Social (also Prompt 1)

Posted on March 24, 2015 by Ayanna K. Alexander-Street

I’m late to the party, I apologize, I’ve been holed up in the lab running behavioral expts, how apropos to read a text about behavior this week! I heard from a colleague about this book I think in the Fall, we considered it as a supplemental reading for a cognitive course that we wished to propose.  I enjoy his writing, he seems, from my perspective, to illustrate well social cognition and all of the related areas—I enjoyed the physical/psychological pain chapter the most.  I think that it is something that isn’t well understood—pain is just a perception. Everything that we experience is. It’s what our brain makes of the stimulus. If you’ve seen The Matrix, when they talk about their favorite meals, and if the gruel that they are eating really “tastes” like what they remember—did they ever actually “taste” any of these foods—is that air you are breathing?!?! Okay, I’ve been locked up with these rats for too long, I digress…

I discussed congenital insensitivity to pain in my A&P lecture—an  injury can exist, but it is how your brain ‘experiences’ (or doesn’t experience) that pain that molds your experience. I explain the same to my pre-nursing students what Lieberman reports regarding pain meds—it can lessen our perception of the pain, but the same can be done through the suggestion of receiving pain medication. Once removed, it will cause a type of pain—which is psychological AND physical in the case of opiate withdrawl. What I’ve always found profound about the brain is that, it is the psychological withdrawl the one that stays with you forever! Social and psychological pain are such powerful sensations, all of the interconnections between the limbic system, areas in memory and emotion, lend so much to how we look back and relive this pain—its difficult to remember how it felt to break an arm, to really re-live the experience, but an emotional pain can be recalled and felt in all of it’s intensity, long after the actual event happens. This book made me remember why I study the brain. His book provides so many examples that I love, and many that I use to teach (although not as well organized and as clearly as he does here!).  It is tough for me to provide any type of interpretation of the Lieberman book, I wish I could explain cognition as clearly as he does. He is gifted at interpreting the data and putting forth smart scenarios that illustrate cognition so well. I can read this book again and again. I have to step my game up.

As for interpreting through the lens of Gaipa, Liberman does a bit of a Crossbreeding exercise when explaining his view on social cognition: Instead of viewing us defaulting the network when at rest because we have an interest in it, he reframed the way that he looked at the phenomenon: instead it is a reflex—-we subconsciously enter to this default state. It is an interesting way to frame it. As a person who would be more than happy to live in my own little bubble, but still defaults to this type of social cognitive state, I’m acutely aware that we default to this state. I could also think of the “Trojan Horse Selves” chapter in this manner, looking at the data and reinterpreting. He has so many examples of this in the book. Maybe I’m taking the easy road by choosing this, I think as scientists this is pretty much what we do, looking at data from many angles.

This does lend itself in a way to my paper topic…how relationships, support systems, etc contribute to the development of addictive behaviors…but that is for my next prompt…

Posted in Assignments | Comments Off on Social (also Prompt 1)

Prompt #2: Research topic

Posted on March 24, 2015 by Liz Foley

I was struck by Kevin Killian’s speculation, in the preface to Matias Viegener’s book, that there is something in gay men’s lives that “resists taxonomy in some fundamental manner,” which he supported by citing other examples of fragmented texts by gay men (Joe Brainard, Wittgenstein, John Cage’s autobiography, Cocteau’s The White Paper, and Cole Porter’s “Let’s Do It” and “You’re the Top,” two songs whose lyrics mostly take the form of ultra-clever, rhyming lists). In this context he also mentions “Notes on Camp” by Susan Sontag, who is among other things a queer-identified woman.

I immediately wondered whether Killian’s generalization could be extended to other marginalized groups (women, people of color, etc.). If narrative is what shapes the sense of self, as Nancy K. Miller and Paul John Eakin’s work suggests, what impact does the exclusion (or, as has often been the case with women, unsatisfactory inclusion) of certain kinds of people from collective cultural narrative have on self? If some members of these groups have attempted to respond by amending narrative toward greater inclusion, while others have written in forms that consciously undermine narrative, what have been the results of each approach? Does Audre Lorde’s maxim “The master’s tools will never dismantle the master’s house” apply to narrative? Several of our texts have suggested that narrative is an inherently dishonest form; does it then follow that narrative might also be an inherently oppressive form? (Spoiler: I don’t think so, but it’s worth questioning why I don’t think so.)

