Comments on: To the Brain, Tools Are Temporary Body Parts

By: YouRang

YouRang — Wed, 24 Jun 2009 13:29:42 +0000

I wonder if it would be ethical to do the experiment on toddlers. When I watch toddlers using tools, they DON’T seem to treat the tool as an extension of their body. (Picture a toddler swinging a bat at a ball e.g.) All kinds of clumsiness in mentally handicapped people might be related to their inability to treat a tool as an extension; except in this case, the tool is what they are attempting to interact with.

By: Nick

Nick — Wed, 24 Jun 2009 03:01:34 +0000

I will be a robot at some point, and then a digital consciousness. Why not, if my brain will adapt!

By: Rabiah

Rabiah — Wed, 24 Jun 2009 02:42:44 +0000

Neato!! I’m curious about the potential implications for other repetitive tool-users (the above mentioned sports are an example) and whether the innate or developed ability to update the schema plays a role in ability. For example, the manual dexterity of surgeons must require repetitive re-definition of the schema to accommodate surgical tools and machinery (particularly as robotic technology increases the physical distance between doctor and patient). Does someone whose brain more rapidly or efficiently updates the schema have an advantage in this case? By the same token, could such differences contribute to athletic ability in tennis, golf, or baseball? Maybe now I have an excuse for my terrible net game…

By: Mike from The Biosphere, Now.

Mike from The Biosphere, Now. — Tue, 23 Jun 2009 19:28:35 +0000

Agreed, very interesting. To an athlete or sports fan, this should be intuitive. Ever seen that commercial where Tiger woods juggles the golf ball on his club? Tiger’s clubs are an incredible example of a tool-as-extention-of-body.

By: QUASAR

QUASAR — Tue, 23 Jun 2009 18:36:52 +0000

Very interesting!