William: Recognizing sensing: Maybe I'm missing something. If I put my hand
on a hot element on a stove, I don't stop to consider what sense has been
evoked. I (if I can claim intention) pull my hand away.
Persons who don't feel pain are in real trouble (some do exist). I need no
persuasion regarding the value of sensing. I know of no other reliable way
of learning that doesn't involve a sense. Now, your point was?
Geoff C
----- Original Message -----
From: "William Conger" <[email protected]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, December 20, 2008 5:57 PM
Subject: Re: Geoff, Neurology and "Art"
How can you value what you sense if you don't recognize the modalities of
sensing?
WC
--- On Sat, 12/20/08, Geoff <[email protected]> wrote:
From: Geoff <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Geoff, Neurology and "Art"
To: [email protected]
Date: Saturday, December 20, 2008, 4:43 PM
Cheerskep and Luc: Whether I read Luc's note too quickly
or not, I didn't
perceive it as so scornful, though I do appreciate your
attending to his
attitude Cheerskep.
I think that much of the problem may involve my efforts to
cling to a
certain definition of science (and Cheerskep seems to be
with me on this).
Others may be equating learning or studying with science.
The scientific
method is only one narrow method of learning. I fully
expect that Cheerskep
would join with me in approving the pursuit and products of
learning. The
achievements of neuroscience are impressive and most
valuable, as well as
not being frightening. If aesthetics has to do primarily
with valuing then I
don't understand how neuroscience will have
contributions to make. If
aesthetics involves understanding sensing and perceiving,
then, of course,
neursocience will have immensely valuable contributions to
make and has
already made such contributions.
Geoff C
----- Original Message -----
From: <[email protected]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, December 20, 2008 2:09 PM
Subject: Re: Geoff, Neurology and "Art"
> In a message dated 12/20/08 12:46:55 PM,
[email protected] writes:
>
>
>> Luc to Geoff:
>> Where have you been in the last 20 years?
>>
> And where you have you been for the last month? The
neurology that has
> been
> championed on the forum has been based on the
assumption that examining
> brain
> tissue material will yield useful and enlightening
things about the
> creation
> and appreciation of "art". (And about how
"consciousness" -- which some of
> us
> persist in considering a non-material entity -- can
"arise from" that
> neural
> tissue.)
>
> Geoff and I have posted extensive messages detailing
why we say we haven't
> seen evidence of neurology's having achieved
anything like this. (E.g. my
> posting on Zeki.) Either you haven't read those
postings, or you've read
> them with
> nothing like what I'd call
"understanding".
>
> But what really has moved me to write this posting is
your tone toward
> Geoff.
> It is a combination of sarcasm and condescension that
is particularly
> odious
> when it comes from one who clearly lacks worthy mental
acuity and yet who
> smugly believes he has it..
>
>
> **************
> One site keeps you connected to all
> your email: AOL Mail, Gmail, and Yahoo Mail. Try it
now.
>
(http://www.aol.com/?optin=new-dp&icid=aolcom40vanity&ncid=emlcntaolcom00000025)
