I've seen massive advances since I was a scalpel dissector many years ago. I'm more inclined to the neuroscience than I was back then because we seem to have become more 'intimate' with the scale. I agree with Molly on the imagination in all this, partly because it's all most of us have to play with, but this can now be informed by scientific results.
In the past decade, the neuroscience of social behaviour has blossomed. A major catalyst for this has been the discovery of what seems to be a physiological mechanism for social interaction, located in the brain's "mirror neurons". These have been seen to fire not only as a monkey, say, grabs a peanut, but also when the monkey sees an experimenter do the same thing. Imaging experiments in humans have similarly revealed parts of our brains becoming active when we see someone moving, or even when watching a walker hidden among moving dots. It seems we are not just observers of the social scene but that we automatically share the experiences and emotions of the people we are observing. This is less than half the story. When I see you in pain, I feel your pain and my face automatically expresses this pain. What's more, you can see by my expression that I share your pain, and you are comforted by the knowledge someone else shares your pain. You are responding to my response to you. One of my main ways of interacting with others was music, something lost since injuries years ago. Two or more people performing together in this way are best described as a single, complex system rather than as several systems interacting. Many neuroscientists now believe the same kinds of description should be applied generally to the brain activity that occurs when people interact, because their brains also become a single complex system. Much of what I've seen amongst social animals suggests there must be very unconscious social activity. This can be both emancipating through fellowship and very controlling. Eventually, sum over history methods tend to cancel a lot out and leave us knowing the face at the window was illusory. Science is only part of what is needed and I remember Feynman saying somewhere that scientists dealing with non- science are just as dumb as everyone else. On 4 Dec, 05:55, Molly <[email protected]> wrote: > Consensus reality can be difficult to shake, after all, what would we > talk about? As time goes on, I hold fewer opinions on common > concerns, but am always ready to dive into intimacy. There is a > creative difference there I can put my finger on just now. > > We fill in the gaps in all kinds of ways, including self image, until > it takes complete humility or a long, hard, dark night to shake the > cartoon from the real. What I find eventually, is that it is all just > possibility, every scenario discussed, witnessed or experienced. > Imagination is essential, but it is not always used in an awakened > state, in which case, filling in the blanks is about all we are doing. > > On Dec 3, 4:27 pm, e <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > Hmm…you should be able to view the whole 50 minute part 2 episode. > > > Now I am not a “brain” guy reducing everything to a neuronal > > scientific materialism but there are a few nuggets in regards to the > > constructed nature of experience. The first is the bit about how > > vision works. How the system has a focal point that centers focus > > around the center and data at the edges falls off. I find this > > analogous to thought. The locus of thought is “I am”. There were also > > a few different blurbs on different areas of the brain controlling or > > effecting the ability to see lines, faces or landscapes i.e. things > > that we see “outside” are constructed and not things-in-themselves. > > The most salient one was this seemingly random pattern of light and > > dark on a page and then they added some outline to show a dog. When > > the outline was then removed, you could still see a dog. I felt this > > showed how the brain reifies objects into existence and “fills in” a > > lot that is not “really” there in our experience of consensus > > dualistic reality. We have been indoctrinated into consensus reality > > and learn pattern recognition and impute solidity and “realness” onto > > experience. In another world, they may con/per-ceive experience in > > totally different ways. > > > On Dec 1, 8:53 am, Molly <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > I could only find a way to view a ten minute segment on this, e. Very > > > nice site, Charlie Rose has a fascinating list of guests. What was it > > > that you were interested in about the brain series? -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups ""Minds Eye"" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/minds-eye?hl=en.
