Playing Ball in Space
oo7tushar writes "Although most experiments in space seem simple they have profound results. Take this for example, astronauts trying to catch a ball in space. What's so hard about that? Nothing much really, down here on Earth. In space it's a completely different story.
Here on earth our eyes see the ball and our brain anticipates it's movement according to gravity. In space the brain continues to anticpate gravity but unlike motion sickness (which is adapted to within days), astronauts continue to anticipate the path of a ball for 15 days (after which they start to show progress).
What are the ramifications? The brain must have some sort of internal gravitation model."
An internal gravitation model would be theorizing far more than is necesarry to account for the data. In cognitive science, there has long been an understanding of encoding specificity. This simply means that data, including skill knowledge, is best retrieved from human memory under the same conditions which it was learned.
An example from the real world is underwater welding. When underwater welders were first being trained, the companies tried to simply train professional welders in all the ways that underwater welding was different from normal welding. But, in diong this, they found that when they were underwater, the welders had serious trouble calling on those skills which supposedly transferred over unchanged. As a result, they had to be entirely retrained in skills they had apparently already learned.
Similarly, if you lose your keys while you're stoned and then can't find them the next day. Psychological evidence shows that your best chance to find them is to get stoned again and then look for them.
Any number of other controlled psychological experiments have been performed to domonstrate this same effect(memorizing words under different lighting conditions, etc.). I don't see why gravitation would be any different.
lysergically yours
Sig: What Happened To The Censorware Project (censorware.org)