BBC's Horizon edition on neural plasticity

[Ken Natton]

Well, with some degree of uncertainty that this thread is going to start any kind of conversation that could go anywhere – I am not really posing any questions, I’m not sure if it is proscribed or even intended that all threads should start with a question – I wanted to mention something I saw on television, because I found it to be so extraordinary.

In my own experience, one of the most talked about chapters in all of Dawkins contentious writings is the second chapter in The Blind Watchmaker when he describes in meticulous detail, exactly how bats evolved the ability to use echolocation and just how sophisticated and complicated an ability it is. At the heart of his exposition is the point that, though they use sound not light, the bats use that sound to build an image of the world around them in exactly the same way that we use light through our eyes to do the same thing. For me, it remains one of the most fascinating passages I have ever read.

In the latest edition of the BBC’s flagship science program Horizon, broadcast last night here in the UK, what was under consideration was something called neural plasticity. It was demonstrated that our senses are more intrinsically interlinked than we perhaps realize, by showing how one sense can be fooled by data coming from another sense. Of course this is a hopeless over-simplification of the point, one of the key points was just how minor is the role of the eye in image building, for example, The eye just provides the brain with a little bit of raw data, the great majority of the work in building an image from that data is something that happens entirely in the brain.

The thing that I found so astonishing was when they introduced us to Daniel. Daniel is, I think, an American, but they did not mention exactly where he is from. He lost one eye at the age of seven months and the second eye at the age of thirteen months, both to tumours. So, though he was not exactly blind from birth, he has, he told us, no visual memories whatever. But Daniel has learned to echolocate. They showed him cycling along a winding path through the trees in some park somewhere, happily taking in the atmosphere around him in a very relaxed way, all the time gently clicking his tongue, quite comfortably negotiating his way along the path and by walkers coming in the opposite direction. Now Daniel is human, so the simple truth is that he does not have the highly sophisticated equipment that a bat has, and that Dawkins describes in such a detailed way. But through MRI scans taken on Daniel’s brain, they demonstrated that he really is building an image of the world around him with his clicking tongue.

And one of the most wonderful moments was when the scientist working with Daniel, a man who had spent more than twenty years researching echolocation in bats, described meeting Daniel as like being given the opportunity to talk to bats.

 

[nobahar]

There's an article on wiki about Human echolocation.
Human echolocation is probably no where near as good as that which bats have. Hence there's a market for the development and sale of devices to aid in this form of navigation, etc.
I'm not really sure what the reference to Dawkin's work was for, you seem to be suggesting that relatively rudimenatry human echoloctaion is somehow confutes the evolutionary explanation of echolocation in bats described by Dawkins.
Whatever the case, it is interesting, and I've seen a programme on this before. It may well be the same one, the BBC has the unacceptable habit of replaying programmes, constantly.

 

[bobze]

There's an article on wiki about Human echolocation.
Human echolocation is probably no where near as good as that which bats have. Hence there's a market for the development and sale of devices to aid in this form of navigation, etc.
I'm not really sure what the reference to Dawkin's work was for, you seem to be suggesting that relatively rudimenatry human echoloctaion is somehow confutes the evolutionary explanation of echolocation in bats described by Dawkins.
Whatever the case, it is interesting, and I've seen a programme on this before. It may well be the same one, the BBC has the unacceptable habit of replaying programmes, constantly.

I think the point about the Dawkins article, was the relative plasticity of the brain (all brain, but especially the mammalian) is the reason that different senses can evolve in different lineage.

Think about it. If brains were very sensory rigid structures, there would be no chance a new sensory mechanism or way of "viewing" the world could evolve, because such a mechanism would need to de novo, come together at once. Not to turn this into a "creation/evolution" thing, but that is what proponents of ID propose evolution can't do.

And what we actually see, is brains are adaptive (highly so), perhaps even better to use there (since adaptation has a specific definition in biology) is brains are acclimatable to a degree that very few appreciate.

It has been known, but is less well understood (in both the predominance of it and the exact mechanistic occurrence) that modifiable behaviors with genetic dispositions can precede functional evolutionary change. Dawkins is fond of using the fishing bear (a behavior that can be dispositioned via genetics as a plasticity of the brain) one day evolving to an aquatic mammal (physiological evolution of form and function).

Certainly interesting stuff with implications (both evolutionary and application of science, namely to medicine) we are just starting to unravel.

Good post Ken.

 

[nobahar]

To go off topic a little: Ken, which Dawkins books have you read? I have read The Selfish Gene, The Extended Phenotype, and River Out Of Eden. I was hoping for some advice on which one of his books to read next. What would be your suggestion? I did not like River Out Of Eden anywhere near as much as the other two (although they are really rather good), mainly because it was too brief and wide ranging.
(Apologies for my assumption that you were refuting evolution.)

 

[Rasalhague]

The thing that I found so astonishing was when they introduced us to Daniel. Daniel is, I think, an American, but they did not mention exactly where he is from. He lost one eye at the age of seven months and the second eye at the age of thirteen months, both to tumours. So, though he was not exactly blind from birth, he has, he told us, no visual memories whatever. But Daniel has learned to echolocate.

