🚀 go-pugleaf

>"Niki" <n.m.keele@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message 
>news:1173213923.286652.12060@q40g2000cwq.googlegroups.com...
> Could anyone point me to any papers and articles exploring
> perception of text and if there are any differences in the
> understanding of content depending upon its direction? for
> example reading from top to bottom, left to right, and right
> to left?
>
> When we look at a scene or a picture we may habitually read
> the picture from the direction we have become most comfortable
> with, but are there any other reasons, eg neurological or the
> particular visual processing areas that are affected by movement
> of the eyes?
>
> I read that people who's first language was Chinese, tended to
> have a better overall perception of a scene and its content,
>
> ta :)

The following site discusses left and right brain activities.

http://www.viewzone.com/bicam.html

For myself, I tend to scan the scenery from left to right.  I'm
finding I'm using my right hemisphere to begin my search
from the left.

However, with some effort, I can scan the scenery from
right to left.  I can feel my left hemisphere kicking in to
begin that search from the right.

The site I mention above claims:

Right brain...feeling and "big picture" oriented.
Left brain...logic and details oriented.

Remember that the left side of the body is commandeered by
the right side of the brain, just as the right side of the body
is controlled by the left side of the brain.

So, to read from left to right, top to bottom, it's a right
brain activity.

But to read from right to left bottom up is a left brain
activity.

It appears to me that the Chinese are far more logical
and details oriented than the highly emotionally
driven and often irrational Westerners.  ;-)

Take care,
Heidi 

On 6 Mar, 21:23, "Heidi Graw" <h...@telus.net> wrote:
> >"Niki" <n.m.ke...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message
> >news:1173213923.286652.12060@q40g2000cwq.googlegroups.com...
> > Could anyone point me to any papers and articles exploring
> > perception of text and if there are any differences in the
> > understanding of content depending upon its direction? for
> > example reading from top to bottom, left to right, and right
> > to left?
>
> > When we look at a scene or a picture we may habitually read
> > the picture from the direction we have become most comfortable
> > with, but are there any other reasons, eg neurological or the
> > particular visual processing areas that are affected by movement
> > of the eyes?
>
> > I read that people who's first language was Chinese, tended to
> > have a better overall perception of a scene and its content,
>
> > ta :)
>
> The following site discusses left and right brain activities.
>
> http://www.viewzone.com/bicam.html
>
> For myself, I tend to scan the scenery from left to right.  I'm
> finding I'm using my right hemisphere to begin my search
> from the left.
>
> However, with some effort, I can scan the scenery from
> right to left.  I can feel my left hemisphere kicking in to
> begin that search from the right.
>
> The site I mention above claims:
>
> Right brain...feeling and "big picture" oriented.
> Left brain...logic and details oriented.
>
> Remember that the left side of the body is commandeered by
> the right side of the brain, just as the right side of the body
> is controlled by the left side of the brain.
>
> So, to read from left to right, top to bottom, it's a right
> brain activity.
>
> But to read from right to left bottom up is a left brain
> activity.
>
> It appears to me that the Chinese are far more logical
> and details oriented than the highly emotionally
> driven and often irrational Westerners.  ;-)
>
> Take care,
> Heidi- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Bless you ;)
love to the kiddies

n.

On Mar 6, 4:23 pm, "Heidi Graw" <h...@telus.net> wrote:
> >"Niki" <n.m.ke...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message
> >news:1173213923.286652.12060@q40g2000cwq.googlegroups.com...
> > Could anyone point me to any papers and articles exploring
> > perception of text and if there are any differences in the
> > understanding of content depending upon its direction? for
> > example reading from top to bottom, left to right, and right
> > to left?
>
> > When we look at a scene or a picture we may habitually read
> > the picture from the direction we have become most comfortable
> > with, but are there any other reasons, eg neurological or the
> > particular visual processing areas that are affected by movement
> > of the eyes?
>
> > I read that people who's first language was Chinese, tended to
> > have a better overall perception of a scene and its content,
>
> > ta :)
>
> The following site discusses left and right brain activities.
>
> http://www.viewzone.com/bicam.html
>
> For myself, I tend to scan the scenery from left to right.  I'm
> finding I'm using my right hemisphere to begin my search
> from the left.
>
> However, with some effort, I can scan the scenery from
> right to left.  I can feel my left hemisphere kicking in to
> begin that search from the right.

Jeezus, Heidi. If you can "feel" what your brain is doing, why the
hell are you wasting your time in a newsgroup, when you could be
earning millions as an informant for neurophysiologists?

> The site I mention above claims:

So did every pop psychologist in the 1970s. Does that make it true?

