No, I understand physiology. Literally, your eyes can't be looking two different places. Well, they can, but then you'd have a lazy eye, and that's not a good thing. LOL. I also understand the human brain, and there is literally no such thing as multitasking in the brain. The brain computes one thing at a time. So, some guys might have brains that process faster, and some guys might be better at anticipating, and some guys might be better at both. But no QB is watching the line with one eye, and watching downfield with the other eye.
I never said he handled it any better or worse...infact Carson Plamer becomes TERRIBLE in these situations. I simply was refuting what you keep saying about Ryan facing pressure from the DL's and his time to throw, and no thats not ALL YOURE SAYING in regards to Ryan....you defend him like you conceived him. Keeps it real and stop making up stuff and these mains may be great once again.
This is true (well almost.. the team will get better if any component improves.. but we need both Tannehill and his surroundings to improve to be a perennial playoff team). However, I don't think you're thinking through the consequences here. If we all agreed on that, I think this message board would die for lack of debates!
You're right about the eyes not pointing in different directions for normal people, but that doesn't mean you can't use peripheral vision. In fact, peripheral vision is generally used to help guide future eye movements. And yes the brain can multi-task. Parallel computing goes on all the time in the brain. Simplest case is different sensory modalities (e.g. vision, hearing, etc..) first processing information separately before anything is combined (that we know from both anatomy and physiology), but this happens within a single sensory modality too. Processing shape and color happens separately from motion (initially at least), and processing "what" something is is separate from "where" (entirely different pathways).
stop being so literal..I'll make it simple..there are qbs who can see where their protection breaks down and manipulate the pocket while watching whats going on downfield.
tell you a qb who was amazing at making plays multitasking in the pocket..and he wasn't a runner..kurt warner...dude made plays when protection broke down and he never had to cross the los.
Cbrad, the brain absolutely does not do two things at once. For instance try to do math problems while reciting the pledge of allegiance. DJ, I was kinda of joking with you, hence the LOL in the first post about this, plus me saying you're really talking about anticipation. Which you still are talking about.
You're right, the brain doesn't do two things at once.. it does MANY things at once! The examples I gave are all standard examples in sensory neuroscience. You can actually see the anatomy and physiology behind a lot of this stuff. There is a region in the visual cortex (visual processing area of the brain) called MT that has neurons most sensitive to motion in particular directions. Totally different neurons process shape or color information. And two separate neural processing pathways, the ventral stream (the "what" pathway) and the dorsal stream (the "where" pathway), process different aspects of the same stimulus. Oh, and this is happening for many stimuli at once, not just one (another example of parallel processing). I mean you're aware of the positions, shapes and color of many objects at the same time. All that is happening for the most part in parallel processing streams. What brain science can't tell you is how that is all combined into a single perception, but the idea of parallel processing is one of the basics in the field. And yeah people perform multiple tasks at the same time. Like roy_miami said, driving a car and having a conversation is one example, but it's far more than that if you look at all the things you do unconsciously. I mean we still can't create robots that can walk, run and jump across different terrain like humans do. Tons of processing is needed just to keep you from falling, and almost all of that is done unconsciously while you do other tasks. Really (and I'm not joking), saying the brain can't do two things at once is like saying the Earth is flat.
It seems like we are making progress here. Resnor - do you believe Ryan Tannehill is capable of mentally processing multiple things simultaneously? Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G920A using Tapatalk
Thill should have anticipated the entire defense was going to surround him, and made the appropriate move which would be to let Moore start.
You both are debating different things. cbrad, you're partly correct in your post, but mostly wrong. The brain does not and can not "parallel process". this kind of processor does not exist in the brain. The main thinking part of the brain is the cerebral cortex, and in the cortex there are no separate units at all. Every region in the cortex has direct connections (i.e. sends axons and receives axons) to all its neighbors, and in many cases to further regions. Since these connections are direct, each operation of every region is cortex is dependent directly on activity of other regions in the cortex, i.e. it is not independent. resnor is wrong in part, but mostly correct. The brain can multitask, but can only do two things at once. When the brain tries to do two things at once, it dedicates one-half of to each task. Because there are only two hemispheres in the brain adding a third task is nearly impossible.
ive been told twice that I was wrong, and what I speak of is strictly from anticipatory sensors, aint that right Res.
