shakespeare ? we need a discipline of neuroscience called cognitive archaelogy. it is not "appreciating one thing "over" another" but "with". there is no conflict between neuroscience and aesthetics. why separate them? dualism all over again.
luc www.lucdelannoy.com ----- Original Message ---- From: GEOFF CREALOCK <[email protected]> To: [email protected] Sent: Thursday, December 18, 2008 5:06:44 PM Subject: Re: Neurology and "Art" William: You got it right, at the end of your post (below). If we want to understand Shakspeare, we don't need more neuroscience (as much as it doesn't frighten me); we need, for example, social historical (for one example) information. The history of syntax, modes and morals, knowledge of what Shakspeare might have read and learned in whatever schooliing he enjoyed. Neuroscience can help us understand what sections of his brain might have been involved when he wrote what he did, but that's neuroscience, not aesthetics. Interesting in its own right, but not revealing of how we appreciate one thing over another. Geoff C > From: William Conger <[email protected]> > Reply-To: [email protected] > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: Neurology and "Art" > Date: Thu, 18 Dec 2008 14:26:28 -0800 (PST) > > 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? > > It should not be so scary to realize that the brain is what gives rise to all > that we think, feel, imagine, and that shared symbols enable us to > communicate these conditions to others. Thought, after all, may not be so > stupendous as we might wish. By and by, science will show how that thinking > process works, which is not the thoughts themselves. > > And what thoughts are worthy in some various ways is not to be found in the > brain but in their application, and by those who regard them. > > To worry about Shakespeare's creative thoughts, one would need to first of > all go to his mileau, and his audiences then and now. His times and his > audiences have decided what his creativity consists of, collectively, through > the symbols we share, and those decisions are always "on the table" as it > were. In other words, creativity, like art, is a receptive evaluation. > > WC > > > --- On Thu, 12/18/08, [email protected] <[email protected]> wrote: > > > From: [email protected] <[email protected]> > > Subject: Neurology and "Art" > > To: [email protected] > > Date: Thursday, December 18, 2008, 2:35 PM > > Alas I think I blew it in my last yet again (In more ways > > than one! you may > > say) I typed in in Word and forgot manually to hit > > "save" before pasting into > > the email window. Here it is, "saved" (in some > > sense). > > > > 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