> Right brain...feeling and "big picture" oriented.
> Left brain...logic and details oriented.
>
> Remember that the left side of the body is commandeered by

"commandeered"? Check a dictionary. No, not an "etymological
dictionary."

> the right side of the brain, just as the right side of the body
> is controlled by the left side of the brain.
>
> So, to read from left to right, top to bottom, it's a right
> brain activity.
>
> But to read from right to left bottom up is a left brain
> activity.

Oh, fer chrissakes, Heidi. That's bullshit.

> It appears to me that the Chinese are far more logical
> and details oriented than the highly emotionally
> driven and often irrational Westerners.  ;-)

>On Mar 6, 7:51 pm, "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote:

(snip)

>Peter wrote:
> Jeezus, Heidi. If you can "feel" what your brain is doing, why the
> hell are you wasting your time in a newsgroup, when you could be
> earning millions as an informant for neurophysiologists?

Peter, are you telling me you cannot feel what part of your brain
is energized while you're engaged in various activities?

I have no trouble feeling when I'm using my left, right, front
and back of my brain.  My brain energy zips around all
over the place and I can feel that energy.  Sometimes
I use both left and right hemispheres at the same time,
depending on what I'm doing.

I can especially feel my brain when I come down with a
headache or a migraine and I know exactly what location
of the brain is affected when I get either of those.

You do know what a head-ache feels like, don't you?

Feeling one's brain isn't actually all that difficult to do.
It comes quite naturally to me.  ;-)

Take care,
Heidi

No doubt you think that you are localizing your brain functions but,
unless you can confirm this with a blind study using imaging (EEG,
fMRI, MEG, etc), you are merely hallucinating.  If your only proof is
your perception, it is not reliable.

Kal



   On 7 Mar 2007 09:09:06 -0800, "hgraw@yahoo.com" <hgraw@yahoo.com>
wrote:

>>On Mar 6, 7:51 pm, "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
>(snip)
>
>>Peter wrote:
>> Jeezus, Heidi. If you can "feel" what your brain is doing, why the
>> hell are you wasting your time in a newsgroup, when you could be
>> earning millions as an informant for neurophysiologists?
>
>Peter, are you telling me you cannot feel what part of your brain
>is energized while you're engaged in various activities?
>
>I have no trouble feeling when I'm using my left, right, front
>and back of my brain.  My brain energy zips around all
>over the place and I can feel that energy.  Sometimes
>I use both left and right hemispheres at the same time,
>depending on what I'm doing.
>
>I can especially feel my brain when I come down with a
>headache or a migraine and I know exactly what location
>of the brain is affected when I get either of those.
>
>You do know what a head-ache feels like, don't you?
>
>Feeling one's brain isn't actually all that difficult to do.
>It comes quite naturally to me.  ;-)
>
>Take care,
>Heidi

Heidi Graw wrote:

> Right brain...feeling and "big picture" oriented.
> Left brain...logic and details oriented.

Really?

> Remember that the left side of the body is commandeered by
> the right side of the brain, just as the right side of the body
> is controlled by the left side of the brain.

But the signals in the right half of _each_ eye go the right half of the 
brain.

> So, to read from left to right, top to bottom, it's a right
> brain activity.

Why?
If you read, you have each letter in the focus of your eyes, i.e. in the 
center. This is independent of the direction of motion. Remember, half 
of the center goes to right brain, the other half to the left brain.

So maybe, in reading from left to right, our brain "pre-reads" right of 
the focus. But why should the information go to the left brain, if I 
read top to bottom?

Besides, reading is always mainly a left brain activity, language 
(vocabulary) is in the left brain.

Helmut Wollmersdorfer

On Mar 7, 12:09 pm, "h...@yahoo.com" <h...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >On Mar 6, 7:51 pm, "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
> (snip)
>
> >Peter wrote:
> > Jeezus, Heidi. If you can "feel" what your brain is doing, why the
> > hell are you wasting your time in a newsgroup, when you could be
> > earning millions as an informant for neurophysiologists?
>
> Peter, are you telling me you cannot feel what part of your brain
> is energized while you're engaged in various activities?

If people in general could "feel" such things, then Aristotle (was
it?) wouldn't have taught that the brain is an air-conditioning
mechanism for cooling the body.

> I have no trouble feeling when I'm using my left, right, front
> and back of my brain.  My brain energy zips around all
> over the place and I can feel that energy.  Sometimes
> I use both left and right hemispheres at the same time,
> depending on what I'm doing.

As I said, if you can do that, without wearing a portable PET-scan
device, then your services would be worth millions to any brain
researcher. If you can introspect and tell us what you are doing when
you speak or listen or read or write (let alone all the other things
that brains do!), neuroscience could make strides undreamed of by
Broca, Wernicke, or Hughlings Jackson.

