A copper-plated moral decision for the 'Cats . . .

cthia wrote:
And Jonathan, it is incorrect that the brain doesn't simply continue to send out the same signals exhaustively. If you digest the video, it tells you it does. Just because a limb is amputated does not mean the brain discontinues sending the same signals. Per the video, it does not. Which, according to the evidence reported by amputees of experiencing ghost sensations, is intuitive.

Apparently the brain does not alter the old signals. The subject simply has to learn to reconnect and harness the signals, telephone wires if you will, that have already been laid down. Which is intuitive as well, or muscle memory would be shot all to hell.

Again, muscle memory is simply a sub process controlled automatically by the thought. A truth the monkey proves with aplomb.

Please consume the video upstream in it's entirety.

The brain continues to send out signals. (And receive bogus sensor inputs; hence phantom pain). Without the ability to see how your missing limb moved the signals might even remain entirely unchanged.

But I don't see how someone's dexterity or skill as a result of training could improve if the brain wasn't altering the signals in response to that training; at least to some degree. After all the brain is a neural net that originally learned how to control limbs based on feedback, and continues to do over your life as the responses to signals alter (additions or reduced strength, reduced range of motions, etc. etc.) - it would seem almost impossible for it to avoid learning somewhat (but probably not grossly) different signals whenever the physical response to them alters noticeably. (Sure the changes might be 90% the new limb adjusting to the signals, but I find it hard to believe that the changes are 100% on the new limb's side)

Edit - or I guess it might depend on what we're calling the signal. The nerve impulse to activate a given muscle to 20% strength might remain unchanged - but which muscles to activate, at what strength, and for how long, would change over time as the capabilities of the muscles and joints alter. So the collective group of signals necessary to achieve the precise desired outcome (especially for tasks requiring very exacting tolerances of both strength and precision like Honor's martial arts), alters over time and with training. That collective group would be somewhat distinct from person to person, and even over time for the same person as the brain adjusts to their current condition. So I don't see how a large change in condition like replacing a limb could avoid the brain racing the limb's learning software, each trying to adjust its behavior, on the way to regaining the desired control over its motions.

Jonathan_S wrote:

cthia wrote:
And Jonathan, it is incorrect that the brain doesn't simply continue to send out the same signals exhaustively. If you digest the video, it tells you it does. Just because a limb is amputated does not mean the brain discontinues sending the same signals. Per the video, it does not. Which, according to the evidence reported by amputees of experiencing ghost sensations, is intuitive.

Apparently the brain does not alter the old signals. The subject simply has to learn to reconnect and harness the signals, telephone wires if you will, that have already been laid down. Which is intuitive as well, or muscle memory would be shot all to hell.

Again, muscle memory is simply a sub process controlled automatically by the thought. A truth the monkey proves with aplomb.

Please consume the video upstream in it's entirety.

The brain continues to send out signals. (And receive bogus sensor inputs; hence phantom pain). Without the ability to see how your missing limb moved the signals might even remain entirely unchanged.

But I don't see how someone's dexterity or skill as a result of training could improve if the brain wasn't altering the signals in response to that training; at least to some degree. After all the brain is a neural net that originally learned how to control limbs based on feedback, and continues to do over your life as the responses to signals alter (additions or reduced strength, reduced range of motions, etc. etc.) - it would seem almost impossible for it to avoid learning somewhat (but probably not grossly) different signals whenever the physical response to them alters noticeably. (Sure the changes might be 90% the new limb adjusting to the signals, but I find it hard to believe that the changes are 100% on the new limb's side)

Edit - or I guess it might depend on what we're calling the signal. The nerve impulse to activate a given muscle to 20% strength might remain unchanged - but which muscles to activate, at what strength, and for how long, would change over time as the capabilities of the muscles and joints alter. So the collective group of signals necessary to achieve the precise desired outcome (especially for tasks requiring very exacting tolerances of both strength and precision like Honor's martial arts), alters over time and with training. That collective group would be somewhat distinct from person to person, and even over time for the same person as the brain adjusts to their current condition. So I don't see how a large change in condition like replacing a limb could avoid the brain racing the limb's learning software, each trying to adjust its behavior, on the way to regaining the desired control over its motions.

