AMEN! And that's a belief! WC
--- On Fri, 12/19/08, Luc Delannoy <[email protected]> wrote: > From: Luc Delannoy <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: Neurology and "Art" > To: [email protected] > Date: Friday, December 19, 2008, 9:58 AM > 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. > > >
