Reply to comment

Ok, so last week when I tried to come up with my own examples to understand how outputs can happen without inputs, I did think about autism and other cognitive disorders, but I wasn’t really sure if I could say those outputs are without inputs, or even what are the inputs in those examples. But now that it is clarified that the inputs are stimuli outside of the nervous system, it makes more sense. Yes, outputs can happen without inputs. This is what makes us to say, “we can think in our own”, whereas computers or robots cannot (at least, so far, they can’t). Between people, on the other hand, it’s the assembly that makes each individual different, from the same ‘contents’. As it seems like most people were, I was also surprised to learn that 99.9999% of neurons are interneurons. A question I have about this is that is outside world demanding very little or is it capable of affecting out brain with very little amount of neurons. All these topics brought me to think about nature vs. nurture, which has been a question I had for long time. I have believed that both have effect on humans, although nature seems to have greater effect. I feel like this talk about large portion of neurons being interneurons and how the structure makes each individual different support my argument, nature has bigger role in human development. Or maybe, these topics are not appropriate to apply to nature vs. nurture issue?