People interacting directly is easy compared to interacting via a historical medium: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/scotland/article6943751.ece#cid=OTC-RSS&attr=797084
On 4 Dez., 08:56, archytas <[email protected]> wrote: > 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.
