RE: why do we enjoy poetry From the perspective of neuroscience?
January 16, 2019 at 12:49 am
(This post was last modified: January 16, 2019 at 12:52 am by bennyboy.)
(January 15, 2019 at 11:10 pm)Thoreauvian Wrote: Research has shown that while consciousness is dispersed throughout different modules of the brain, not all brain activity produces consciousness. That being the case, I would guess the answer is that not only is consciousness brain-dependent, it is dependent on specific aspects of the brain. Perhaps it's confined to the overarching control layers where the specific selective properties of consciousness are employed. You have to look at consciousness in terms of its evolutionary function. Since the operation of the brain is energy intensive, it only makes sense that consciousness is confined to where it has a function to perform.My understanding is that they have not been able to identify a seat for consciousness-- at best, it is distributed among several brain. But that was a couple years ago at least, so maybe I should spend a few minutes with google before I embarrass myself.
Quote:You and I don't really speak the same language altogether. I will be reading more philosophy this year, but may not be able to follow your interests until later -- if at all. Perhaps you could tell me how this relates to the discussion.To use the wave metaphor-- is a wave something that water does, or does a wave have a more abstract identity, which can only be seen as it propagates through the wave, but cannot really be said to be OF the water (or at least, of the water in particular).
The .mp3 metaphor, likewise. I'd say that a Beatle's Yesterday.mp3 song on a disk is a material record of a more abstract entity-- the sonic ideas present in a room 40 years ago which are propagating in extremely complex ways through various media.
(January 15, 2019 at 11:10 pm)Thoreauvian Wrote: At least that's my understanding, as over-simplified as it may be. You, on the other hand, seem to be playing dumb on these issues. I have a hard time understanding your respect for science, if you question so many of its observations.
It's because I'm very aware of the relationship between context and truths which I think must ALWAYS either explicitly or implicitly be held in relation to some context.
Psychology and psychogony are conflated in science, since science cannot (by definition I think) say much about brute facts. But when conflation is treated as equation ("We know a lot about how the brain affects experience" --> "We understand what mind is and why it exists. . . the brain!"), then this is in my opinion an overly impoverished philosophical position.