To attempt to cover the whole spectrum of marginalized groups’ self-constructions in response to narrative exclusion, however, is far too broad a project for one 20-page paper.  And in any case, there have been particular narrative problems attached to being gay in a culture that has historically foreclosed the narrative possibilities of gay life: consider, for instance, that historically the marriage plot has been unavailable to gay people, while the bildungsroman has not been permitted to end in a homoerotic or gay-activist coming of age. Maybe, then, the relationship of gay people to narrative is even more fraught than that of other groups and particularly worth analyzing in this context.

So, bearing in mind the potential difficulties and delicacies involved in writing about a group to which I don’t have belonging rights, I decided that it might work best to focus on memoirs and autobiographies by lesbians and gay men. (And has the transgender memoir become its own subgenre yet, outside of the great stuff that’s been happening lately in movies and TV? The possibilities of such texts, where explorations of what it means to construct a self are concerned, are HUGE.)

For connections between narrative and the construction of selfhood, I’m starting with Dan P. McAdams, who’s written a series of auspicious-sounding books on this topic, as well as Miller and Eakin. I’ll look at their sources for suggestions about where to go next, but also need to figure out what’s been published in this vein post-2008 (when Eakin’s book was published). I need to look at what recent queer theory may have to say on this topic, also.

For the texts to analyze, I’ll look at the stuff Killian mentions, especially Brainard, but I don’t want to just lift his list outright. I noticed in poking around the course website from last year that Alison Bechdel’s graphic novel Fun Home has been a past course text; graphic novels are another type of nontraditional narrative, so I’m considering that as a possibility. (I already own a copy of Fun Home and am rereading it now, but since I don’t have time to be “officially” reading another book, I’ve limited it to bathroom reading. It’s so good – even better than I remembered — that I’ve been spending artificially long periods of time on the toilet.) Bechdel has since written another graphic-novel memoir, Are You My Mother?, which I want to look at too – and Fun Home has meanwhile been adapted as a musical. I haven’t seen it, but musicalizing a graphic novel about your childhood has fascinating implications for the “self” that you created for the page, not to mention the one you’re living offstage.

Other possibilities are Samuel Delany’s memoir The Motion of Light in Water, which partly takes the form of itemized (and sub-itemized!) lists, and Gertrude Stein’s The Autobiography of Alice B. Toklas (yes, I was paying attention in last week’s class), which is a sort of “projected autobiography” of Stein’s lover Toklas and thus another kind of subversion of the autobiographical narrative.

My worry about this topic is that I’ll focus too much on narrative and not enough on selfhood. Literary topics are a comfort zone for me and hopefully a place of strength; I will need to work to ensure that the self-creation aspects of the analysis don’t suffer by comparison.