> I can especially feel my brain when I come down with a
> headache or a migraine and I know exactly what location
> of the brain is affected when I get either of those.

Migraine sufferers (my sympathies) are a somewhat special case. (But
what does the location of a migraine have to do with brain functioning
associated with that location?)

> You do know what a head-ache feels like, don't you?

Very, very rarely. When I got a headache, I would lie down and put
Handel's concerti grossi or organ concertos on the record player. They
are about the most soothing, soporific, and least intellectually
engaging music I know about.

> Feeling one's brain isn't actually all that difficult to do.
> It comes quite naturally to me.  ;-)

Just slice open your skull and touch it!

On Mar 7, 12:47 pm, Kalman Rubinson <k...@nyu.edu> wrote:
> No doubt you think that you are localizing your brain functions but,
> unless you can confirm this with a blind study using imaging (EEG,
> fMRI, MEG, etc), you are merely hallucinating.  If your only proof is
> your perception, it is not reliable.

Welcome to sci.lang, Kal!

<hgraw@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:1173287346.074588.222720@s48g2000cws.googlegroups.com...
> >On Mar 6, 7:51 pm, "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote:
> 
> (snip)
> 
> >Peter wrote:
> > Jeezus, Heidi. If you can "feel" what your brain is doing, why the
> > hell are you wasting your time in a newsgroup, when you could be
> > earning millions as an informant for neurophysiologists?
> 
> Peter, are you telling me you cannot feel what part of your brain
> is energized while you're engaged in various activities?
>
> I have no trouble feeling when I'm using my left, right, front
> and back of my brain.  My brain energy zips around all
> over the place and I can feel that energy.  Sometimes
> I use both left and right hemispheres at the same time,
> depending on what I'm doing.
> 
> I can especially feel my brain when I come down with a
> headache or a migraine and I know exactly what location
> of the brain is affected when I get either of those.
> 
> You do know what a head-ache feels like, don't you?
> 
> Feeling one's brain isn't actually all that difficult to do.
> It comes quite naturally to me.  ;-)

And yet, you didn't know that the right half of the vision field
of both eyes goes into the right hemisphere and the left hand
side of the vision field of both eyes goes into the left hemisphere.

How could you NOT know that when you feel so well the
energy zipping around your brain???

pjk
 
> Take care,
> Heidi

>"Paul J Kriha" <paul.nospam.kriha@paradise.net.nz> wrote in message 
>news:45efbf38@clear.net.nz...
(snip)

>Paul wrote:
> And yet, you didn't know that the right half of the vision field
> of both eyes goes into the right hemisphere and the left hand
> side of the vision field of both eyes goes into the left hemisphere.

Then explain to me why a person who has damage to the right
hemisphere of his brain has no left field vision in both his eyes?

Have at it, Paul.

Heidi

Heidi Graw <hgraw@telus.net> wrote in message news:vjPHh.25195$lY6.22214@edtnps90...
> 
> >"Paul J Kriha" <paul.nospam.kriha@paradise.net.nz> wrote in message 
> >news:45efbf38@clear.net.nz...
> (snip)
> 
> >Paul wrote:
> > And yet, you didn't know that the right half of the vision field
> > of both eyes goes into the right hemisphere and the left hand
> > side of the vision field of both eyes goes into the left hemisphere.
> 
> Then explain to me why a person who has damage to the right
> hemisphere of his brain has no left field vision in both his eyes?
> Heidi

That is quite easy to explain. The retina on the right side
of both eyes is linked by the optic nerve with the right brain
hemisphere and the retina on the left hand side of both eyes
is linked by the optic nerve with the left hemisphere of the brain.
I forgot about the image inside the eye being inverted. That's all.

That still doesn't change anything on the fact that you
claimed having "felt" your brain doing something quite
different.

pjk

Heidi,
  Please- let's not forget that THERE ARE NO SENSORY RECEPTORS IN YOUR
BRAIN. Simply because of this little tidbit, it is absolutely
impossible and rediculous to suppose that you can "feel" your brain
activity. 'Nuff said.

  You quote:
"Sometimes I use both left and right hemispheres at the same time,
depending on what I'm doing."

  I'm afraid you might need an introductory course in psychology or
cognitive science. You should know that you are using both of your
hemispheres ALL THE TIME. Hemispheres often specialize(key word here,
folks) in certain tasks, but this doesn't mean that the other
hemisphere is not processing the task as well. Not to mention that
your cortex is working on both sides at all times just to process
sensory input. So, unless you are so badly brain damaged to the point
that one hemisphere is not receiving input and not producing motor
output, and not communicating via the corpus callosum (I can't think
of an injury that could do such a thing without completely
obliterating/removing the hemisphere from the cranium), then you can
rest assure that both hemispheres are busily working at all times.

