William: Fine with me. Neuroscience doesn't scare me. When you learn
something about aesthetics from brain imaging and neurosurgery let me know
what it is.
I have a suspicion that what you will learn about is brain imaging and
neurosurgery. Now, if you want to infer poetically from your new knowledge,
that would be up to you. Just let me know what you've learned about hard
edge realism or expressionism or public (or private) taste in any field of
artistic endeavour. Infants' direction of gaze or length of gaze won't cut
it with me.
Geoff C
----- Original Message -----
From: "William Conger" <[email protected]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, December 19, 2008 11:00 AM
Subject: Re: Neurology and "Art"
You don't get it because you're not trying at all. You cite no experts.
You begin with a judgment, based on a preconceived idea, faulty at the
first level of logic, and hold to that. It's not about science vs the
humanities. It's about the substance of the physical world and how we
function in it as physical beings. Our beliefs are a product of that
physicality and they are themselves symbolized networks of biological
life. As a noted biochemist said,"biology does not stop at the neck".
Obviously, measuring is more than placing a ruler next to something. It
means analysis of data, deductive and inductive reasoning, testing
hypothesis, and the like. If it's physical, it's measurable; that is,
belief with evidence. And what is not physical is merely belief without
evidence. So if we are confined to belief, why not try to gather as much
evidence for beliefs as we can? What is the history of mankind if not the
gathering of evidence for beliefs? What is so taboo about wanting to do
that? Why is it good to have beliefs without evidence. As I said earlier,
this refusal to even examine the issue (brain=mind) is a redux of the
prelate refusing to look through Galileo's telescope.
I think you are just resisting the falsity of the mind-body split.
I'll say that neuroscience is the most promising route of inquiry for new
perspectives on aesthetic judgment, just as it is for all cognition. If
science can show us how we think it can lead us to why we think.
Tell me again why this is such a dangerous and censored idea. Is it the
Bible? Some religious dogma?
Finally, why do you and others here use gossipy anecdotes to illustrate
your arguments? Doing that is a ruse, an effort to make complicated,
nuanced concepts simple and everyday. Your dentist and his painless
patient: My dentist has a very high speed drill, enabling many people to
forego a local anesthetic. What's the point of these anecdotes?
Everybody knows that a general principle is not proven or falsified by
one odd exception. "Man falls 5,000 ft. from airplane and lives!" "Woman
is shot five times in head and complains only of a mild headache!" "Monkey
art sells for thousands!" Is this a gossip list or a open-minded
thinkers' list?
WC
Neuroscience is a legitimate interest and provides
important information to
physicians etc. As an important source of information about
aesthetic
judgments - I don't get it
Geoff C