Posted in Research topics | 2 Comments

Prompt #2 Research paper

Posted on March 24, 2015 by Jeffrey Vreeland

The hypothesis for my research project is the possibly that there exist a major contradiction In Antonio’s Damasio’s work regarding the human biological body-brain as the sole source of self and consciousness; because this ‘self’ once generated in the mind of the brain, has then historically demonstrated its capacity for believing in forms of life affirmation beyond the biological death of the human body-brain. Such beliefs created by self and consciousness, whether true or not, will have as their source of existence, according to Damasio’s theory, a biological foundation, evolved in accordance with the theory of evolution. Yet many times during the course of human evolutionary history, beliefs in life affirmation after death, seem to run counter to the dictates of Darwin’s theory of evolution by allowing or dictating the self-sacrifice of the biological human body and brain, in order to preserve a belief. A belief in a detached or dual “Self” capable of living beyond the death of the biological self.
I must admit that I am challenged linguistically to present this hypothesis in a few simple to understand sentences. But let go on.
Is it possible for the outcome of one theory (Damasio’s theory of self), built on the foundations of another theory (Darwinian evolution), to generate through natural selection a biological entity (which has survived until the present-day) while one part of the self believes in the importance of preserving a duality which contradicts the validity of the first theory, and still have the second theory be valid?
Or is the fault in Damasio’s theory of a non-biological “Self” which his theory must contend with because its existence is self-evident in the vast majority of human beings, while not allowing the theory to admit to the paradox?
This paper makes one assumption, every original idea had to be created by at least one mind, and then eventually accepted by other minds. The issue here is not if culture influence decisions but the capacity of a biological brain to conceive of a life after death for a biologically created “Self” that survives after the death of the biological self that created the other “Self”.
I propose to look at these questions by first showing how, from a variety of quotes from, ”Self Comes To Mind”, how Damasio’s theory is linked and enmeshed with Darwin’s theory of evolution.
Then outline Darwin’s theory and Neo Darwinism theory from reliable source material.
Then the paper will propose at least two different kinds of conditional life affirmations found in the history of the human species.
The first type of conditional life affirmation is one which could require the self-sacrifice of the biological self in order for the created “Self” to survive in another ethereal place temporarily or permanently.
The second type of conditional life affirmation to be discussed would be one that requires either celibacy of individual biological humans (no passing on of genes) or the sacrifice of children of direct descent. Examples are Vestal Virgins, Shakers, celibate roman priest, etc., and the myth or story of Abraham being called to sacrifice his only son.
Most forms of life affirmation seem to be conditional on a Quid pro quo basis, the biological-self must sacrifices itself in some way so the mind created “Self” gets some form of  life affirmation after death.
Both forms of life affirmation contradict one, or both of the prime tenants of Darwinian  evolution.
Whether or not the reader believes in these life affirmations is not the issue. Whether they are logical is not the issue. Most belief systems are not built on logic; for example reincarnation, the coming of a messiah. I would contend that even atheist believe in some form of life affirmation beyond the death of their physical biological bodies, even if it only in the minds of humanity or for one or two generations, be it by monument building, striving for fame, living thru their children, ancestral worship, etc., for which they will tolerate a great amount of delayed gratification and sacrifice of the biological self to achieve.
What I hope to be able to conclude is that Damasio’s theory supports the creation of a mind that historically has continued to create the belief in a life after death for another entity beyond the biological self. That the creation of this entity and the self-sacrifice of the biological self to perpetuate this “Self” contradicts the basic tenants of Darwin’s evolutionary theory and thereby undermines Damasio’s own theory of Self Coming to Mind.

Posted in Uncategorized | 1 Comment

Prompt #1: Lieberman analyzed and illustrated à la Gaipa

Posted on March 24, 2015 by Liz Foley

The original description of the first prompt has mysteriously disappeared, but if memory serves, what I’m responding to is option B, which asked us to explain Lieberman via a Gaipa-style cartoon.

I can’t remember now whether the prompt required that we explain the rationale for our cartoons in words, but in case I need to do so, here’s the explanation: Lieberman comes across to me as a guy who, for better or worse, embodies the thing he’s writing about. He’s clearly a people person with a desire for human connection, and as such is much more sanguine about the inherent value and rightness of human sociableness than a misanthropic introvert like myself could be. He works often with his wife Naomi Eisenberger and constantly cites the work of their mutual grad students; if you Google her lab at UCLA, the pictures and descriptions make the lab seem like a family.

Predictably for someone of this disposition, Lieberman tends toward the friendlier, more ingratiating Gaipa strategies. He’s too established to need to ass-kiss, but he favors piggybacking and leapfrogging in relation to other scholars as opposed to alienating them in any way, and seems to especially relish peacemaking, as when he reconciles the contradictory findings of colleagues all of whom he appears to respect (and whom he needs to stay on good terms with professionally). I very often noticed him doing something vis à vis his grad students that wasn’t as straightforward as simple piggybacking: he made use of their work, but in a context that also served to promote and legitimize it. I called this “piggybacking while boosting” in the cartoon.

I tried to save this PDF at a readable size ratio and horizontal orientation, but who knows if it will actually open that way. If it doesn’t, try right-clicking – there should be an option to rotate the orientation.

