there is an article in my favourite weekly read (New Scientist for the uninitiated amongst you) all about how we collect relevant information with our senses (did you realise that that was what our senses are for? collecting information? or did you just think they were there for us to enjoy our - sometimes guilty - pleasures?!) how we direct our actions and how the first links the two processes in our brains. . .
evaluating our priorities and making informed choices about how to act
"informed", huh? (oh! how I wish som1 had told me th@ b4. . .)
it also has some interesting stuff about autism - for those who don't know much about it (not for those like CASDOC who are experts already, and for whom this article is probably a load of misinformed tosh)
apparently sometimes we each have a judgement on "a big but rare pay-off (which) is more advantageous than a smaller, more certain one"
that explains a lot, doesn't it (oh! how I wish some1 had told me th@ b4)
if you can purchase the issue from your local newsagents, I'd recommend it - it also explains the illusion of "time" for anyone who understands physics (I don't) (but it just goes to prove the point mel that there are a billion yesterdays, apparently, and will be billions more tomorrow, but only one today) and something about flies liking white spirit. . . it's the issue dated 19 January 2009
(there is no such thing as a free lunch, is there)
an amusing little sub paragraph covers why some people (not me*) find celebrity and celebrity watching/reading interesting: the researcher concludes that if anyone did brain scans on such people, the scans would reveal hyperactivity on a par with those found in drug addicts; he concludes "looking at celebrities should activate reward systems in a really deranged way" which must explain why I like vicus' blog so much (*my only form of celebrity worship) (there has to be one exception to every rule) (dave, I would have included you, but it would only have made you blush)