Serendip is an independent site partnering with faculty at multiple colleges and universities around the world. Happy exploring!

Reply to comment

Lyndsey C's picture

Today in class we covered a

Today in class we covered a lot of interesting topics that i wanted to comment on briefly. The first is in regards to our discussion about bird migration and the lack of a conductor, which may seem counterintuitive at first, but appears more convincing with further examination of neurological factors. I have heard that since geese must travel hundreds of miles at a time, they take turns leading the flock. The first goose must work the hardest and expend the most energy, so once it's term has expired, it slows down and acts as the caboose of the flock iun the back of the line, and this pattern continues. In this example, all of the geese work together to maximize the efficiciency of travel. (It reminds me of the Indian Sprint Drill) We can conclude that there is no presence of a conductor, and that it only appears as such because of the V-shape made by the flock (which is employed for increased efficiency. i suppose the geese could fly horizontally, but that would be less optimal.)

Related to th idea of a conductor, we touched on the idea that some organisms follow the behaviors of others, which may appear to lend support to the conductor theory. however, we learned through the clapping excercise that this is not so. one classmate mentioned that if one person in an elevator turned to the left, the rest of the people in the elevator would follow suit. i dont agree with this, but i also want to point out that if it WERE to occur, it would do so as a result of social desirability. in other words, it is a function of conformity, which i do not personally classify in the same category as conductance.

In the beginning of the semester when we began discussing the I-Function, one of our main arguments was that it sets us as humans apart from animals and other organisms. At first, i thought the I-function was therefore the conductor mechanism. then, we identified many examples of animal behaviors which were possible without the I-function, so clearly my initial thoughts were wrong. however, now i am left with the notion that the I-function is NOT what controls many of our conscious outputs. this is somewhat disconcerting to me because i do not like to think of the I-function as simply being a box that does not neccessarily have as much control of output (or input) than i previously imagined.

lastly i was just wondering what would happen if there WAS a conductor mechanism in our nervous systems. obviously the absence of one is more ideal, but i wonder how our behavior would change if the I-function functioned as a conductor or if certain living things were predestined to be conductors. how would this effect the rest of us?

Reply

To prevent automated spam submissions leave this field empty.
11 + 4 =
Solve this simple math problem and enter the result. E.g. for 1+3, enter 4.