Its not isolated. Its what i've been talking about. That is the majority of the situations Thill sees himself in. The best part, is the jailbreak in that gif or just one DE breaking through from the right side are counted the same in pressure stats.
In all honesty, THill is in that situation a lot. As I wrote earlier, no QB in the league would be expected to play well under the same circumstances.
Nope you're totally wrong (and your last sentence shows a worse level of ignorance than resnor) and I'm totally right. Sorry dude, if there's anything I'm an expert on (other than some areas of applied math) it's this. My entire dissertation was creating a model grounded in the known physiology and anatomy of the human visual system to predict CSF's (contrast sensitivity functions, which are mathematical functions fit to behavioral data describing the probability that a person will correctly detect a pre-defined localized spatial pattern). Briefly, the model began with a description of how the cornea and lens change the waveform function of the light entering it (this is just physics, but you have to take into account the shape of the cornea and lens). Then it used something called a difference of Gaussians (looks like a Mexican hat) to model a specific type of output neuron in the retina: the P cells, which carry information about spatial properties of objects to the cortex. Other types of retinal ganglion cells, like M cells that carry motion information (this btw is another example of parallel processing) are a bit more difficult to model so we left that out. The information goes to V1 where we know a great deal about what's called the receptive fields of neurons (the localized spatial pattern of stimuli a neuron is sensitive to), and we provided a model of that. This part btw had a weakness in it in because we don't have good knowledge of the distribution of the different types of receptive fields. We know V1 neurons are sensitive to small bars of light moving in different directions in a small part of the visual field, but how many neurons for each type of receptive field we don't know, etc.. Anyway, to predict the CSF's, we added a component representing how other stimuli "mask" the detection of a given stimulus, which we don't know the physiological basis of, but we know how to model mathematically (just the behavior). So the question here isn't whether I know what I'm talking about. To respond to your specific points, yes different regions of the brain communicate with other regions. But it's not true that there is no parallel processing. For example, if you look at the retina (which is technically part of the brain), the effect of one neuron on neighboring ones stretches only a small radius around where it is (you can prove this btw). Near the fovea (where you fixate), that influence is in a very tight radius while it gets progressively larger in the periphery (where there are fewer neurons and you get lower spatial resolution). Same thing in V1. You can show that area MT (that motion sensitive area I talked about) responds to motion of dots irrespective of what most other areas of the visual cortex do. In fact, maybe you don't know this, but at any given time the great majority of the cortex is SILENT!! That is, most neurons are resting most of the time. There was a funny paper by a guy at NYU that calculated that you didn't need more than a tiny percentage of neurons to be active at the same time for the brain to literally melt due to the heat from the metabolism haha. The connections you're talking about are on a very coarse scale. That is, you can show almost every "area" of the brain communicates with every other "area", but that doesn't mean local processing is always influenced by what goes on elsewhere. The original example I gave of visual and auditory information being processed separately first is a great example. You have to get through several stages of parallel processing before you get cross-talk. Finally, what you said about left and right hemisphere is so totally off that it is laughable. Almost every function you see in the left hemisphere you see in the right, but to a different degree. There are some major differences like language areas that are far more predominately in the left (for almost all people), but for visual function it's bilateral, and nothing about there being two hemispheres says anything about how many tasks can be performed at once.
I'm impressed and intrigued with your dissertation and your obvious intelligence. However, what you just wrote has really nothing to do with this conversation/debate. You're not only wrong (in regards to this topic), but you're going off on tangents of epic proportions. Your opinion is intriguing, but is contrary to neuroanatomical evidence, which shows conclusively that in the human brain all the major mental processes (including remembering) are done in the same system, the cerebral cortex. The "how to" and "knowing what" parts of the brain, which is what you alluded to earlier, are universally accepted, however, this distinction is completely behavioral. There is no neuroanatomical evidence for the existence of two (or more) separate or parellel systems. Logically, there is no problem in having these two kinds of knowledge in the same system ('knowing that X' can be implemented as 'knowing how to respond to a question about X', or 'knowing how to do X' can be implemented as 'knowing that the set of operations Y is required for doing X'), and all the evidence suggests that this is what happens in the brain, where both of these knowledge types reside in the cerebral cortex. In summary, you're trying to argue that the brain can control many different things at the same time. (Which is not what resnor is arguing). No one is arguing this. What the brain can't do, however, is many different "thinking things" at the same time.