  Headaches are not in your brain. You are feeling pressure from
sensory cells around your arteries along the outer lining of your
brain.You have veins and arteries all around your brain, and even
within the crevices and folds that you cannot see form the outside.
BUT, they never actually break the barrier.

   -Cody

>>Heidi wrote;
>>For myself, I tend to scan the scenery from left to right.  I'm
>>finding I'm using my right hemisphere to begin my search
>>from the left.

Kalman Rubinson wrote;
>No doubt you think that you are localizing your brain functions but,
>unless you can confirm this with a blind study using imaging (EEG,
>fMRI, MEG, etc), you are merely hallucinating.  If your only proof is
>your perception, it is not reliable.

Peter.T.Daniels wrote:
>As I said, if you can do that, without wearing a portable PET-scan
>device, then your services would be worth millions to any brain
>researcher. If you can introspect and tell us what you are doing when
>you speak or listen or read or write (let alone all the other things
>that brains do!), neuroscience could make strides undreamed of by
>Broca, Wernicke, or Hughlings Jackson.

>> I can especially feel my brain when I come down with a
>> headache or a migraine and I know exactly what location
>> of the brain is affected when I get either of those.

Paul J Kriha wrote:
>That still doesn't change anything on the fact that you
>claimed having "felt" your brain doing something quite
>different.

Kinesics (body language, including gaze direction)
people communicate non verbally (anywhere between
55% and 93%)

Darwin, Deception, and Facial Expression' Paul Ekman
'(Darwin said)'that if you cannot voluntarily activate
 a muscle,then you will not be able to voluntarily inhibit
 its involuntary activation in a spontaneous emotional
 expression'

http://richarddawkins.net/article,514,For-Human-Eyes-Only,Michael-Tomasello
'Why might it have been advantageous for some early
 humans to advertise their eye direction in a way that
 enabled others to determine what they were looking at
 more easily? One possible answer, what we have called
 the cooperative eye hypothesis, is that especially
 visible eyes made it easier to coordinate close-range
 collaborative activities in which discerning where the
 other was looking and perhaps what she was planning,
 benefited both participants.'

There was yet another report that people are more likely
to gaze left or right when trying to solve maths problems
just being creative or thinking about past or future
events. I for one know that when I'm thinking about a past
event I tended to look to the left...which I'm fairly sure
is because thats the way I read.

Heidi may have a point tho, I can look left or right and
know that its an involuntary process connected to my
thinking, my brain activities, it may not tell me exactly
where or how they function, but they are there and I cant
help that (after all I'm only human!!)

If I went through a list of subjects,maths,music,literature,
art,sculpture,sci-fi,etc, and drew a diagram of where they
might fit spatially according to my gaze direction (while
thinking) would they pattern match any areas in the brain?

Ta!

n.

some nice easy links here:
http://www.aber.ac.uk/media/Modules/MC10220/assignment_45.html
http://staffwww.fullcoll.edu/cflores/additional2.html
http://www.childdevelopmentinfo.com/learning/dyslexia.shtml

On Mar 8, 6:27 am, "Niki" <n.m.ke...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
> >>Heidi wrote;


> Kinesics (body language, including gaze direction)
> people communicate non verbally (anywhere between
> 55% and 93%)

I haven't seen that crazy claim in ages -- decades, maybe. It has no
basis in fact whatsoever; apparently some pop psychologist made it up
long ago.

"codyfrew" <codyfrew@gmail.com> wrote in message 
news:1173350180.299352.23830@t69g2000cwt.googlegroups.com...
> Heidi,
>  Please- let's not forget that THERE ARE NO SENSORY RECEPTORS IN YOUR
> BRAIN. Simply because of this little tidbit, it is absolutely
> impossible and rediculous to suppose that you can "feel" your brain
> activity. 'Nuff said.

Exactly. The persistent view that introspection is a matter of "observing 
the brain" is a crockpot full of crap.

>
>  You quote:
> "Sometimes I use both left and right hemispheres at the same time,
> depending on what I'm doing."
>
>  I'm afraid you might need an introductory course in psychology or
> cognitive science.

Cognitive "science" is what keeps the crap simmering in the crockpot of 
mainstream psychology.