Lieberman illustrated a la Gaipa

Posted in Lieberman, Mark Gaipa | 3 Comments

Prompt #1 Am I seeing something that isn’t there

Posted on March 24, 2015 by Jeffrey Vreeland

As I reread the section (pgs 187 to about 191) of Matthew Lieberman, Social: Why Our Brains Are Wired to Connect that both Berni and David commented on I was struck by how familiar Liebermann findings or conjectures were to The Lonely Crowd: A study of the Changing American Character, by David Riesman in collaboration with Reuel Dwnny and Nathan Glazer back in 1950. Which was still big in the sixties when I read it.
Berni specifically quoted from Lieberman’s page 191 that the self “exists primarily as a conduit to let the social groups we are immersed in supplement our natural impulses with socially derived impulses. The social world imparts a collection of beliefs about ourselves, about morality, and about what constitutes a worthwhile life.”
Riesman quotes another big name from his era, Eric Fromm who declared, “In order that any society may function well, its members must acquire the kind of character which makes them want to act in a way they have to act as members of society or a special class within it. They have to desire what objectively is necessary for them to do. Outer force is replaced by inner compulsion, and by the particular kind of human energy which is channeled into character traits.”(Emphases in original) This quote and a lot about Riesman’s work almost leads me to believe that Lieberman set out to prove the validity of Riesman’s work about the relationship of human beings to the society they live in; but instead of using population demographics as a justification for the changing relationship of individuals beliefs to that of the ‘Crowd’ as Riesman does, Liebermann uses evolution and neurology to account for how society can mold our individual beliefs.
What I have not been able to find in Liebermann’s work is why human beings, made such a dramatic departure from Darwinian Theory of Evolution of why biological life divergences and becomes more complex as it adapts to the ecosystem into which it is born. (Even though he use the word ‘evolution” over a 100 times in his work). For example such statement as “supplement our natural impulses with socially derived impulses”, which at times can override our biological instincts for self-preservation, seems to totally contradict Darwin’s theory of evolution. Darwin or more recently the Neo-Darwinist, basically states two conditions for biological diversity. The need for random mutations of genes, and that the through natural selection, only the fittest survive to pass on their genetic traits. The assumption here is that the survival of Uno Number One takes precedence over all else except in the case of protecting your offspring when they are young (who have your genes). And this condition only seems to happen with mammals. Other species, given an opportunity will eat their young. I guess their genes hadn’t yet learned how to communicate that this was a no-no.
Either Darwin’s theory is wrong when it comes to biological human evolution, or humans are an exception to the rule, especially when it comes to such traits as fairness and altruism in human beings, which Lieberman spends a couple of chapters in his book defending neurologically, without ever clouding his arguments with even a hint of how his findings contradict the Neo-Darwinists on this issue.
Am I seeing something that isn’t their?

Posted in Lieberman | 1 Comment

Discussion Questions for Social

Posted on March 24, 2015 by Amber Chiac

Discussion Questions for Social:

1) Lieberman believes we are “wired together” for an intensely social existence. He says: “evolution moves us toward interdependence” and this is a “design feature, not flaw” (9). If Lieberman is correct, capitalism is at odds with our neural wiring and is a hindrance to our evolutionary development. Political systems should operate on peoples’ desire for community, equality and reciprocity rather than individualistic or familial accumulation of wealth/power. In an article titled “Why Socialism” Einstein described socialism as humanity’s attempt to “overcome and advance beyond the predatory phase of human development.” According to Lieberman, we biologically respond to fairness like chocolate (71). We are inherently altruistic creatures. The reason we do not behave altruistically is because we have the incorrect assumption that altruism is antithetical to human nature (96). What does Lieberman’s analysis suggest about the desirability and potentiality of socialism? Do you think it is possible for a political system to harness the power of friendliness and benevolence rather than greed?

2) Does Lieberman give humanity too much credit? Are we really as altruistic as he suggests? He equates the success of Facebook with the desire to connect with others. Could we not also argue that Facebook is about self-branding, narcissism, even solipsism – think about the selfie phenomenon. He also notes that Americans give an average of $300 billion a year to charities. But is this number really impressive when we consider that Americans also use the majority of the world’s resources to the detriment of “third-world” people? For instance, Americans constitute only 5% of the world’s population but consume 24% of the world’s energy (http://public.wsu.edu/~mreed/380American%20Consumption.htm). Sometimes giving to charity can be a simple, self-gratifying form of generosity that positions the self as helper rather than harmer. Also, consider the fact that in 2008, Americans spent $400 billion “enhancing their appearance” (http://press.princeton.edu/chapters/s9516.pdf, 4). Lieberman would surely reply that the desire to be liked and admired relates directly to the desire to be accepted and loved. I don’t disagree but I’m just not sure I accept his claim that social connection is our “default” setting or our innate “passion.” Einstein said: “individuality is an optical delusion” meaning that biologically, we are hardwired for solipsistic delusion: I can only see out of my own two eyes, therefore it appears to me that I am the center of the universe. If so, maybe we are not designed for social connection? Rather, we must work to overcome our illogical and delusional default settings to cultivate social connection. What do you think?

