.

On a brighter note, we will be out of your hair soon.
Our study of individual human behaviour has reached another milestone, and
it is time to move on.

You're so human.

We will be ending our presence in alt.astronomy soon.
I will try to talk to as many as possible individually, and also to post a
goodbye message.

Darla and Pom will return in the Spring hopefully to initiate official
global contact.

We all need to take a break from Usenet now and then.

And Darla may want to post a few thoughts at that time.

So goodbye, Kali, and whether or not you're truly into neuroscience,

I'm really into it, although it's not my main line of research.
I've had a couple of graduate courses in neuroscience recently,
and have done some research in this area.

When you said that you are a student of neuroscience, I was
naturally interested, and naively hoped you weren't bluffing. As
we've gone along, I have become aware that this so-called
"fearlessness gene" and your theories on human fear are not
grounded in science, but are products of your own musing. And
that is okay, I suppose. What you do seem to know crosses over
into your make believe world and then gets lost.

You make cryptic references to old studies that have been
replicated many times and reinterpreted, you refuse to provide
evidence or references that I might follow up on, and you duck
out of discussion when you are called on to define your terms
and support your theory.

And then, ironically, you suggest that I have been stringing you
along. Who is stringing who along? What did you mean when you
said that you are a student of neuroscience? Did you mean that
in the literary sense, more along the lines of "enjoy reading
about it..."?

You suggest that if I really have studied neuroscience, then I
would have known what you were talking about. There are so very
many (scores! hundreds, even?!) of studies that use mice and
water as a stressor. If *you* were a student of neuroscience you
would know this, and you would know better than to expect
*anyone* to guess which one you were talking about, going off
"fearlessness" as a clue.

I do
still consider you to be one of the smartest people I've met.
(Well, you DID take notice of my "extraordinary talent", didn't you? G)

I think you're smart, too. Enjoy your coma-Virgo fantasies.

Yubiwan

Kali
--
Reason can answer questions, but imagination has to ask them.
- Ralph Gerard