Cordially,
Glen

"codyfrew" <codyfrew@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1173350180.299352.23830@t69g2000cwt.googlegroups.com...
>   Headaches are not in your brain. You are feeling pressure from
> sensory cells around your arteries along the outer lining of your
> brain.You have veins and arteries all around your brain, and even
> within the crevices and folds that you cannot see form the outside.
> BUT, they never actually break the barrier.
>

How sensitive are these nerve cells? IIRC (not my field at all), brain
activity is linked to heightened blood flow to an area; so if (big if) the
nerves were sufficiently sensitive then they should be able to indicate
which areas are receiving more (or less) blood, which then gets interpreted
as feeling an area to be more or less active?
Just curious,
CB

>"Niki" <n.m.keele@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message 
>news:1173353263.088106.197650@q40g2000cwq.googlegroups.com...
(snip)

>Niki wrote:
> There was yet another report that people are more likely
> to gaze left or right when trying to solve maths problems
> just being creative or thinking about past or future
> events. I for one know that when I'm thinking about a past
> event I tended to look to the left...which I'm fairly sure
> is because thats the way I read.
>
> Heidi may have a point tho, I can look left or right and
> know that its an involuntary process connected to my
> thinking, my brain activities, it may not tell me exactly
> where or how they function, but they are there and I cant
> help that (after all I'm only human!!)
>
> If I went through a list of subjects,maths,music,literature,
> art,sculpture,sci-fi,etc, and drew a diagram of where they
> might fit spatially according to my gaze direction (while
> thinking) would they pattern match any areas in the brain?

When this subject came up about reading from left to right
and/or scanning scenery from left to right, I actually had
to stop and spend some time thinking about it.

I can feel when I concentrate energy within my brain.  The
left to right eye scanning is virtually automatic because we've
been trained to read in that manner.  So, when I made that
choice to look from right to left...well...that was such an
unusual way for me to scan that way, that I definitely felt
my left hemisphere concentrating its energy to allow me
to scan from a different direction.  I had to put an effort into
it and I could feel that effort inside my brain and in that
left hemisphere.

Of course there are also automatic brain functions which
I'm not aware of, such as breathing and pumping my heart
to circulate that blood.  I don't have to think about these
things.

However, if I tap my left fingers on the table, I can feel
my right hemisphere "energized."  When I tap my right
fingers I can feel the left hemisphere kick in.  Could I
tell you within is square inch of exactly where in my
brain I can feel it?  No...but I can tell you in more
generalized terms whether or not my left or right
hemisphere is engaged.

But now, try this following brain excercise:
Concentrate and visualize a red ball inside
your right hemisphere just above your ear.
Feel the energy concentrate in that area to
form that red ball.   Now roll that imagined
red ball from the right, along the top of your
brain and over to the left side just above
the left ear.  As you're doing it, feel the
concentrated energy as that red ball is
rolling over to the other side.  Your eyes
will follow its movement. The neural receptors
and the synapsis will feel that imagined ball
moving.

Now, move that ball from the left hemisphere to
the front of your brain...feel it sitting inside your
forehead.  Your brain energy will now feel
concentrated in that location.  Roll that ball
now over to the back of your head.  You
can now feel the brain energy concentrated
back there.  Let that ball now roll to the very
centre of your brain.  You'll be able to feel
it come to rest there.

If you concentrate the energy in your brain
by imagining an object and if you force your
thinking to move that object around within
your head, you will be able to feel the different
areas of your brain being energized.  In this
manner you're stimulating all sorts of areas
of the brain.

Try it out and let me know what you experience.

Thanks,
Heidi 

On Thu, 08 Mar 2007 15:19:10 GMT, "Heidi Graw" <hgraw@telus.net>
wrote:

>Try it out and let me know what you experience.

A hallucination.

Kal

"Kalman Rubinson" <kr4@nyu.edu> wrote in message 
news:cnd0v2p9mv301v40ap3j0sbje15nqnmc6u@4ax.com...
>> On Thu, 08 Mar 2007 15:19:10 GMT, "Heidi Graw" <hgraw@telus.net>
>> wrote:
>
>>Try it out and let me know what you experience.

> Kalman wrote:
> A hallucination.

Let's discuss what is real and what is unreal.

Do you agree that energy is made up of real particles?

It takes energy to create a thought.  I can form that energy
into an object that I can visualize in my brain.  I call
it "formed energy."  In this manner, the imagined
object becomes "real"...the thought is a cluster of energy
which is comprised of real particles.  Clustered energy
is real!   This makes my thoughts real!  ;-)

Heidi

Sure, your thoughts are real but they need not be true descriptions of
reality.

You are positing something which is counter to modern understanding of
the operation of the nervous system and you are doing so based only on
your subjective perception of the phenomenon.  You may conjure all the
arguments you can but, until you can offer an objective corroboration
of your anecdotal description, there's no reason for anyone to accept
it.  