I'm sure there's enough information in there for Google to identify him, but just in case, his full name is Daniel Kish.

 

[Ken Natton]

Now you see, I thought there was the makings of a worthwhile conversation in there somewhere. Thanks for the responses.

The point of the Dawkins reference, I suppose, was because Dawkins’ own point was to completely dismantle the old anti-evolutionary chestnut ‘irreducible complexity’ by showing, on the one hand, just how complex and sophisticated bat echolocation is, but also, on the other hand, just how possible it is for it to have evolved by the steady accumulation of small adaptations. That might lead you to think it impossible for someone, within the span of a single human childhood, to learn to do the same thing, but here it was being demonstrated to us that someone had. That does not, for one moment, mean that I am suggesting that any flaws in Dawkins’ argument are thus demonstrated. It means that there is a further, deeper lesson about the evolved capabilities of the brain that then impinge on our understanding of how it evolved in bats. One of the great favourites of the ‘irreducible complexity’ brigade is the eye, and at the heart of their argument is that the ability of the eye to detect light is no use without the ability of the brain to understand what that light information means. But here we were seeing that what is evolved is not so much the specific ability to interpret image data coming from the eye, but the fundamental ability to take any sensory input data and, well, to make sense of it. And to learn how to make sense of it very quickly without the need of thousands of generations of development.

Here’s a couple of other things they demonstrated on the same program. There is a team of researchers in Germany who have developed a belt. The belt is worn around the waist by the experimental subject and has a series of vibrating pads to give sensory input to the subject. These vibrating pads are connected to a device that is sensitive to the earth’s magnetic field. And the key point is that no effort is made by the researchers to teach the experimental subject how to understand the signals coming from the belt. Neither does the subject make any particular effort to figure it out for himself or herself. All they do is wear it for a while. Then the researchers blindfold them, disorient them and lead them away to some unknown point, and then leave them and watch them find their way back to their start point like a homing pigeon.

The other one is perhaps even more impressive, and involves US Army helicopter pilots. One of their key problems in Afghanistan, when they fly into make a speedy evacuation of casualties, is that as they attempt to land, the rotors throw up so much dust that it becomes impossible to see to make a safe landing. So a group of scientists and engineers have developed a system again using vibratory pads, but this time a good deal more complex. Some operate under the pilot’s thighs where he sits, some operate at his waist, others on his chest. The pads, of course, are linked to various sensors that provide him with all kinds of data about the dynamic situation of the aircraft. Again there is no particular effort to formally teach the pilot how to use this sensory input data, all he does is spends a good few hours in a flight simulator while wearing the vibratory pads. And quite soon he develops the ability to make a perfectly safe landing, blindfolded.

And the final critical point, when I have experienced so much resistance to my contention that human intelligence is so many times greater than that of any other species, is that it is abundantly clear that this ability is not unique to humans. Indeed, it is fairly universal among animal species.

 

[Ken Natton]

To go off topic a little: Ken, which Dawkins books have you read?

Hmmm, perhaps an extensive review of the various titles by Dawkins would be better on a dedicated thread on the science book forum. I have not actually read many of Dawkins' books, but I will make this broad point. It is clear that he is the arch polemicist, and even for those of us who accept his arguments, there are times when his tone does become a little too hectoring. Understand, I do not underestimate the value of his writing, there is a wealth of significant insight contained within them. I have no doubt, the widespread strength of response to that chapter about echolocation in bats actually has nothing to do with the evolution debate. It is quite simply deeply fascinating in and of itself. But, at risk of over selling him, I would draw a contrast with that man I have mentioned a few times on the forum, Sean Carroll. Even he does give vent to his frustration with the anti-evolutionists, but for the most part, Carroll's books are exercises in unadulterated positivity. They are every bit as fascinating and provide great insight, not just into the science itself, but also into the work of the scientists.

 

[Ken Natton]

I'm sure there's enough information in there for Google to identify him, but just in case, his full name is Daniel Kish.

I wasn't necessarily seeking to provide a specific identity for him. I certainly wouldn't like to be responsible for inviting intrusions on his privacy - perhaps it is a little too paranoid to think that I would by talking about him here. It is just somehow helpful sometimes to place a vague idea on his general locale, just for a little context I suppose.

 

[nobahar]

Hmmm, perhaps an extensive review of the various titles by Dawkins would be better on a dedicated thread on the science book forum.

Yes, my apologies. Admittedly it was a little off topic. I will have a look for Sean Carroll though, haven't heard of him before; it sounds more general science, however, as oppose to evolution. I can understand some degree of frustration from evolutionary biologists, when people keep insisting evolution isn't true...

 

[Upisoft]

And the final critical point, when I have experienced so much resistance to my contention that human intelligence is so many times greater than that of any other species, is that it is abundantly clear that this ability is not unique to humans. Indeed, it is fairly universal among animal species.

I think that the intelligence is the ability to create different virtual realities in your brain and then analyze them. The animal spices universally have the ability to create virtual reality in sync with their sensory inputs, i.e. to make picture of the world, and then to analyze it.

