Re: Neurology and "Art"

Fri, 19 Dec 2008 09:54:00 -0800

William: Speaking of folksy anecdotes about dentists and daughters - obviously I'm not able to discriminate the relevance as you can. With regard to psychiatry, there were drugs before there was talk therapy (or as long as there has been talk therapy). The extent of the effectiveness of either is debatable both currently and historically (though I would not propose getting rid of either). How is talk therapy effective? My answer is that through the establishment of a working relationship clients become prepared to alter their beliefs and/or practices. Your logic would suggest that the theory of evolution should (or could) guide legislation that goverments might pass regarding social support funding. I don't deny the reality of neuroscience or aesthetics. I just don't share your belief that your daughter or some neuroscientist will produce information other than that of the type that suggests that when we have an aesthetic experience certain brain pathways or structures become more active. 
Geoff C
----- Original Message ----- From: "William Conger" <[email protected]> 
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, December 19, 2008 11:32 AM
Subject: Re: Neurology and "Art"
This is where we differ. I believe (note that word) that Cheerskep's characters and genre might ultimately be predictable if we were to trace all of his neural functions. I agree that we won't do that because it would likely take far longer than any Cheerskep or any investigators would live (given the billions of cells and feedback systems in his brain). But the case that it won't be done because of this or that practical reason does not invalidate the logic of my argument.
I have a daughter who works with super computers to solve problems that even a few years ago were considered insolvable because no one could live long enough to work out the necessary computations that are now almost routine computing tasks.
And if it is the case that brain study and neuroscience can tell us how some brain functions operate and how some cognition occurs and what it evokes in consciousness, at what point does that vanish and the purely spiritual and ineffable take over? At what point does something exist and then morph into something that doesn't exist but somehow still counts? I say that happens when we no longer can find -- either out of dispair, tiredness, laziness, or mental inability -- evidence and thus fall back and rely on belief without evidence. As a matter of fact, I do agree that some part of all experience or consciousness or action is reliant on belief without evidence. But humans try to gather evidence for their beliefs. That's what it is to be human.
A few years ago psychiatry relied on talk therapy alone. Now pills that affect neural activity can alleviate much psychic suffering. Talk therapy, they say, is still helpful. But how? 
WC


--- On Thu, 12/18/08, Geoff <[email protected]> wrote:


From: Geoff <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Neurology and "Art"
To: [email protected]
Date: Thursday, December 18, 2008, 10:33 PM
New imaging techniques are surely an important advance in
methodology by
which neuroscience establishes the ways of operation of
physical structures
in the brain. Gatherings of outstanding intellects are
conventions or
departments but are not, in and of themselves
"neuroscience". Neuroscience
seeks to explain and understand the physical processes by
which the brain
operates. Some of that operation results in decisions about
aesthetic issues
and the writing of drama and the painting of pictures. It
will not tell us
which characters cheerskep will develop in his next play
and whether the
nature of his play will be romantic, ironic, depressing or
uplifting.
Geoff C
----- Original Message ----- From: "William Conger" 
<[email protected]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, December 18, 2008 8:28 PM
Subject: Re: Neurology and "Art"


> What literature can you cite in the fielod to justify
your conclusion that
> neurology hasn't contributed anything to aid
artists or art contemplators?
>
> I've cited people like Solso and Zeki and there
are still others quite
> numerous and their ranks are increasing. Neurology is
not the science it
> used to be.  Along with the whole range of biological
science, it is
> undergoing a renaissance, an explosive new era, thanks
to new imaging
> technology and the gathering of outstanding
intellects.
> WC
>
> --- On Thu, 12/18/08, [email protected]
<[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> From: [email protected] <[email protected]>
>> Subject: Re: Neurology and "Art"
>> To: [email protected]
>> Date: Thursday, December 18, 2008, 5:10 PM
>> William writes:
>>
>> "I don't understand why some here are so
against
>> neuroscience and take pains
>> to trivialize it.. . if neurology is too limited
and
>> trivial, what, indeed,
>> what, is left and how do we know it?"
>>
>> William, please look again. At no point do I say
neurology
>> is trivial. The
>> amount of pain that neurologists have prevented,
stopped or
>> reduced is
>> incalculable. It's hard to think of any
contribution to
>> humanity greater than the
>> reduction of raw human pain.
>>
>> It has been priceless at that assignment. But the
>> assignment of contributing
>> something of utility or enlightenment to artists
and
>> contemplators is a
>> different task entirely. And I have not seen, nor
do I
>> anticipate soon seeing,
>> anything like that from neurologists. I claim that
to say
>> this is not to trivialize
>> neurology, any more than to observe that
cardiologists
>> never treat "affairs
>> of the heart" is to say their work is
trivial.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> **************
>> 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&amp;
>>
icid=aolcom40vanity&amp;ncid=emlcntaolcom00000025)

Reply via email to