When I said two separate faucets, I had in mind two separate locations, say, 
one in a bathroom sink and another in a kitchen sink.  But I do recall being in 
a NYC apartment where the bathroom sink was a bathtub which also servedf as the 
kitchen sink! The whole apartment was smaller than my kitchen.  Re the hot/cold 
molecules, I'll take your word for it only because I don't want to research the 
matter. In my faucets the hot and the cold water arrive at the same moment 
since the building I live in has a boiler type and pump system meaning.... 
let's forget this frivolous path.

Now, in order to answer your question re the brain stuff I'll need to do a 
bunch of homework, searching through my bookshelf of relevant books, and during 
the Holiday too!  What a drag.  It's probably there but since my memory tends 
to condense what I read into serviceable themes and summaries, I'll need to 
re-read some books, just for you who could easily do the reading yourself! This 
kind of homework drives me nutty, especially since I'm a very busy fellow and I 
don't like to retrace my mental footsteps.  I'll do the damned homework, 
Cheerskep, but what's stopping you from  - proving - me wrong instead of just 
implying or claiming I'm wrong in my memory of what I've read several years ago?
WC 


--- 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, 8:42 PM
> 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

Reply via email to