Yes. That and that.

[jedusor]

"One phrase that's very important to avoid in discussions of the field is the reductionist cliche that something is 'nothing but' [insert neural phenomenon here]. So a Mark Rothko painting might be nothing but perplexed neurons in the V4 area of the visual cortex, or abstract art might be nothing but the peak shift effect. That, I think, is reckless hyperbole. The beauty of art is that it needs to be explained at multiple levels, from the action potential of retinal photoreceptors to the cultural shifts of 19th century France." --Jonah Lehrer, here

"To discover that a particular feeling depends on activity in a number of specific brain systems interacting with a number of body organs does not diminish the status of that feeling as a human phenomenon. Neither anguish nor the elation that love or art can bring about are devalued by understanding some of the myriad biological processes that make them what they are. Precisely the opposite should be true: Our sense of wonder should increase before the intricate mechanisms that make such magic possible." --Antonio Damasio in Descartes' Error

Comments

[vito-excalibur.livejournal.com]

.

[jedusor.livejournal.com]

That second dude is the guy I'm hoping will be my graduate advisor.

[ertchin.livejournal.com]

I like that second quote a lot. That's pretty much the conclusion I reach every time I try to examine consciousness, or love, or what have you.

[jedusor.livejournal.com]

I got really annoyed in my neuroscience class when people referred to "just" neural activity, as opposed to some completely unsubstantiated but somehow superior idea of the nature of a soul or whatever. Knowing how this stuff works is SO much cooler!

[xthread.livejournal.com]

Lame git: But, but, if Science explains it all, then there's nothing mysterious and wonderful about it any more!
Uncharitable sort: You are a lame git. Also, you have no sense of wonder.

(That is to say, that's a very, very lovely set of quotes)