Reply to comment

I'm glad and relieved to find that I'm not the only one who was little confused/skeptical and overwhelmed by the idea of outputs without inputs. Although, the examples were interesting and helpful, I was still skeptical to buy the ideas that the outputs from those examples were really without the inputs. Well, before anything, how do we define what’s input? Why isn’t the unconsciousness behavior an input?

I certainly appreciated how the nervous system was explained, in images of boxes. I liked that there weren’t many jargons and those million unfamiliar words to explain nervous system, especially that I’m not a neurobiology, or even a biology person. I think nervous system/brain is the one of the most difficult systems to understand in entire body. From my limited knowledge about the brain, we can’t really see and therefore have concrete evidence of how the brain works. We are making the best scientific guess based on many assumptions we create. Has anyone really seen “input” moving around, making its own way in the brain to cause “output”? Maybe we have? (and I just don’t have enough knowledge about this field) Well, anyway, this is why I like the idea of “getting it less wrong” to make “more right”. This is our best guess at this point, given all the information we can get. We are less wrong. But! We could get more right in the future! How open minded this is! I like it!