Kal


On Thu, 08 Mar 2007 16:35:10 GMT, "Heidi Graw" <hgraw@telus.net>
wrote:

>
>"Kalman Rubinson" <kr4@nyu.edu> wrote in message 
>news:cnd0v2p9mv301v40ap3j0sbje15nqnmc6u@4ax.com...
>>> On Thu, 08 Mar 2007 15:19:10 GMT, "Heidi Graw" <hgraw@telus.net>
>>> wrote:
>>
>>>Try it out and let me know what you experience.
>
>> Kalman wrote:
>> A hallucination.
>
>Let's discuss what is real and what is unreal.
>
>Do you agree that energy is made up of real particles?
>
>It takes energy to create a thought.  I can form that energy
>into an object that I can visualize in my brain.  I call
>it "formed energy."  In this manner, the imagined
>object becomes "real"...the thought is a cluster of energy
>which is comprised of real particles.  Clustered energy
>is real!   This makes my thoughts real!  ;-)
>
>Heidi
>

>"Kalman Rubinson" <kr4@nyu.edu> wrote in message 
>news:lag0v294l2htifdfarv944a22fri04a6ml@4ax.com...
> Sure, your thoughts are real but they need not be true descriptions of
> reality.
>
> You are positing something which is counter to modern understanding of
> the operation of the nervous system and you are doing so based only on
> your subjective perception of the phenomenon.  You may conjure all the
> arguments you can but, until you can offer an objective corroboration
> of your anecdotal description, there's no reason for anyone to accept
> it.
>
> Kal

Yes, that's right.  No-one needs to accept my anecdotal evidence.
What I have read about various tests done to find out what part
of the brain reacts to some outside stimulus is one thing.  However,
I'm not aware of any tests which allows a person to create an
object inside his/her own brain and have that person move that
imagined object from one part of the brain to another.  I think it
would be interesting to see the results of such a test on an MRI.
When a person moves such an imagined object around within
the brain, does the brain light up in the areas of where this
object has been moved to?

If such a test has actually ever been done, I'd sure like
to know the results.  I know what I felt.  But, can others
feel the same?  Has this ever been tested?

Heidi

On Mar 8, 12:07 pm, Kalman Rubinson <k...@nyu.edu> wrote:
> Sure, your thoughts are real but they need not be true descriptions of
> reality.
>
> You are positing something which is counter to modern understanding of
> the operation of the nervous system and you are doing so based only on
> your subjective perception of the phenomenon.  You may conjure all the
> arguments you can but, until you can offer an objective corroboration
> of your anecdotal description, there's no reason for anyone to accept
> it.  

Kal, meet Heidi!

On Mar 8, 4:58 am, "CB" <caldwell.brob...@gmail.com> wrote:
> "codyfrew" <codyf...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:1173350180.299352.23830@t69g2000cwt.googlegroups.com...
>
> >   Headaches are not in your brain. You are feeling pressure from
> > sensory cells around your arteries along the outer lining of your
> > brain.You have veins and arteries all around your brain, and even
> > within the crevices and folds that you cannot see form the outside.
> > BUT, they never actually break the barrier.
>
> How sensitive are these nerve cells? IIRC (not my field at all), brain
> activity is linked to heightened blood flow to an area; so if (big if) the
> nerves were sufficiently sensitive then they should be able to indicate
> which areas are receiving more (or less) blood, which then gets interpreted
> as feeling an area to be more or less active?
> Just curious,
> CB

Yes, blood flow IS indeed linked to brain activity. But you cannot
sense bloodflow. You have some sensory receptors that can deduce
pressure, this signifiying pain for a headache, but to be honest there
is still little known about headaches and the nerve cells that are
responsible (let alone how sensitive they are). And even still, there
are a lot of brain mass that doesn't directly interface with blood
vessels.

yeh well thats like imagining that those phobias of
ours are a blurr to us or that by identifying and parceling
all your fears then trying to imagine them as balloons
floating out the top of your skull will get rid of them
for us.

I'm finding it difficult to believe there are really any
red balls or balloons in there in the first place....although
I can understand CB's point, maybe neural activity increases
blood flow in certain areas and that some people 'may' be
sensitive to this.

I don't agree that your red ball is an hallucination....
no more than I would agree that Beethoven, or Dickens or
any sculptor, musician or artist has 'hallucinated', I
think we call that having something called 'imagination' Kal.

Just as an experiment Heidi, could you just roll that little
ol' ball from the back of your mind to the front, and tell
me what it makes you think about? and will it jog any memories?
Is there any change in its colour at all?

ta

n.