OK first of all, the visual cortex is IN the cerebral cortex, so I'm not going off on a tangent. You act like the "cerebral cortex" is NOT what I'm talking about. And the ventral and dorsal streams you can see are in totally different areas of the brain: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two-streams_hypothesis And talking about sensory processing is precisely on target because all this began with resnor saying a QB can't pay attention to two things on the field at the same time. dj was saying a QB could keep his eyes downfield while still sensing pressure. Yeah, this is on topic. And regarding "thinking", you're getting into stuff where no one really knows how to define whether it's one process or several so that's not the way to attack the question. Point is, there is a VAST amount of evidence of parallel processing in the sensory system, suggesting that yes a QB could pay attention (to different degrees) to different things on the field simultaneously.
You are going off of on a tangent. You're trying to say that because the brain can taste and hear at the same time it's a "parallel processor" and this ability translates into "thinking" processes. You couldn't be more wrong or off on a further tangent. While it's true that the brain is still a mystery, thus why I wrote "you're mostly wrong", (instead of totally wrong, like you wrote about my post) there is no evidence to suggest what you're saying. The overwhelming evidence shows that the brain can "think about", at most, two separate things.
I'm saying you can process different parts of the visual field independently. The central and peripheral visual fields are processed locally (and independently) before it somehow is integrated together. That's about as on topic as it gets. Furthermore, there is such a thing as overt vs. covert attention, specifically where research has shown you can attend to parts of the visual field you are not fixating at. So yeah dj is right about this as far as basic research in neuroscience is concerned. Only question is how much information from the peripheral visual field a QB can attend to during an actual game. That I have no clue, but what resnor (and you) said were not correct. And no, just because we know very little about the brain doesn't mean what I said is wrong. What I said is correct as far as we know. That qualifier "as far as we know" can be put in, but for you to say I'm mostly wrong because we don't know? Nah.. that's just bull****. Anyway, only thing I'd suggest is that you use a different resource for your information about brain science than what you're currently using. Too much of what you said shows fundamental ignorance. Briefly, you cannot derive ANY behavioral implications from the fact we have two hemispheres. It's a mystery why there are two, and no one has shown a functional reason for that. Also, one of the early discoveries in brain science (that's survived the test of time) is that you have localized processing, not just for sensory things but for motor control. Language areas show some cognitive stuff is fairly localized too. And your statements about there being no neuroanatomical evidence for all kinds of stuff (like the "what" vs. "where" pathways) when there are tons of lesion studies (where they deliberately destroy a part of a monkey's brain or look at humans with specific brain injuries) means the resource you're using for learning about current brain research is not very good. A very good starting point: "Principles of Neural Science" by Eric Kandel. That is a massive book and high level, but the second half of the book is readable and you can jump in into any chapter. The first half is mostly molecular, cellular stuff and you might not understand it, but the second half is systems stuff that will give you a much better understanding of the current state of brain science. Regardless.. I'm done arguing with you about this, so what you take from this conversation is up to you.
You will drive the car better if you're not talking to someone. Go watch Brain Games, they have at least one episode dedicated to this subject. Basically, when driving and talking, your brain switches between the two activities. It's why there are laws against using your phone while driving.
Yeah, I was poking fun at you saying good QBs look downfield with one eye while looking at the line with the other eye. That is physically impossible. I think you're talking about anticipating. You are, aren't you?
No, I said a QB can't have each of his eyes looking at different things at different levels of the field. I was poking fun. Killjoys.
I see.. if that's what you meant then this was just a fun debate about one area of brain science. I read it as though you were arguing against dj saying you can't use both central and peripheral vision at the same time (attending to two things at once). Anyway, back to Tannehill! haha (what else right?)
