Re: Geoff, Neurology and "Art"

[Geoff]

William: What psychologists do: Actually, some of us are persuaded that 
reality is not the ultimate criterion. Happier people seem to gloss over 
some of the most distressing information and perceive their glasses being 
"half full". So, we propose to facilitate change in the direction of 
"reality" but with a degree of positive/optimistic spin.
"Psychic" in my circles is usually used in a mildly derogatory way, as in 
implying ESP or sideshow skills. We'd probably phrase it as a 
"psychological" problem. But, yes, adjustment of beliefs can be seen as a 
hallmark of mental health. We would hope for a balance between being 
resolute in believing and flexible in accepting a new, satisfactorily 
verified "truth". (My use of "we" is not intended to imply any royalty; 
merely my understanding of some/most of my colleague's practices.)
Geoff C
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "William Conger" <w-con...@sbcglobal.net>
To: <aesthetics-l@mh.databack.com>
Sent: Sunday, December 21, 2008 1:49 PM
Subject: Re: Geoff, Neurology and "Art"

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 <gcreal...@sympatico.ca> wrote:

From: Geoff <gcreal...@sympatico.ca>
Subject: Re: Geoff, Neurology and "Art"
To: aesthetics-l@mh.databack.com
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"
<w-con...@sbcglobal.net>
To: <aesthetics-l@mh.databack.com>
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
<gcreal...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>
>> From: Geoff <gcreal...@sympatico.ca>
>> Subject: Re: Geoff, Neurology and "Art"
>> To: aesthetics-l@mh.databack.com
>> 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: <borishoshen...@netzero.com>
>> To: <aesthetics-l@mh.databack.com>
>> Cc: <aesthetics-l@mh.databack.com>
>> 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
<lucdelann...@yahoo.com> 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