Thought some of you might find this interesting, it is from the book titled Bounce, written by Matthew Syed. It is an interesting read if you have the time, along the same lines as Talent Code but is written from a different prespective, and I think parts explain what happens with deliberate practice a little better. Here you go:
As psychologist Richard Gregory, who has conducted some of the most pioneering research on illusions, puts it: “Bottom-up sensory information is overridden by top-down knowledge.” The role played by top-down knowledge can be seen in the “plumbing” of perception: in the case of vision, there are more downward fibers from the cortex to the brain’s relay stations than there are bottom-up from the eyes. So when we look at, say, a face, there is more data traveling downward from the knowledge areas of our brains than traveling upward from our eyes. Perception is what happens when the two interact.
This is, of course, deeply counterintuitive. After all, how does the brain “know” what information to send downstream in response to upstream sensory data in order to create a meaningful perception? This is a question that neuroscientists continue to grapple with. What is known is that the process is extraordinarily complex, with the visual system containing an extensive web of feedback connections projecting from higher cortical areas to lower areas. What would the perception of faces be like without top-down knowledge?
We can get an idea from the remarkable cases where blind people gain sight late in life. Sidney Bradford, a British man, developed sight at the age of fifty-two after receiving corneal grafts at the Wolverhampton and Midland Counties Eye Infirmary. Here is how researchers reported his experience when he looked at the face of his surgeon after the bandages were removed: He heard a voice coming from in front of him and to one side: he turned to the source of the sound, and saw a “blur.” He realized that this must be a face. Upon careful questioning, he seemed to think that he would not have known that this was a face if he had not previously heard the voice and known that voices came from faces.
That’s right: When Bradford looked at a face, he saw a blur. He had access to the same visual information as everyone else (the light entering his retina was identical, as was the retinal image), but he saw it differently because he lacked the knowledge—drawn from experience—to mold the sensory data into a meaningful form. Even after a few months, Bradford was unable to recognize people through vision alone, even when meeting them for the third or fourth time. Instead, he had to rely on acoustic information such as tone of voice.
Also, I found an article which goes into great detail on the top-down predictions made by the brain. It is found here:
Top-down predictions in the cognitive brain
Ckeller14,
Another very interesting theory but I don't think that it is quite for what I am after.
I am not trying to find out how the processing occurs, if there is some type of pattern recognition scheme at work, if there are complicated feed back loops operating in the brain, or if there is sophisticated interaction with stored visual information. I know it is all quite complicated and indeed very fascinating.
In quantum mechanics one also keeps digging deeper and deeper and it just gets so complicated that even a science fiction author could not have invented it all, even after emptying several bottles of scotch. The same is likely happening with the many studies concerning the investigation of the senses and the operation of the brain.
I am asking myself the question do we have a clue how my neurons inside the confines of my skull produce these magnificent images in space around and outside of me. Therefore, essentially, what is the link from the neurons to these images and thus not the link form the images to the neurons.
Hence not how photons are
processed by the eyes and brain but how an image is
created by the brain. If one speculates there to be perhaps some type of awareness at work than how to explain how animals can see, which I presume don't possibly have this awareness.
Below, very, very schematically how any image processing equipment operates.
Process 1 -The input information, photons, are transformed into an image with lenses on some processing substrate. The processed decomposed image information is stored on a suitable medium.
Process 2 – The stored decomposed image information is re-generated as an image with suitable optical equipment.
If we look at our sense of sight it is easy to identify the equivalent of process1 - Photons, image formation, transformation and storage. But where is the equivalent action of process2 ?
I had a quick look on Amazon and read some pages in the introduction of David Chalmers' "The Conscious Mind: In Search of a Fundamental Theory" and looked at the reviews and it appears that he is exploring avenues much closer to my basic question.
It is only by asking these seemingly obvious questions that one realizes to what extend traditional science is somewhat pompous with its claims. By producing more and more details it might appear that we understand things. But do we really?
There are already interesting theories developed since some time which go beyond the traditional science approach. For instance, Karl Pribram or David Bohm with their holographic type mind body models or a Rupert Sheldrake's with his interesting morphogenetic's field theory.
