William: I've not been keeping up with the publications of Yale Press. No
doubt the unnamed book to which you refer is authoritative and responsible.
I just haven't heard of it till your post.
Of course, Linus Pauling, a major luminary in one area of science,
recommended consumption of large quantitites of vitamin C as an aid to
health. Most sources I've checked have debunked that claim. He still knew a
lot about his own area. Relevance: Just because it comes from a scientist
isn't proof of validity.
Still, I wish I knew more of the book to which you refer. Good for you for
keeping up so well with what's being published.
Geoff C
----- Original Message -----
From: "William Conger" <[email protected]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, December 20, 2008 5:51 PM
Subject: Re: Geoff, Neurology and "Art"
Why?
If Cheerskep thinks neuroaesthetics is awful, he should look at the recent
book published by Yale press on neuroarthistory. I've only glanced at the
book myself. Wickipedia is not one of my sources as it has become for
others here. Books I've actually read I sometimes recommend to the list
when the discourse seems relevant. Is it my job to outline the details of
each of those books? And is it my job to prove the ideas of the authors?
And is it my job to exceed their theses? After all, it's a little more
challenging to investigate idea than it is to deny it outright -- or to
say someone is too dumb to consider.
Yep, the world is becoming lopsided with books of all sorts. Maybe we
should stick to the Bible to be sure we don't read dumb stuff. No
neuroscience there. Just good old dictums.
WC
--- On Sat, 12/20/08, [email protected] <[email protected]> wrote:
From: [email protected] <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Geoff, Neurology and "Art"
To: [email protected]
Date: Saturday, December 20, 2008, 1:09 PM
In a message dated 12/20/08 12:46:55 PM,
[email protected] writes:
> Luc to Geoff:
> Where have you been in the last 20 years?
>
And where you have you been for the last month? The
neurology that has been
championed on the forum has been based on the assumption
that examining brain
tissue material will yield useful and enlightening things
about the creation
and appreciation of "art". (And about how
"consciousness" -- which some of us
persist in considering a non-material entity -- can
"arise from" that neural
tissue.)
Geoff and I have posted extensive messages detailing why we
say we haven't
seen evidence of neurology's having achieved anything
like this. (E.g. my
posting on Zeki.) Either you haven't read those
postings, or you've read them with
nothing like what I'd call "understanding".
But what really has moved me to write this posting is your
tone toward Geoff.
It is a combination of sarcasm and condescension that is
particularly odious
when it comes from one who clearly lacks worthy mental
acuity and yet who
smugly believes he has it..
**************
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&icid=aolcom40vanity&ncid=emlcntaolcom00000025)
