RE: why do we enjoy poetry From the perspective of neuroscience?
January 14, 2019 at 12:15 am
(This post was last modified: January 14, 2019 at 12:21 am by Belacqua.)
(January 13, 2019 at 11:13 pm)Thoreauvian Wrote: No, a computer is not a semiotic system, because it has its code imposed from without.
I guess I don't understand what you mean by the term, then. Semiotics is just the study of signs and meaning. A semiotic system would be, I thought, a system with signs and meanings. Whether this was self-made or not. But if there's a special sense involved here, I'm willing to go with it.
Quote:If you think evolution could program p-zombies from scratch, I would have to ask why they should prefer living over dying. If you say dying is painful or against such creatures' self-interest, you have already conceded the necessity for internal states.
Well, the point of thinking about p-zombies is just to differentiate between a functioning thingy with interior experiences (qualia) and one without. I haven't considered whether such a thing could come about by natural selection or not.
I guess evolution would select for p-zombies the way it does for anything else -- if it reproduces in the environment, it survives. If it doesn't, it doesn't. The thingy's preference here may not be relevant. If it behaves in such a way as to survive, its feelings about surviving, if any, aren't a part of the equation. Therefore, a well-functioning p-zombie, however it had come about, would survive without preferences or the qualia of pain or pleasure.
This is if we're strict about the word "preference." I mean, we all use it metaphorically, probably. As in, "my car prefers not to start on cold mornings." That's not really preference in the sense that conscious creatures have it.
(January 13, 2019 at 11:21 pm)Abaddon_ire Wrote: Alright, I have lurked this thread long enough. The question posed is"why do we enjoy poetry From the perspective of neuroscience?".
Implicit in the question is an unwarranted assumption.
I don't enjoy poetry at all, mostly I ignore it as irrelevant fluff.
The notion that "we" enjoy poetry as a global truth is utter bollocks. One only has to say the words "iambic pentameter" and I instantly teleport to a different universe.
The claim that poetry has universal appeal is flat out wrong.
Isn't there some kind of "law" about this? Something like "90% of everything is garbage"? I agree that with poetry, it's likely a higher percentage.
[edit] I found it. Thank you Mr. Google:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sturgeon%27s_law
The good stuff, though, I find worth the effort.
But I think we could express the question in different ways. "Is it possible to study non-scientific fields with scientific means?" "Does brain science tell us anything useful about aesthetic questions?" Things like that.
If nothing beautiful seems interesting to you, I suspect you are a p-zombie.