I imagine there's lots of fine tuning going on. How can a neurosurgeon learn to control their movements so precisely that the brain becomes their playground, and I can't get that darn wishbone w/o setting off the annoying buzzer in the game of Operation.

But of course, there is a fair amount of relearning taking place, if part of Interstate 95 has been amputated and rerouted.

If they break it, will Treecats be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law? Treecat jails? Treecat prisons?

Since they carry pulsers now, can they be challenged to a duel?

One more copper plate

If a cat realizes that another cat is a Jeffery Dahmer, or at least a cat that harbors those urges, what should he do? What if his mindglow says he is a psychopath?

BTW, I oftentimes wonder if ALL cats liked two-legs in the beginning. Or even now. It is hard to believe that EVERY cat liked humans, no matter how tasty of a mindglow most cats find two-legs.

I also can't imagine that every two-leg wants to be catted. Do you truly want some other being sampling your emotions endlessly? It amazes me that some posters in the forum wants to be catted. I will always think the notion is too impulsive. What comes to mind is the vetitable "be careful what you wish for" on steroids.

I am talking about someone "all up in yo' business" twenty-four seven. Non stop. I don't even see how treecats can stand it, let alone humans.

For that matter, I can't understand how cats can handle being out of range of all cats at once. That would be a frightening kind of quiet for humans.

I suppose peace and quiet is very underrated.

Wasn't there a Cat who had a criminal history? Whatever happened to that Cat? Was he banished?

Can anyone remember any specific details about that incident? What book was it mentioned in?

cthia wrote:Wasn't there a Cat who had a criminal history? Whatever happened to that Cat? Was he banished?

Can anyone remember any specific details about that incident? What book was it mentioned in?

Are you talking about something more than stealing celery out of the early settler's garden; as in the Stephanie Harrington story?

there has been the occasinal unstable cat. normally they are noticed fairly easily and then they "help" them. no details on exactly how they help them.

if that fails, then yes the cat may be banished. If he goes so far as to actually hurt/kill another cat they will be hunted down and killed.

closet to screen time of a similar problem is covered in the 3rd Stephanie Harrington book "treecat wars".

Dauntless wrote:there has been the occasinal unstable cat. normally they are noticed fairly easily and then they "help" them. no details on exactly how they help them.

if that fails, then yes the cat may be banished. If he goes so far as to actually hurt/kill another cat they will be hunted down and killed.

closet to screen time of a similar problem is covered in the 3rd Stephanie Harrington book "treecat wars".

Thanks Dauntless. I remember that the Cat was somewhat of an outcast, and his sins was a little more than stealing celery. But sometimes my memory plays tricks on me. I will check out Treecat Wars. Thanks again.

cthia wrote:Thanks Dauntless. I remember that the Cat was somewhat of an outcast, and his sins was a little more than stealing celery. But sometimes my memory plays tricks on me. I will check out Treecat Wars. Thanks again.

The one Dauntless is talking about was a treecat of one of two clans that were suffering from the fire season's effects on food availability. The clans' ranges were drastically reduced, and both clans were suffering from starvation, though one of them was in worse condition than the other. This treecat, driven by the need to protect his own clan, ambushed a member of the other and killed, leading to the aforementioned, title "treecat wars."

We know that banishment for instability does happen, but I don't think we have evidenced it. We know that self-imposed exiles happen too, and for those we have a first-hand account.

There was a mated pair that was exiled itself from Climbs Quickly's clan due to illness. They weren't banished; the Bright Water Clan actually wanted them to stay, but since the pair had lost their mind voices, they felt they needed to go. This story is told in the first chapter of the new book, "A New Clan."

cthia wrote:Wasn't there a Cat who had a criminal history? Whatever happened to that Cat? Was he banished?

Can anyone remember any specific details about that incident? What book was it mentioned in?

You might be thinking of an incident mentioned in Chapter 5 of _A Beautiful Friendship_ (a renegade that High Crag Clan had exiled caused considerable trouble for Bright Water Clan, including an attempted kidnapping of kittens for purposes not known; he was hunted down and killed).