![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
I'm reading this book and posting my thoughts about it. My post about chapter 1 is here.
" 'Science does not describe and explain nature,' Heisenberg concluded, but 'nature as exposed to our method of questioning.' " What we ask shapes what we can learn. What we don't ask is powerful. In the post referenced above, I had a taste of this, when thinking about the search for laws that govern emotions. That had simply never occurred to me, so I never examined the idea, never learned anything about it. It was a blind spot in my thoughts. I wonder how many others I have! It would be enjoyable, challenging, and mind-expanding to find a few more.
"We are accustomed to thinking of these adaptations as gradual and progressive, but [...] the fossil record belies this impression. Rather than a series of smooth transitions, the evolutionary process is punctuated with bursts of metamorphosis." This helps explain one of the things that has bugged me for a while: how, if evolution really is the force behind the complex developments of life, we got here so darn fast.
The explanations of the three major chunks of brain are eerie. I've read Oliver Sacks' descriptions of various kinds of neocortical processing glitches; those are disturbing and thought-provoking, and I find myself wondering what it would really be like to have a condition like one of those. Odder still is thinking about the oldest part of the brain, the reptilian brain, making sure I breathe and my heart beats and my blood salinity is regulated. I had thought most of that was regulated chemically, without any central processing required.
It's also intriguing that this reptilian brain is responsible for things as diverse as heart rate and turf battles. It can't make me walk, but it can give me an urge to defend my territory.
The discussion of the limbic brain reminded me of something I always thought was odd. Mammalian young cry when they're lost, distressed, or separated from their parents. Somehow I had always considered that pretty dysfunctional. In a world full of predators, wouldn't it be smarter to shut up? Apparently not. Mammalian parents are sufficiently protective of and bonded to their young that the separation cry is a good gamble. The little one might get Mom back. But reptile young do not whine about a lost parent. Mom would just as soon eat them as save them. :-)
A new one about the neocortex (new for me): the phenomenon of blindsight. I wonder what that would be like.
I think it's REALLY WEIRD that the readiness wave (an EEG signature showing that physical motion is about to begin) passes BEFORE a person experiences a decision to move. Um. So where IS the original decision, how far back is it, why aren't we aware of it, and what is it that we are aware of as a decision? Weird.
I like the explanation of why we cannot WILL ourselves to love someone, or to be happy: basically, will arrived with and only deals with the neocortex. This adds some supportive explanation to something I've felt was true for a long time. Not that I believe there is nothing we can do to affect our emotions, but plain old willpower isn't the answer. I know a few people who really ought to read this book. Reexamining just this one assumption could help them a lot.
" 'Science does not describe and explain nature,' Heisenberg concluded, but 'nature as exposed to our method of questioning.' " What we ask shapes what we can learn. What we don't ask is powerful. In the post referenced above, I had a taste of this, when thinking about the search for laws that govern emotions. That had simply never occurred to me, so I never examined the idea, never learned anything about it. It was a blind spot in my thoughts. I wonder how many others I have! It would be enjoyable, challenging, and mind-expanding to find a few more.
"We are accustomed to thinking of these adaptations as gradual and progressive, but [...] the fossil record belies this impression. Rather than a series of smooth transitions, the evolutionary process is punctuated with bursts of metamorphosis." This helps explain one of the things that has bugged me for a while: how, if evolution really is the force behind the complex developments of life, we got here so darn fast.
The explanations of the three major chunks of brain are eerie. I've read Oliver Sacks' descriptions of various kinds of neocortical processing glitches; those are disturbing and thought-provoking, and I find myself wondering what it would really be like to have a condition like one of those. Odder still is thinking about the oldest part of the brain, the reptilian brain, making sure I breathe and my heart beats and my blood salinity is regulated. I had thought most of that was regulated chemically, without any central processing required.
It's also intriguing that this reptilian brain is responsible for things as diverse as heart rate and turf battles. It can't make me walk, but it can give me an urge to defend my territory.
The discussion of the limbic brain reminded me of something I always thought was odd. Mammalian young cry when they're lost, distressed, or separated from their parents. Somehow I had always considered that pretty dysfunctional. In a world full of predators, wouldn't it be smarter to shut up? Apparently not. Mammalian parents are sufficiently protective of and bonded to their young that the separation cry is a good gamble. The little one might get Mom back. But reptile young do not whine about a lost parent. Mom would just as soon eat them as save them. :-)
A new one about the neocortex (new for me): the phenomenon of blindsight. I wonder what that would be like.
I think it's REALLY WEIRD that the readiness wave (an EEG signature showing that physical motion is about to begin) passes BEFORE a person experiences a decision to move. Um. So where IS the original decision, how far back is it, why aren't we aware of it, and what is it that we are aware of as a decision? Weird.
I like the explanation of why we cannot WILL ourselves to love someone, or to be happy: basically, will arrived with and only deals with the neocortex. This adds some supportive explanation to something I've felt was true for a long time. Not that I believe there is nothing we can do to affect our emotions, but plain old willpower isn't the answer. I know a few people who really ought to read this book. Reexamining just this one assumption could help them a lot.
no subject
I remember reading about this years ago in a book by Heinz Pagels (it was either The Dreams of Reason or The Cosmic Code - I forget which). It shook my beliefs of God and Free Will to their foundation, and they've never been fully rebuilt. Between Heisenberg and Gödel, I'm not sure what to believe anymore...thus I'm agnostic. And I'm increasingly 'okay' with that.
this reptilian brain [...] can't make me walk, but it can give me an urge to defend my territory.
Yes, I thought this was interesting too. The limbic brain seems to be responsible for most emotions (bonding, Love), but the reptilian brain is the source for at least a few (jealousy).
It looks like you picked out a few things in that chapter that I missed. I'm starting to reread it, so I look forward to discussing it with you further (in person and on LiveJournal). Maybe I'll post some of the notes I take on LiveJournal as well.t
(no subject)
no subject
Maybe we are really living in the past. Maybe what we take as being real time has actually occurred at some time ahead of us and we operate an infintesimal time after actual events due to the amount of time it takes to process events. A delay we wouldn't be aware of.
(no subject)
no subject
I'll have to catch up so I can pace your postings.
(no subject)