[jamesrcole]

> > do you deny that the brain has to set in motion the muscular activities in advance?

> What do you mean by "in advance"? What does that mean? That's an empty phrase. In advance to what? When it moves the arm to catch the ball it moves to what is there right now.

It mean it according to the standard meaning of that phrase. It's not empty.

Here's an example to illustrate my point. It's simplified to make the point easier to understand.

The ball is moving.

At time T, the ball is at position X.

At time T the brain has received the visual information about the ball at X. It then processes this information. The amount of time this processing takes is A1.

It is now time T+A1. The ball is has moved on to position X2.

At time T+A1 the brain sends signals S to the muscles. This takes A2 amount of time to reach the muscles.

It is now time T+A1+A2. The ball is now in position X3.

The muscles do their contractions for reaching out and grabbing. This takes A3 amount of time to happen.

It is now time T+A1+A2+A3. The ball is now in position X4.

The brain started this process when the ball was at position X, and had to determine the signals S to send to the muscles based on details of the ball being at position X. But when those signals actually play out the ball is at position X4.

.

What I'm talking about is extremely elementary - it is simply the fact that perceptual+cognitive processing, plus nerve signals, plus the actions of muscles all take time! What you and the others are arguing would essentially require the absurd notion that it all happens instantaneously.

[EDIT: fixed some wording]

[LionessLover]

> What I'm talking about is extremely elementary

Whenever someone doesn't have an argument they resort to such empty phrases, merely repeating over and over "I am right!". Maybe you should have studied some neuroscience LIKE I DID, than you would not be left without arguments in discussions about neuroscience.

> plus the actions of muscles all take time!

And yet there is no "prediction". As has been pointed out to you by a lot of people including myself repeatedly. Cognitive dissonance is strong in "jamesrcole".

[jamesrcole]

> Whenever someone doesn't have an argument they resort to such empty phrases

except it is not an empty phrase.

It's making a real point: what I'm talking about is a very basic constraint, one that is independent of all the specific technicalities that everyone else brings up. And it is that constraint that means that functionally the brain processing must be doing something anticipatory.

And I notice that your comment here is not making trying to argue any justifications for your points or pointing out any evidence.

You're just asserting and saying that because you studied neuroscience you must be right.