In Reply to: RE: False equivalence posted by Charles Hansen on November 20, 2017 at 08:15:45:
It's OK - even though I didn't say it, I've heard the same differences between wood species . . .
I rather guessed you might have. My point however is that one should respond only to what was said in an argument, not what one assumes [wants to assume] was said. Easier said than done but pertinent for all that.
Also I met a man who had been blinded for about 6 months. During that time his other senses became sensitive to amazing degrees - for example, he could tell how many people were in a room from sensing their body heat on his cheeks.
What fascinates me about the phenomenon is that there is no evidence (or, more accurately, in my long-ago day there wasn't) to suggest that the other senses perform better when "filling in" for a damaged one. IOW, the improvement is perceptual, not sensory; the "new" information was always available to but was hitherto unused by the brain . In reality, your man's senses were in all probability performing poorer than they were several years earlier but the percept was nevertheless much richer.
Funny things, brains.
We're a long way from the OP's topic . . .
D
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Follow Ups
- RE: False equivalence - Ryelands 11/20/1709:00:33 11/20/17 (1)
- RE: False equivalence - Charles Hansen 09:49:17 11/21/17 (0)