I suppose it's worth mentioning a couple of caveats about brain
imaging technology as well, since we keep going back to that for proof
of Heidi's imaginitive perceptions. Current methods like fMRI, CAT,
PET, etc, are very clever ways of turning empirical and measurable
changes in the physical properties of our brains into images for us.
For example, fMRI devices measure the differences in oxygenated blood,
which implies changes in bloodflow in certain areas and less in
others. THEN, they perform pattern recognition algortihms on this raw
data and provide a filter and then interpret their operations with
pretty visualization techniques to show which areas account for some
threshold of bloodflow activity.

Even fMRI specialists will tell you that thus far, it is not yet
provable to show that these techniques really accurately correlate
with brain activity. It is highly likely that there are close
similiarties to what fMRIs find and what is really going in in the
brain, but there may be a lot we are missing. For instance, some
scientists at fMRI center at UCSD have discovered that fMRI machines
have been, for years, picking up blood flow and changes in oxygenation
within the blood vessels themselves, and not always in the vessels'
interface with the brain areas. They showed that it's possible that a
lot of data that localized brain functions were really showing
bloodflow in the branching-offs of the Carotid artery. I don't have
alink for the paper for you guys- I saw a presentation of this data at
the fMRI center.

Heidi,
   I respect your preserverence in your discussion about feeling your
brain energy. But, you haven't addressed my (defeating) counter point
that THERE ARE NO SENSORY RECEPTORS IN YOUR BRAIN. Your brain can only
interact with sensation through receptors. All information entering
through the brain from receptors come into the brain in the same way
(whether it be light-induced, or sound-induced, or pressure induced).

   Now, because of our cortex, we can create imaginations, which are
top-down activity in the brain that play out events. This IS REAL
activity. For instance, if I talk to my friend, and then I imagine
talking to my friend, brain activity in many areas will look very
similar. But, you can't actually feel and take in sensory information
from your imagination. It is top-down, not bottom-up processing. Now,
if you want to say that it is easy for yourself to imagine feeling
your brain activity- then kudos to you! It's great that you have such
a visceral imagination- most people don't. But, you cannot go on
saying that you are actually sensing changes in your brain activity
because this is very impossible.

"Heidi Graw" <hgraw@telus.net> wrote in message 
news:kxXHh.25245$lY6.22034@edtnps90...
| [...]

Heidi, the overly-brutal replies you've
gotten from others posting in this
thread are 'roughly-correct'.

There are no sensory receptors in
"the brain".

But your claims do have a foundation
in-Truth -- just not the way you've
been trying to communicate what
you say you're 'doing'.

What you say you're doing can, in
fact, be done, but doing it requires
an =intimate= Knowledge of the
Neuroanatomy -- be-cause, although
things are globally-integrated 'within'
the Neuroanatomy in a way that's to-
pologically-simple, there are a =lot=
of details in the coordinated mapping
that's involved in this topological-
simplicity.

This said, it seems =to me= [and I'm
not you] that what you're doing is
working-backward to 'fit' stuff such
as always-externally-observable
effector [in this instance, muscle]
activations into a mental-map that
you've developed.

This is not the same as asserting
that one can "feel" the neural dyn-
amics, but it's =not=, as some
posting in this thread have 'assert-
ed', "halucination'.

=All= "thought" occurs in a way that's
more or less analogous to the stuff
you've described.

Nervous systems literally construct
"models" of external experiential en-
vironments, and subsequently con-
verge upon neural activation 'states'
that're literally founded =in= the "mod-
els" that were formerly constructed.

All of this has stood Proven, in the
Neuroscience experimental results
for 'decades'.

So, while your own 'mis-take' is rel-
atively-minor [your "model" is just
not sufficiently-detailed], the com-
ents of some of the other folks
who've posted in this thread are
not only Verifiably-False, but Hurt-
fully-mean-spirited, 'two'.

Learn more along the lines in which
you've been learning, then Shine-
Brightly.

[I Admire your Courage.]

k. p. collins 

"codyfrew" <codyfrew@gmail.com> wrote in message 
news:1173394093.077757.249240@v33g2000cwv.googlegroups.com...
| On Mar 8, 4:58 am, "CB" <caldwell.brob...@gmail.com> wrote:
| > "codyfrew" <codyf...@gmail.com> wrote in message
| >
| > news:1173350180.299352.23830@t69g2000cwt.googlegroups.com...
| >
| > >   Headaches are not in your brain. You are feeling pressure from
| > > sensory cells around your arteries along the outer lining of your
| > > brain.You have veins and arteries all around your brain, and even
| > > within the crevices and folds that you cannot see form the outside.
| > > BUT, they never actually break the barrier.
| >
| > How sensitive are these nerve cells? IIRC (not my field at all), brain
| > activity is linked to heightened blood flow to an area; so if (big if) 
the
| > nerves were sufficiently sensitive then they should be able to indicate
| > which areas are receiving more (or less) blood, which then gets 
interpreted
| > as feeling an area to be more or less active?
| > Just curious,
| > CB
|
| Yes, blood flow IS indeed linked to brain activity. But you cannot
| sense bloodflow. You have some sensory receptors that can deduce
| pressure, this signifiying pain for a headache, but to be honest there
| is still little known about headaches and the nerve cells that are
| responsible (let alone how sensitive they are). And even still, there
| are a lot of brain mass that doesn't directly interface with blood
| vessels.