But that's not true. Your field of view is just that, your field of view. Call is peripheral vision or anything else, but it's all one in the same. Paying "attention" is not thinking about and making a decision. It's about knowing that there's a tree in front of you and a bear behind you and you need to turn so as not to run into the tree and get eaten by the bear. Trying to do analytical geometry while playing Beethoven's "Moonlight Sonnet" isn't possible. Why? Because there is no parallel thinking processes in the brain. And sorry, I had to laugh at your assertion that I'm ignorant in regards to the "one-task-per-hemisphere" theory. And you even went so far as to say there are no implications suggesting this theory. As if I'd just make it up. http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/multitasking-two-tasks/ Maybe you should check your sources? As far as arguing. I wasn't...
Just so it's clear what I meant. I meant no one has shown you NEED two hemispheres. That article is only showing how the brain may USE two hemispheres, and says nothing about whether a single cortex that isn't divided by a corpus callosum (the thing that connects the two hemispheres) could or could not do the same thing. Also, people can definitely do math while playing the piano (done that myself too btw).
There are laws against using your phone while driving because there are correlations between using a phone and accidents (just like win/loss records correlate with QB play). But there is probably a percentage of people that can use a phone and drive just fine. Its not impossible.
Yes, there are people who can drive less distracted than others while on the phone, just like there are some people who can drive better drunk than other people. However, everyone is impaired to some extent when they are driving and talking on the phone. It's how the brain works. Try being on an involved phone call while driving. Like, having a a very in depth conversation with someone. You will not remember a whole lot of the drive, as your brain is diffused on the conversation, not on the driving. Again, there are tons of resources you can read or watch on this subject.
Try doing math and learning a new song. You will struggle. It's different if you're playing a piece you know well, as its all muscle memory. It's what people might refer to as "second nature." I played piano for around 12 years.
Yeah that I couldn't do (struggle is an understatement). But I've known people that are so good at sight reading that they can hold a conversation while playing a piece that's totally new to them.
Yeah, but, I bet they still learn better without carrying on a conversation. Piano is funny, I remember practicing pieces, and certain parts I'd learn quicker, and then those parts my fingers would play faster, and it was hard to make myself play those parts slower.
My parents wanted me to become a professional pianist so I actually went over to Germany for 8 years to study that crap haha. I HATED it, but at least I got away from my parents LOL. Point is, I met a lot of guys that were playing at a very high level, and while most couldn't sightread that well, there was one Swede who actually went to an international competition and sightread some pieces on the spot!! Gutsy eh? He definitely could sightread near perfectly (and I'm talking late romantic pieces where you have tons of notes) regardless of whether you talked to him or not. Worse, he just started improvising, which is a big no-no in classical music. Anyway, it's a rare ability but it exists (he also had perfect pitch better than most.. some who do can tell you a single note at a time, others only chords, but you could press the palms of both hands down and he could tell you.. seriously some people are amazing).
Doing things better in isolation is different than the argument you cannot do two things at once (which I know you didn't make that argument originally but it somehow devolved into that). Also, I know you were attempting a joke, but the joke had legs, and it misquoted DJ DJ is literally talking about peripheral vision and the ability to process it, not anticipation. It's just superior peripheral vision and processing. I post this photo often because it illustrates clearly Tanny's deficiency Tannehill failed to see the rusher even though he had been rushing up the middle for a moment already before this screenshot. He didn't see him until the very last second and took no evasive maneuvers. Just curled up when he finally saw him. The guy is not even in the peripheral, he's in Tanny's cone of view. He's not even keeping tabs on what his line is doing, and this is the heart of the line.
I remember that play. Could not believe the lack of awareness. However, Tannehill's very weakness with processing information from the periphery does lend more credence to the idea that fixing the OL will improve his performance even more than it would for a normal QB. I guess we'll see what the effect of Tunsil plugging the Dallas Thomas hole this year is.
Russell Wilson failed to see the guy he literally just ran past: Does that mean his peripheral vision is deficient? No, of course not.
This was the part that initially drew my joke, and then I clarified that I assumed he was talking about anticipation. That one play that you show, is so overblown. The still makes it look worse than I remembered it, when I was watching it in real time.
On that play it was, yes. That is why we keep statistics, so we can quantify how often something happens in relation to total opportunities.