3) Continuing on this topic of giving humanity too much credit… Lieberman seems to believe that humans “dominated the planet because of their ability to think socially.” On numerous occasions, he juxtaposes humans with animals to show how profoundly social we are. Ironically, he also draws on experiments conducted with rats and primates to explain human cognition. Sometimes he clearly demonstrates that animals are social, other times I think he denies this in a reductionist way. For instance, he says “friendship has been documented in only a few species but it is nearly universal in humans” (24). He does not provide a citation for this. In Joan Roughgarden’s The Genial Gene (2009), she offers an alternative to Darwin’s sexual selection theory: social-selection theory. She makes this argument by drawing on the social behavior and teamwork of a plethora of animal species. Theoretically, Roughgarden aligns with Lieberman but tells the story of social existence in a way that recognizes the social nature of both animals and humans.  During Lieberman’s discussion about brain size relative to body size, he notes that killer whales have huge brains with 11 billion neurons (only 0.5 billion less than human brains). What is “self” to a whale? What is social connection? Can we possibly know? It’s cool he brings up the complexity/size of whale brains but ultimately it is only to explicate what he means by brain size. Did anyone else find Lieberman’s references to animal consciousness and sociality problematic/anthrocentric?

Posted in Discussion Questions, Lieberman | 1 Comment

Prompt #2:

Posted on March 24, 2015 by Amber Chiac

I’ve decided to do my project on the performance artist Stelarc. I plan to do a multi-media project (thanks for the advice Prof Tougaw!) I think a multi-media approach will effectively embody my thesis/project aim. Stelarc’s work stimulates imagination about the self and the body by opening the body to the world (both literally and metaphorically). I was originally planning to write about Hustvedt and self-healing through representation but I think I have more to say on this topic. I will draw on Hustvedt, Veigener, Casey, Lieberman and Noe. Last Tuesday, Prof Tougaw mentioned the dialogical power of the space between Veigener’s random facts. Similarly, Stelarc does interactive performances and abstract performances open to various interpretations. He is comfortable in the betwist & between. Hustvedt represents the self as fluid, dynamic and her approach to “discovery” mirrors this representation. I would like to use a similar format/approach. Noe’s thesis that the self can only be located at the intersection of self and world will be a central theme in my essay. Lieberman/Miller will come in handy because they emphasize the self’s dependence on others for existence. Since my project is about expanding imaginative horizons, I can draw on Casey to show that there is a fictional/imaginational element to the self. Also, since the self is such a mysterious, inaccessible and ambiguous concept, the boundary between real/imaginary is often blurry. It is therefore important to be experimental and creative when attempting to understand the self. At this point, I’m not sure exactly what my thesis will be but I know how I want to represent the self (as described above). I wonder if I should cover a number of Stelarc’s performances or fixate on only one? Advice much appreciated!!

Posted in Assignments | 2 Comments

3 prompts in 1 post

Posted on March 23, 2015 by Jennifer MacDonald

Prompt #1: LIEBERMAN AND DAMASIO (mirror neurons, mentalizing, as-if body loop, empathy, body-minded brain, self)

Lieberman/Social: pp. 149-150: “Being able to see a series of body movements as a coherent coordinated action that can be characterized in a few words is a remarkable achievement of the brain…. It is only by synthesizing the complexity of movement into the simplicity of an action that any psychological analysis of another’s goals, intentions, desires, and fears can begin. Movements are not psychological…. actions are…. [Actions] suggest there are meanings and motives hiding behind them, waiting to be discovered. The ability to identify what someone is doing is the first step toward being able to understand why. In essence, the mirror system provides the premises that the mentalizing system can then logically operate in order to answer the why question. Thanks to the mirror system, we live in a world of actions, not movements, which allows us to live in a world of meaning.”

Damasio/Self Comes to Mind, pp. 111-112: “…the fact that the body of a given organism can be represented in the brain is essential for the creation of the self…. because we can depict our own body states, we can more easily simulate the equivalent body states of others. Subsequently the connection we have established between our own body states and the significance they have acquired for us can be transferred to the simulated body states of others, at which point we can attribute a comparable significance to the simulation. The range of phenomena denoted by the word empathy owes a lot to this arrangement…. our connection to others occurs not just by visual images, language, and logical inferences but also via something deeper in our flesh: the actions with which we can portray the movements of others.”