It is obvious that individuals will grow different sense organs. Even in a single individual in the process of growing up the sense organs change. i.e. children have smaller eyes with smaller separation in between. Thus it is no surprise that the brain must be able to adapt. It probably adapts all the time. Last time I've experienced adaptation was when I got my last glasses. It took me about 2 weeks to adapt.

 

[Rasalhague]

I wasn't necessarily seeking to provide a specific identity for him. I certainly wouldn't like to be responsible for inviting intrusions on his privacy - perhaps it is a little too paranoid to think that I would by talking about him here. It is just somehow helpful sometimes to place a vague idea on his general locale, just for a little context I suppose.

I just meant "Google to identify" in these sense of finding web pages with further information about his abilities, and clips on YouTube of other programs that he's appeared on.

 

[rhody]

Well, with some degree of uncertainty that this thread is going to start any kind of conversation that could go anywhere – I am not really posing any questions, I’m not sure if it is proscribed or even intended that all threads should start with a question – I wanted to mention something I saw on television, because I found it to be so extraordinary.

In my own experience, one of the most talked about chapters in all of Dawkins contentious writings is the second chapter in The Blind Watchmaker when he describes in meticulous detail, exactly how bats evolved the ability to use echolocation and just how sophisticated and complicated an ability it is. At the heart of his exposition is the point that, though they use sound not light, the bats use that sound to build an image of the world around them in exactly the same way that we use light through our eyes to do the same thing. For me, it remains one of the most fascinating passages I have ever read.

In the latest edition of the BBC’s flagship science program Horizon, broadcast last night here in the UK, what was under consideration was something called neural plasticity. It was demonstrated that our senses are more intrinsically interlinked than we perhaps realize, by showing how one sense can be fooled by data coming from another sense. Of course this is a hopeless over-simplification of the point, one of the key points was just how minor is the role of the eye in image building, for example, The eye just provides the brain with a little bit of raw data, the great majority of the work in building an image from that data is something that happens entirely in the brain.

The thing that I found so astonishing was when they introduced us to Daniel. Daniel is, I think, an American, but they did not mention exactly where he is from. He lost one eye at the age of seven months and the second eye at the age of thirteen months, both to tumours. So, though he was not exactly blind from birth, he has, he told us, no visual memories whatever. But Daniel has learned to echolocate. They showed him cycling along a winding path through the trees in some park somewhere, happily taking in the atmosphere around him in a very relaxed way, all the time gently clicking his tongue, quite comfortably negotiating his way along the path and by walkers coming in the opposite direction. Now Daniel is human, so the simple truth is that he does not have the highly sophisticated equipment that a bat has, and that Dawkins describes in such a detailed way. But through MRI scans taken on Daniel’s brain, they demonstrated that he really is building an image of the world around him with his clicking tongue.

And one of the most wonderful moments was when the scientist working with Daniel, a man who had spent more than twenty years researching echolocation in bats, described meeting Daniel as like being given the opportunity to talk to bats.

Ken,

I think this https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=2867090&postcount=12" about a woman Cheryl who regained her vestibular function using small sensors 144 in all placed on her tongue and who through repeated practice was able to compensate for a primary function, essentially replacing an almost useless part of her balance system, which was estimated to be between 95 - 99% destroyed from overuse of an antibiotic: gentamicin me be of interest to you.

She learned to keep her balance from the remapping that took place from the sensing of her tongue in response to the 144 sensor's input and the radical brain mapping that goes with it.

Take a peek and see what you think...

The first few posts in the thread summarize basic concepts with brain or neural plasticity as well.

Rhody...

 

[Ken Natton]

Hi rhody,

Many thanks for the heads up to the other thread. I’m not at all sure how I managed to miss it while it was active, it is clearly a thread that saw significant activity for a while, but somehow, I managed to miss it all together.

It is fairly clear to me that the book that you refer to itself would probably be very challenging for me, so your summary should be very useful for me, at least to assess my level of interest in the book itself. It does sound like the kind of thing that can catch my interest, but even your summary is quite extensive and I need a little time to go through it properly before I responded to it, if I felt there was any response I could make. Certainly, I do have some immediate responses to some of your specific bullet points, but I for the moment at least, I’ll only make this general point:

What interested me in the story about Daniel was not so much the human story of his achievement in overcoming his disability, though I’m not suggesting that I was immune to the emotional aspect of that. It is clear, Daniel is well adjusted, of above average intelligence and actually very articulate. Neither his disability, not his extraordinary ability define him. For me the fascination in his story was entirely about what it told us about the more general capabilities of the brain, and as I said in my second post on this thread, not just the human brain. I have seen it demonstrated before how so many insights into the proper function of the brain are highlighted by cases of it malfunctioning. Stroke victims, epilepsy sufferers, those who suffer from various degenerative conditions, offer us a great deal of insight into how the brain functions normally. In a similar way, Daniel’s disability and the way he has managed to overcome it offer us profound insight into this notion of neural plasticity.

In any case, I didn’t want you to think I had ignored your response to me. I’ll see if I can construct a response to you on the other thread that might draw some important insights from you into the things that arouse my sense of fascination in this.