It seems to me, that instead of it being a biochemical, neurological function of brain, what you are talking about is more a function of vitality, the spark of life within us that arrives sometime in birth and departs at death of the body. The body responds to our vitality, which includes mind, emotion, self image (or as gabbydot would say, projection) and all the intangible aspects of our life.
On Jun 12, 1:09 am, malcymo <[email protected]> wrote: > I think the answer to that is embedded in the structure of the brain. It > would seem that it can interpret inputs in alternative ways. The famous > pictures - 'The candle stick and the faces', 'The wire frame cube' etc. > Drugs and booze weaken the connections in some areas and enhance them in > others hence the new connections give new responses. Hence the so called > creativity. I personally believe, just like you, that we can be creative > enough without that stuff. For that matter I am intrigued to think that I > refer to my brain. It seems more logical for my brain to refer to its body, > don't you think? > > > > > > > > On Tuesday, June 12, 2012 4:01:55 PM UTC+12, rigsy03 wrote: > > Why were we introduced to liquor as a social grace- ever? Or drugs for > > the Boomers. Why are they associated with artistic and creative > > achievement? Because they reduce inhibitions/clear thinking? Because > > they excuse behavior/choices? Anyway- I think a healthy brain has > > everything it needs to be forever creative and curious, sane and > > rational until one's final breath. > > > On Jun 11, 5:11 pm, malcymo <[email protected]> wrote: > > > I believe that it is well known that in order for the brain to be > > > creative then it must make mistakes. Were it just a computing device > > > it would always respond to inputs in a tedious predictable way. We > > > have this incredible capacity to respond to language metaphorically > > > and to ideas imaginatively. Some pointers to the physical reasons for > > > this are contained in The Reith Lectures given by Neuroscientist > > > Vilayanur Ramachandran in 2003. These lectures, I believe, are > > > designed to give non academics insight into academic areas although I > > > am not sure of this. They tend, therefore, to be simplistic but none > > > the less interesting. However, as a retired engineer I am inclined to > > > reject all things spiritual but enjoy the artistic creativity of > > > humanity. So, just how credulous is that massively parallel, self > > > replicating, neural network of ours. I think, probably more so than we > > > would like to believe. Just how sure can we be of our supposedly > > > rational analysis? Just a thought. > > > > Malc
