But you assume that you will use a car to get to Hoboken. If the goal was to get to Hoboken, there are several choices. Why did you assume you'd use a car? You did rely on some knowledge of how the car works in order to make the choice. You assumed that the car would turn the wheels and that a road existed and that you'd get to Hoboken in reasonable time. You assumed other conditions, too. In fact, why not make a list of all the assumptions you made regarding the choice of a car and what benefits, limitations were entailed? I'd bet it could be a long list. 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, 10:16 PM > Boris: I agree regarding the significance for any behaviour > of our > neurological system. However, however much I might know > regarding how my car > engine works, the process by which I decide to Hoboken and > the route I > select to get there is different from the workings of the > car, which are > essential to my getting to my destination. Or, however much > I undestand the > anatomy and physiology of my brain, I believe that my > selection of the true, > the beautiful and the judicious will be a process beyond > the understanding > of my neural circuits, but surely dependent on them > (keeping in mind that I > have not yet read Hauser's book). > Geoff C > Geoff C > ----- Original Message ----- > From: <[email protected]> > To: <[email protected]> > Cc: <[email protected]> > Sent: Saturday, December 20, 2008 8:19 PM > Subject: Re: Geoff, Neurology and "Art" > > > > There is no question that neurological process is a > vehicle for any > > human > > action including the most complex - Art. In trying to > analyze the > > connection > > it would be methodologically correct to use natural > bridge between two - > > experimental psychology. The field that closely deals > with both. > > Boris Shoshensky > > > > > > > > -- Luc Delannoy <[email protected]> wrote: > > Geoff, is hostility in the air ? or patronizing ? > > > > Geoff to WC: > > "When you learn something about aesthetics from > brain imaging and > > neurosurgery > > let me know what it is." > > > > Luc to Geoff: > > Where have you been in the last 20 years? > > > > Geoff to WC > > "...infer poetically.." > > > > Luc to Geoff > > You mean neuroscientists are poets ? > > > > > > Neuroscience + aesthetics = neuroaesthetics is not > about understanding > > expressionism or impressionism per se but about > studying and understanding > > the > > nature of the human creative process (both from the > creator and receptor > > perspectives.) That includes coming up with a theory > of perception. > > > > It seems you are confusing the process and the outcome > or result of the > > process. > > > > Neuroaesthetics could help understand how the artist > got there and how/why > > the > > public feels what/how/when it feels. It is not about > the "artwork" per se > > but > > about processes (auditive, visual for example). It > combines principles > > from > > evolutionary biology, functional brain anatomy, > perceptual and cognitive > > psychology, musicology, philosophy, cognitive > archaelogy, anthropology. > > > > Since we know that a brain could see an object > simultaneously under > > different > > perspectives we understand how an artist got to > cubism. A stressed brain > > with > > aesthetic fatigue could explain Magritte's works. > > > > As far as the public taste you are mentioning, you > might investigate the > > invariants in functional brain anatomy - they might > explain the reasons > > why > > people from different cultures at different times > enjoy Don Gionnavi for > > example, or Vermeer... > > > > Understanding the auditive and visual brains can help > us design proposals > > for > > the education system and talk straight in the eye to > members of > > departments of > > education. > > > > Neuroscience and neuroaesthetics in particular is not > about me in front of > > a > > painting trying to understand the meaning of the > concept of impressionism; > > it > > is about the well being of society at large > > > > About reading: some of the seeds of neuroaesthetics > are in De Anima by > > Aristotle (see also Theophrast). Then we could jump to > Montaigne and John > > Dewey to read about human experience. Then jump to > Ramachandran and Amy > > Ione > > for example, but also to the philosophers working on > the relations between > > art, brain and human consciousness. But then also: > Alcmeon, Galeno, Thomas > > Willis, Da Vinci, Galvani, Broca, Wiernicke, Brodmann > I just simply cannot > > drop names... I myself investigate musical > consciousness. > > > > I currently work in Mexico with a group of patients > with cerebral palsy > > (working on neuroplasticity to better their > condition). They couldn't care > > less about sarcams about the validity of > neurosciences. They couldn't care > > less if some people have existential anxiety when > viewing voxels on a > > computer > > screen, voxels that "translate" their > aesthetics experience of a > > painting. > > > > We paint and make music and we do that because we have > learned about > > neurological deficits and functional brain anatomy and > because we have > > learned > > about the human creative processes and how music and > art (with its > > subcategories) could bring well being to our society. > > > > And by the way, the falsity of mind-body split is so > evident with such > > patients that it amazes me to meet people who still > believe that the mind > > is > > somewhere out there...
