The Responsive Brain (In: videorespbrain.ws) 1. Key terms: Reciprocal, Feed-forward, Feed-back, Behavior, Modify, physical and psychological stress, learning, maze, Enrichment and deprivation, Plasticity, Perception. From the behaving brain video: please remember learn, scopalomine, physiostingmine, acetylocholine, dendrite, soma, axon, transmitter, and the descriptions of how brain Anatomical structures contain INHERENT behaviors). Those structures common to both videos include brain stem, hippocampus, amygdale and cortex.
Novel terms and definitions
Please take notes in margin where needed: 2. Overview:
a. Brain executes behavior (feed-forwara) that modifies brain structure and
the effort and efficiency to execute future behaviors (feed-back). b. Internal modification of behavior: relationship to memory and the concept of Apriori origin of behavior.
C. The relationship between the Storage of the consequences of actions on the execution of future acts and development of behavior and mental processes.
The role that the Concept of error correction has on energy expended during performance of behavior.
e. Selective advantage that these items might provide.
The relationship these items have with natural selection and ability to survive and reproduce.
g. Please attend to the micro-macro, physical-psychological organization of the examples in the video.
- Examples illustrating the above topics. Please note that the types of observation included naturalistic and laboratory setting, and initial state and manipulated states were described.
a. Field (Miami U): Premature babies in Intensive Care Unit. Hypothesis: Physical Touch stimulation adjusts neural growth and future cognitive development. Independent variable: infants that do and do not receive massage: Dependent variable: brain weight, alertness, cognitive abilfty. Finding: Massage increased brain activity to 8 months after end of experiment.
Sample Solution
Most Scientists and Philosophers of science have rejected Popperâs Technique. They contended that Popperâs distortion hypothesis is counterproductive to science. Thomas Kuhn rejected falsifiability on the ground that speculations of contending ideal models are incommensurable; and if the acknowledgment, or disappointment of hypotheses relies on upon misrepresentation, that would be the end of science. Since all hypotheses contain irregularities. Lakatos rejected falsifiability on the ground that all exploratory examination programmed at any period of progression have unsolved issue and undigested irregularities. Quine-Duhem challenged mutilation since it is hard to test a singular hypothesis isolated, subsequent to everybody comes as a part of a circumstance of speculations. Feyerabend protested misrepresentation since speculations are incommensurable because of the absence of semantic identicalness between terms utilized by the hypotheses. Thus, the main rule that can be shielded under all circumstances is the standard of anything goes. Sokal and Bricmont rejected distortion on the ground that speculations are utilized in light of their prosperity, not as a result of their disappointment of different hypotheses. An incredible number of scientists have also addressed debasement since it is not generally possible to display deception totally, especially in case one is using quantifiable criteria to evaluate an invalid hypothesis. Popper was likewise blamed for being a cynic since he asserts that; we can never know reality, yet we can just get nearer to it. For him, our whole information case is speculative or approximated in nature. At last, Popperâs falsification calls for cooperation and contention of musings we ought to make sense of how to participate amid the time spent making considerations and criticism them without constraint. It goes against all manners autocracy of knowledge. CONCLUSION At this point I begin my personal evaluation and conclusion with the famous verse made by Xenophanes who gave Popper certain level of certainty to move on with his Philosophical Project: The divine beings did not uncover, from the earliest starting point, All things to us; yet over the span of time, Through looking for we may learn, and know things better However with respect to certain truth, no man has known it, Nor will he know it; neither of the divine beings, Nor yet of the considerable number of things of which I talk. Furthermore, regardless of the fact that by chance he were to absolute the ideal truth, he would himself not know it; for all is but rather a web of estimates. I strongly support Popperâs position that scientific theories are conjectural in nature or assumed speculations and will ever remain so; this is a direct result of their interminable degree in connection to the finitude of human knowledge. Most importantly, Popper was right in holding the primacy >
Most Scientists and Philosophers of science have rejected Popperâs Technique. They contended that Popperâs distortion hypothesis is counterproductive to science. Thomas Kuhn rejected falsifiability on the ground that speculations of contending ideal models are incommensurable; and if the acknowledgment, or disappointment of hypotheses relies on upon misrepresentation, that would be the end of science. Since all hypotheses contain irregularities. Lakatos rejected falsifiability on the ground that all exploratory examination programmed at any period of progression have unsolved issue and undigested irregularities. Quine-Duhem challenged mutilation since it is hard to test a singular hypothesis isolated, subsequent to everybody comes as a part of a circumstance of speculations. Feyerabend protested misrepresentation since speculations are incommensurable because of the absence of semantic identicalness between terms utilized by the hypotheses. Thus, the main rule that can be shielded under all circumstances is the standard of anything goes. Sokal and Bricmont rejected distortion on the ground that speculations are utilized in light of their prosperity, not as a result of their disappointment of different hypotheses. An incredible number of scientists have also addressed debasement since it is not generally possible to display deception totally, especially in case one is using quantifiable criteria to evaluate an invalid hypothesis. Popper was likewise blamed for being a cynic since he asserts that; we can never know reality, yet we can just get nearer to it. For him, our whole information case is speculative or approximated in nature. At last, Popperâs falsification calls for cooperation and contention of musings we ought to make sense of how to participate amid the time spent making considerations and criticism them without constraint. It goes against all manners autocracy of knowledge. CONCLUSION At this point I begin my personal evaluation and conclusion with the famous verse made by Xenophanes who gave Popper certain level of certainty to move on with his Philosophical Project: The divine beings did not uncover, from the earliest starting point, All things to us; yet over the span of time, Through looking for we may learn, and know things better However with respect to certain truth, no man has known it, Nor will he know it; neither of the divine beings, Nor yet of the considerable number of things of which I talk. Furthermore, regardless of the fact that by chance he were to absolute the ideal truth, he would himself not know it; for all is but rather a web of estimates. I strongly support Popperâs position that scientific theories are conjectural in nature or assumed speculations and will ever remain so; this is a direct result of their interminable degree in connection to the finitude of human knowledge. Most importantly, Popper was right in holding the primacy >
