Talk:Troxler's fading

Question regarding adaptation

My question regards this part of the article: "This is because the tactile neurons have adapted and start to ignore the unimportant stimulus."

Neurons don't ignore. That is a category mistake. Philosopher Gilbert Ryle dealt with it nicely. Is it not rather a case of us having adapted to the neurons' inability to sustain the same impulse? Surely it would require resources to sustain the impulse? And it can be seen as beneficial that it they do not. So rather than the neurons "ignoring" they simply run out of energy in a way that suits the organism or the organism as a whole adapts to the limitation in a way that works for both parts and whole.

Beachscriber (talk) 09:17, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

'Phenomenon identified'

Firstly, I'll state that I would much prefer it if the aforementioned heading was replaced--and supplanted, in my opinion--with 'History', 'Discovery', or, perhaps, both--such a heading would conform more appropriately with wikipedian mores, I'm sure you'll agree.

Moreover, as you may have noticed, this subsection--if you deem it wise to even call it that--is napoleonicin its shortness. Could we, perhaps, elucidate just 'how' Troxler discovered the effect? Where, perhaps, was he living at the time? What effect did this have on his social status, if any? Were there follow-up experiments by Troxler, or by other scientists? What were his initial conclusions and theories? Did he even experiment at all, or did he discover the effect purely by chance? Are there earlier accounts of the phenomenon than his? What kind of scientists was Troxler? A physiologist? A non-physiology biologist? A pharmacologist, perhaps? There is much to be addressed, here, as you can see. I'm not at all familiar with the specifics of it, however, and I wouldn't really know where to look for them. If you're able to provide some, I would be very appreciative if you did so. Suggestions regarding the location of source material are welcomed, too, of course.

Postscript: Also, I'm fairly certain that he wasn't a psychologist, seeing as how psychology, as a study, wouldn't be codified for several more decades. The closest thing to a psychologist, in that day, would have been a psychiatrist--thought, really, it's a bit of a stretch to call a psychiatrist a 'scientist'--in a professional context, anyway. To me, M.D.s are to medicine as engineers are to physics--they both seek and attempt to implement the potential advantages of a particular field's discoveries, rather than attempting to discover those things themselves. That isn't a perfect analogy, as those lines are somewhat blurry in the field of medicine--especially *early* medicine--but I imagine it would be safer to simply call him a 'psychiatrist', if he is one.

Post postscript: It only just occurred to me that I could read Troxler's own Wikipedia page in order to learn of the specifics of his occupation. Initially, those questions were rhetorical, but I had to admit ignorance regarding the topic with that postscript. Nonetheless, my point still stands.

Post P.P.S: And, yes, this isn't a letter, I'm very much aware. Hence why I have wrote 'Postscript' and 'Post postscript', instead of 'P.S.' and 'P.P.S'. Both 'P.P.P.S.' And 'post post postscript' seemed a bit exorbitant, however, so I broke that pattern with this little blurb. Whatever. So it goes, I suppose. Ghost Lourde (talk) 18:43, 1 April 2015 (UTC)