As I've argued, our beliefs are fundamental and unavoidable. We always start with beliefs and these mediate our senses (excepting those non-conscious functions controlled by the brain stem). However, we always alter and adjust our beliefs moment to moment...not always successfully, of course (I'm sure I can beat that speeding train and go around the gates have been many victims' last thoughts). An inability to adjust beliefs in the stream of evidence -- a continual feedback looping in consciousness -- should signal some psychic problem. Isn't that what clinical psychologists and psychoanalyists do -- try to encourage patients to modify beliefs in keeping with evidence (reality)? WC
--- On Sun, 12/21/08, Geoff <[email protected]> wrote: > From: Geoff <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: Geoff, Neurology and "Art" > To: [email protected] > Date: Sunday, December 21, 2008, 10:22 AM > William: Among my beliefs are many assumptions. You're > right. But then, > don't we all see what we expect to see and believe > we're right? And yes, it > IS difficult for me to give up cherished assumptions and > first impressions. > Geoff C > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "William Conger" > <[email protected]> > To: <[email protected]> > Sent: Sunday, December 21, 2008 1:15 AM > Subject: Re: Geoff, Neurology and "Art" > > > > But you assume that you will use a car to get to > Hoboken. If the goal was > > to get to Hoboken, there are several choices. Why did > you assume you'd > > use a car? You did rely on some knowledge of how the > car works in order > > to make the choice. You assumed that the car would > turn the wheels and > > that a road existed and that you'd get to Hoboken > in reasonable time. You > > assumed other conditions, too. In fact, why not make > a list of all the > > assumptions you made regarding the choice of a car and > what benefits, > > limitations were entailed? I'd bet it could be a > long list. > > WC > > > > > > --- On Sat, 12/20/08, Geoff > <[email protected]> wrote: > > > >> From: Geoff <[email protected]> > >> Subject: Re: Geoff, Neurology and "Art" > >> To: [email protected] > >> Date: Saturday, December 20, 2008, 10:16 PM > >> Boris: I agree regarding the significance for any > behaviour > >> of our > >> neurological system. However, however much I might > know > >> regarding how my car > >> engine works, the process by which I decide to > Hoboken and > >> the route I > >> select to get there is different from the workings > of the > >> car, which are > >> essential to my getting to my destination. Or, > however much > >> I undestand the > >> anatomy and physiology of my brain, I believe that > my > >> selection of the true, > >> the beautiful and the judicious will be a process > beyond > >> the understanding > >> of my neural circuits, but surely dependent on > them > >> (keeping in mind that I > >> have not yet read Hauser's book). > >> Geoff C > >> Geoff C > >> ----- Original Message ----- > >> From: <[email protected]> > >> To: <[email protected]> > >> Cc: <[email protected]> > >> Sent: Saturday, December 20, 2008 8:19 PM > >> Subject: Re: Geoff, Neurology and "Art" > >> > >> > >> > There is no question that neurological > process is a > >> vehicle for any > >> > human > >> > action including the most complex - Art. In > trying to > >> analyze the > >> > connection > >> > it would be methodologically correct to use > natural > >> bridge between two - > >> > experimental psychology. The field that > closely deals > >> with both. > >> > Boris Shoshensky > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > -- Luc Delannoy > <[email protected]> wrote: > >> > Geoff, is hostility in the air ? or > patronizing ? > >> > > >> > Geoff to WC: > >> > "When you learn something about > aesthetics from > >> brain imaging and > >> > neurosurgery > >> > let me know what it is." > >> > > >> > Luc to Geoff: > >> > Where have you been in the last 20 years? > >> > > >> > Geoff to WC > >> > "...infer poetically.." > >> > > >> > Luc to Geoff > >> > You mean neuroscientists are poets ? > >> > > >> > > >> > Neuroscience + aesthetics = neuroaesthetics > is not > >> about understanding > >> > expressionism or impressionism per se but > about > >> studying and understanding > >> > the > >> > nature of the human creative process (both > from the > >> creator and receptor > >> > perspectives.) That includes coming up with a > theory > >> of perception. > >> > > >> > It seems you are confusing the process and > the outcome > >> or result of the > >> > process. > >> > > >> > Neuroaesthetics could help understand how the > artist > >> got there and how/why > >> > the > >> > public feels what/how/when it feels. It is > not about > >> the "artwork" per se > >> > but > >> > about processes (auditive, visual for > example). It > >> combines principles > >> > from > >> > evolutionary biology, functional brain > anatomy, > >> perceptual and cognitive > >> > psychology, musicology, philosophy, cognitive > >> archaelogy, anthropology. > >> > > >> > Since we know that a brain could see an > object > >> simultaneously under > >> > different > >> > perspectives we understand how an artist got > to > >> cubism. A stressed brain > >> > with > >> > aesthetic fatigue could explain > Magritte's works. > >> > > >> > As far as the public taste you are
