I'd like to be able to talk coherently about results like below ... to be able to criticize them, explore their implications, etc. The medium-larger context is in Nick's "paradox" that the pleasure of developing an exposition (or piece of art, or anything) is lessened if nobody will experience the resulting object. An even larger context is SteveS's sporadic reference to mostly-cadence-oriented poetry, where pleasure is derived from aspects *other* than the ideas evoked by its semantics ... like why would anyone ever enjoy scat singing? [†] ... and why do I like word-less music so much more than music with lyrics? It's also related to Marcus' questioning why face-to-face is important to some people. And my own: what's with the silly virtual backgrounds? Who cares if my video is on or not? And why?
I'm not hung up on the word "real", either. I could use "tacit", or "primary", or "first articles", or "things with which one directly, physically, interacts with no fascist semantic context". Or something like that. Watching someone's lips move is real. Listening to what they're saying is not. It's artificial. That's the best I can do. Motor Imagery of Speech: The Involvement of Primary Motor Cortex in Manual and Articulatory Motor Imagery https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6579859/ > The results have implications for models of mental imagery of simple > articulatory gestures, in that no evidence is found for somatotopic > activation of lip muscles in sub-phonemic contexts during motor imagery of > such tasks, suggesting that motor simulation of relatively simple actions > does not involve M1. Observation-execution matching and action inhibition in human primary motor cortex during viewing of speech-related lip movements or listening to speech https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0028393211001801?via%3Dihub > The MEP findings support the notion that observation-execution matching is an > operating process in the putative human MNS that might have been fundamental > for evolution of language. Furthermore, the SICI findings provide evidence > that inhibitory mechanisms are recruited to prevent unwanted overt motor > activation during action observation. [†] Best scat artist of all time: https://youtu.be/ubauFpvtBeA On 6/9/20 9:04 AM, Jon Zingale wrote: > It seems to me that you are arguing for a kind of strict materialism. > To what ends is defining *the real* important to you? -- ☣ uǝlƃ - .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. . FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