I thought Lieberman’s discussion of mirror neurons, motor resonance, and mentalizing toward our understanding the higher-level motives of others was interesting when placed alongside Damasio’s idea of body simulation as applied in the as-if body loop, and regarding self and empathy, particularly regarding the way each of them presented their similar thoughts. Lieberman shows a progression over his Chapter 6 through different ideas and theories, stacking evidence through to his own work (the why-how studies) to come to a conclusion about the importance of movements being seamlessly woven into and seen as actions. Strikingly, Damasio ends his Chapter 4 with a similar thought to Lieberman’s, but presented as an epiphany partly born from his own personal experience: “I first gleaned the possibility described above many years ago in an odd and memorable episode. One summer afternoon when I as at work in the lab, I had gotten up from my chair…” Also, that Lieberman is using the discussion at the point quoted to ultimately point out the basis of our sociality and how our brains are wired to connect, and Damasio is using the discussion at the point quoted to describe the basis of the self (the body-minded brain) as one that is able to know both the inner and outer world toward consciously minded regulation.

Prompt #2: RESEARCH TOPIC IDEAS

I want to talk about how space affects self, but I’m not settled on a specific path or my top ballroom guests: how different spaces, structures, and surroundings feel and affect the self (mine versus yours, public versus private), especially toward taking action. For example, travel as endurance test and/or breaking of routine/boundary, as well as people’s drive to conquer space (WTC wire walk, Mt. Everest climbs, daredevils). Side considerations might include peak experience and the role of rebellion in creativity; how space affects motivation, planning for the future, projecting future self, and self-growth and world-awareness; as well as being free versus constricted/restricted (country versus city, barren versus peopled, open/closed societies, solitary confinement).

I’ve been reading What Time Is This Place? by Kevin Lynch and watching the travel documentary Long Way Round (Ewan McGregor’s 2004 filmed motorcycle trip around the world). I want to look into some cognitive revolution/science topics, including Jerome Bruner’s Acts of Meaning, and narrow my focus/find more concrete questions to answer. Re: Gaipa, I may use piggybacking, dropping out, or crossbreeding.

Prompt #3: OVERLAP

I commented on Ayanna’s post about some overlap I see regarding her project on addiction and that I may talk about peak experience at some point, partly through looking at travel/adventure narratives relaying self-transformation via conquering/exploring space/environment.

Posted in Uncategorized | 3 Comments

Prompt 2.

Posted on March 23, 2015 by David Liburd

My research paper is in a very early fledgling stage. I changed my initial topic and now my focus will be, Social Media Networking as an Institution, the title still needs a bit of rewording. I intend on making “popularity” (possibly) the focal point and in that sense, put in practice the many forms of self representations that have been introduced. I intend on utilizing the schools database, the Lieberman book will be a good source, Michael Shudsons “Discovering the News”  and the  use of scholarly articles as well as the internet.

Posted in Assignments | 2 Comments

Prompt 1: C

Posted on March 23, 2015 by David Liburd

I found the history of baby gender colours to be quite an interesting tidbit that I didn’t know. How the colour blue used to be associated with girls and pink with boys. The colour pink was thought to be a strong colour while blue was delicate and dainty, which to me suggests feelings. Lieberman suggests a visceral response is easily made by attitudes and opinions being changed en masse. “Having beliefs and values injected into us from the outside” (Chapter 8, page 191, Lieberman). If ones belief is to follow religion then one goes to a designated place of worship. If one believes in a polygamous lifestyle then one might seek out orgy parties to attend. Lieberman assumption is that the self is collection of beliefs and unique ideas that is produced by our private inner voices. This is regardless to what the group believes, we need ti adopt our own beliefs. Lieberman uses a quote from the Chinese philosopher Lao Tzu to make his point: “At the centre of your being you have the answer; you know who you are and you know what you want.” (chapter 8, page 188, Lieberman).

In Eakin’s Autobiographical Consciousness he suggests that Damasio’s and others struggle with the problem of “…how different stimulus inputs to different parts of the brain are bound together so as to produce a single, unified experience, for example of seeing a cat.” Like seeing a baby boy in blue rather than pink? Or a baby girl in pink rather than blue? I don’t think that the philosophies are more similar than not.

Posted in Assignments | 2 Comments