Another analogy? You pull away from the hot stove because you feel pain and that part of your brain which governs automatic responses and processes such as breathing or digestion, or hair growing cause the automatic muscular retraction. You don't value such unconscious responses (meaning not affected by consciousness) unless you do so for a predertimed reason. You might have said, How long can I endure the flame? That would engage some judgment and valuing. What I meant was that consciously controlled sensation must occur first in order to be valued. I did not include the unconscious or preconscious or nonconscious physical reactions or processes. 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, 6:19 PM > 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)
