The difference is a millisecond quibble.
mando
On Dec 25, 2008, at 6:42 PM, [email protected] wrote:
In a message dated 12/25/08 8:48:25 PM, [email protected] writes:
If you turn on two separate faucets in your home, water will
stream from
both simultaneously although there's only one ultimate water pipe
coming
into
the home. Neuronal firing can occur in many places at the same time
although
the sensory input is single. And awareness is constructed from
the neuronal
activity.
I don't think the analogy works. This is just a guess, but I'd bet
money on
it: The molecules of water that are right next to each other in the
originating
water pipe until they are divided into those for cold water and
those for hot
do not arrive in your sink simultaneously. The ones that have to be
heated
will take longer.
The "one ultimate water pipe coming into" your brain -- in the case
of a car
bearing down on you -- begins with a retinal impression. Granted,
the layman
tends to think the nerve impulses from the retina go solely and
directly to
the
occipital area of the brain where "vision" is processed, but your
report of
people who are "blind" because the pertinent occipital area is
inactive but
who
nevertheless can be frightened when confronted by a hostile face is
interesting. Nevertheless I maintain the logic behind my doubt
persists: Why
would one
experience fright when confronted by an approaching car or a
hostile face if
they have not already "registered" and "recognized" in some
subconscious
chamber the car or the face? What were they frightened OF?
Perhaps a distinction should be made between what I'll dubiously
call a
primary and secondary "emotion". Possibly the "taste" of vanilla
and the
dislike of
the taste could arrive simultaneously. (After all, pain from flame and
awareness that that's flame can be simultaneous.) Those would be
"primary"
emotions.
I'll term "secondary" emotions those that arise from what (for
temporary
communicative convenience) I'll call the "meaning" of the
awareness. The
approaching car does not cause pain, but, once we recognize it's a car
approaching, we
know it "means" pain to come if we don't move. We cannot experience a
secondary emotion without a prior "recognition".
Meantime I'm still interested in the central question put to you
last time: "
Have you read of
convincing
neurological
research that the realization and the fright are
unquestionably simultaneous
-- as distinguished from simply being separated by such a
tiny time-interval
that current machinery can't discern it?"
--- On Thu, 12/25/08, [email protected] <[email protected]> wrote:
From: [email protected] <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: sense of pulchritude and intellectual engagement
To: [email protected]
Date: Thursday, December 25, 2008, 3:30 PM
In a message dated 12/24/08 12:08:52 PM,
[email protected] writes:
I don't think we can talk anymore of sequential
process in consciousness,
cognition, etc. We may invent a sequence to sort out
something complex but
our brains are operating on multiple neuron-firing
sequences simultaneously.
So
in the end to say we respond emotionally first or last
is meaningless
(except maybe in subconscious brain stem activity.
This is interesting. Say I turn my head just to check the
traffic at the very
moment a car is rushing toward me. I would have thought
that what would
follow would be, first, realization of what was happening,
and only then
fright.
The "realization" need not be
"conscious".
(I'm open to the idea that the subconscious does lots
of processing and
"thought" before the thought becomes conscious.
It seems obvious to me that
that's
what's happening when I try to remember, say, a movie
actor's name: I'm
sitting there mumbling, what the hell's his name, and
suddenly -- pop! there
it is
in my larynx, or in a visualization of the letters of his
name.)
What isn't clear to me how/why my subconscious
could/would be frightened
until after it had processed the threat. Have you read of
convincing
neurological
research that the realization and the fright are
unquestionably simultaneous
-- as distinguished from simply being separated by such a
tiny time-interval
that current machinery can't discern it? When I put
some requests to Google
the response seems "instantaneous", but we know
an immense amount of
"searching"
must have taken place.
**************
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)
