Michael writes:
"A significant ambition of
neuroscientists [is] to discern how sentient animals, both humans and
others, process input *and become aware of the results*."
Michael, the "awareness" that I focused on is "conciousness" because it's
undeniable and discussible . And the consciousness I'm most interested in is
not
always the awareness that arises from input. Yes, just how a physical
pin-prick occasions the conscious sensation of pain is interesting. But it's
more
interesting to me to ponder when Shakespeare was fussing around at something
"creative". I'm fascinated by the flow of "conscious thought" that coursed
through
his mind. I don't question that his brain meat was very active, but the
"connection" between that activity and the non-material consciousness is the
interesting mystery. Remember, I'm in effect speaking as a dualist here.
One, how does non-material consciousness arise from the material squirming
(and is it ever possible that consciousness causes the squirming rather than
the
other way around), and two, why is what arises these particular conscious
bits?
To my mind, consciousness is distinguished from the "unconscious" and from
bodily reactions. You say, "after you catch the glass, you can literally feel
your body relax as the adrenaline is counteracted. The relaxing is the moment
when you become aware of how your body reacted to the initial accident. . .
some
events are entirely conscious activities."
I don't deny much of this. I'll even admit it seems my unconscious processes
some input faster my consciousness does -- as when I duck a shoe thrown at me
by an Iraqi.
(William James once wrote: "I do not run because I am afraid; I am afraid
because I run.")
Right here you articulate my question:
". . .how the
thinking brain/mind builds consciousness from the mental processing of
sensory data, of how "meaning" and "significance" is structure in
language, how memories are formed and what they are "made of"--these
kinds of things are the areas where neuroscience can overlap with
creative activities and aesthetics. Just for starters."
But the point here is not simply to cite questions you like think of
neurology answering. You need to tell us why you think neurology would do that
thing.
Can you conceive of any scientist telling us HOW the thinking brain builds
consciousness? Good; tells us about that. What's your notion of "overlap'? Mere
concurrence tells me nothing.
You ask:
"How is it that some people seem to be linear processors, to take
things in a linear sequence, not to be particular adept at making or
getting jokes, etc., while other people approach almost everything
they do, including "artistic" activity, with a non-linear, associative
approach? To take a personal example, I cannot invent a narrative
story. Just can't do it. . . But I'm a whiz-bang with pictures and
type, just not with stories.. .
"Clarifying the process of how this happens--or doesn't, in my case--
can be the indirect fruit of neuroscience,"
But HOW? This assertion is exactly what I have no surety about at all. You
seem sure. Okay, let's say that, as with other kinds of consciousness -- sight,
taste, frontal-lobe functions -- neurologists can point at the neural tissues
without which the consciousness of linear connection will never occur. That
doesn't explain how/why consciousness arises when the tissue ARE there. And I
suspect there will be other difficulties -- e.g. take a mathematician, who
might
be said to be a specialist in "linear connections". It doesn't follow that he
can think up a story either. And this doesn't even touch on the crucial
question of quality. I know an extraordinarily "intelligent" person who wants
to be
a playwright. I've been to workshops of a play the person has written. The
play "tells a story" -- and it's awful. It's predictable, it's imitative, the
characters are dull and humorless as hell. To put together a worthy narrative
you need, among other things, not just "linear thinking" but imagination and
sensibility. Connections the person is great at, but. . .
You write:
". . .questioning at least to the extent that
it can reveal how mental "meaning" structures are formed, how "meta-
meaning" and "meta-structures" arise, in fact, how we can think of
ideas that include the pronoun "I"."
Putting aside my doubts about your notions here ("meaning"?
"meta-structures"?), again all you appear to be doing is listing questions
you've given no
reason to believe neurology can answer.
You write:
"In any event, often we learn from science, not what we set out to
verify but something else that sheds light on another area of life.
"Who knew?" It can be the motto of neuroscience."
I buy that (in fact I said that), but before putting tons of time into
pursuing a line of inquiry, I personally need a reason to believe it may
succeed.
It's not logically impossible that many kinds of "meditation" activities
would
in time improve my visualizing gift. But I have no reason to think so.
Perhaps I can sum up my skepticism about what neurology can contribute to
aesthetics this way: I do believe neurology might eventually be able to
"explain"
why you CANNOT do certain things. Neurology may, for example, find an unfai
ling correlation between certain specific tissue areas in the brain -- or
certain kinds of conductivity in the nerves, or whatever -- and a certain
"artistic"
talent/accomplishment, a correlation so high as to convince all of us that
without those tissues the talent won't be there. (I can even conceive of a
neurologist's finding the tissues are there but they are dormant for want of a
certain biochemical, and his being able to vitalize your potential with a pill.)
But what I'm unable to believe is that the neurologist will be able to
explain (1) how, if the tissues ARE healthily there, they result in worthy
aesthetic
activity (or "consciousness"), or (2), of what use the knowledge would be to
us as creative people. Of course, in the end, who knows. But as John Maynard
Keynes said, "In the end we are all dead."
**************
One site keeps you connected to all your email: AOL Mail,
Gmail, and Yahoo Mail. Try it now. (http://www.aol.com/?optin=new-dp&
icid=aolcom40vanity&ncid=emlcntaolcom00000025)
