Tracking of the direction of gaze and length of gaze in infants has
demonstrated, that for infants, symmetrical faces (face components) are
preferred to assymetrical ones. To infer from that information that all
adults prefer symmetry is "A Bridge (or leap) Too Far". Other findings are
that adults prefer problems of moderate complexity. That does not mean that
the general public always will prefer hard edge realism or whatever. Tastes
change; the hard wiring of the brain changes little - we're not going to
start hearing with our visual cortex areas. (OK, in exceptional
circumstances, brain areas can take on new functions - but those are
exceptional circumstances.)
Geoff C
----- Original Message -----
From: "William Conger" <[email protected]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, December 18, 2008 8:45 PM
Subject: Re: Neurology and "Art"
I think the code of Shakespeare's creativity could probably be discovered
through some application of the principle of symmetry. The neurologists say
we prefer symmetry. Symmetry can be simple or so highly complex as to be
too daunting for a person to decipher. By symmetry I mean not only the
relative parallelism of one grossly identifiable thing to another but also
the relative parallelism of billions of bits of things to one another
(millions here being only an example of the seemingly numberless neural
synapses taking place). I've referred to this before in my comments about
ambiguity and associational likening, the as-if, and metaphor. The reason
Shakespeare's creativity is mysterious and ineffible is simply because we
shrink from the tedium (a lifetime and more) of explicating his range of
symmetries. It's just a more sophisticated way of the aboriginal's
counting: "one, another, many". Or it's a case of the monkey... plucking
aimlessly at the
keyboard will eventually produce Macbeth.
WC
--- On Thu, 12/18/08, Michael Brady <[email protected]> wrote:
From: Michael Brady <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Neurology and "Art"
To: [email protected]
Date: Thursday, December 18, 2008, 5:13 PM
On Dec 18, 2008, at 5:26 PM, William Conger wrote:
> I don't understand why some here are so against
neuroscience and
> take pains to trivialize it. While it is true that
the science
> deals with material and events that are measurable, it
is also true
> that your alternative essence of consciousness,
presumably not
> material and therefore not measurable, cannot be
demonmstrated at
> all, in any way whatsoever, except by means of
subjective
> declaration. So if neurology is too limited and
trivial, what,
> indeed, what, is left and how do we know it?
Here's an analogy you'll like: Those who reject
neuroscience and
similar inquiries into cognition, perception, even
"creativity" are
like creationists, who reject evolution in preference to
the mystery
and immanence of Creation. There's that ineffability
factor: In the
beginning was the ineffable act. It can't be argued.
Why try to figure
out what mechanism gave rise to Shakespeare's thinking,
much less his
creative playwriting, when 'ineffability" covers
it? And we can't be
sure that science can actually figure it out, anyway?
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Michael Brady
[email protected]