'yeah' -- that's 'why' nerve cells 'do not
need oxygen' :-]

k. p. collins 

On 8 Mar 2007 14:54:48 -0800, "Nicci" <n.m.keele@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:

>I don't agree that your red ball is an hallucination....
>no more than I would agree that Beethoven, or Dickens or
>any sculptor, musician or artist has 'hallucinated', I
>think we call that having something called 'imagination' Kal.

Operationally equivalent even though you clearly regard the term
'hallucination' as pejorative.  The major difference is what the
individual does as a consequence of the experience and, of course, the
general value of the outcome.  

Kal

On 8 Mar, 23:14, Kalman Rubinson <k...@nyu.edu> wrote:
> On 8 Mar 2007 14:54:48 -0800, "Nicci" <n.m.ke...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
>
> >I don't agree that your red ball is an hallucination....
> >no more than I would agree that Beethoven, or Dickens or
> >any sculptor, musician or artist has 'hallucinated', I
> >think we call that having something called 'imagination' Kal.
>
> Operationally equivalent even though you clearly regard the term
> 'hallucination' as pejorative.  The major difference is what the
> individual does as a consequence of the experience and, of course, the
> general value of the outcome.  
>
> Kal

that seems to generally clear, tho I also think that playing
with a ball on your own was also fairly lonely, so, I'll add
a couple more balls to Heidi's and we can play snooker, or
stick them together and make a double helix, or suck on em..

"Kalman Rubinson" <kr4@nyu.edu> wrote in message 
news:0061v2t5agf1omv1bunkd38okpqc1hughc@4ax.com...
| On 8 Mar 2007 14:54:48 -0800, "Nicci" <n.m.keele@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
|
| >I don't agree that your red ball is
| >an hallucination....no more than
| >I would agree that Beethoven, or
| >Dickens or any sculptor, musician
| >or artist has 'hallucinated', I think
| >we call that having something
| >called 'imagination' Kal.
|
| Operationally equivalent

Not-True.

| even though you clearly regard the
| term 'hallucination' as pejorative.

In the most-common usage, it is -- 
because there's always the 'pre-
sumption' of "false-seeing".

| The major difference is what the
| individual does as a consequence
| of the experience and, of course, the
| general value of the outcome.
|
| Kal

When "the brain" constructs a "model",
the neural activation inherent literally
drives the production of microscopic
trophic modifications to neuron and
glia structure and conformation.

Subsequently, these "micro-mods"
literally exist as "biological mass"
that enables 'the' nervous system
to "operate" upon them in ways that
are exactly-analogous to the way =all=
"mass" is operated-upon in physical
reality.

It's how and why what one experiences
literally matters [use "matters" as a
verb.]

Which is why your comments are not
only offensive, but Dangerous.

You are trying to 'force' that which will
enter into others experience -- in order
to 'validate' what =you= have experienced.

Such is unacceptable.

k. p. collins 

>"Nicci" <n.m.keele@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message 
>news:1173394488.317858.238330@64g2000cwx.googlegroups.com...
(snip)

>Nicci wrote:
> Just as an experiment Heidi, could you just roll that little
> ol' ball from the back of your mind to the front, and tell
> me what it makes you think about? and will it jog any memories?
> Is there any change in its colour at all?

Alright...I'm visualizing that red ball.  It's sitting at the back of
my brain.  I can feel it.  Energy is concentrated back there.
Now, I'm slowly rolling it forward towards my forehead.
It is changing over into a yellow triangle/pyramid.  It keeps
wanting to shift over to the right hemisphere, but I'm exerting
energy from my left hemisphere to pull and tug at
that yellow triangle to hold it in place in the middle of my
forebrain.

A green polygon is now appearing at the back of my left
hemisphere.  It's sitting back there and is feeling quite
comfortable and 'at home'.

Hmmm...I find this quite interesting.  When I first visualised
that red ball, it appeared in my right hemisphere just above
my right ear.  A yellow triangle popped up in the centre
behind my forehead, and that green polygon at the back
of my left hemisphere.

By concentrating on these three shapes in three different
colours, I can move and mix them around all over the place
inside my head.  I have no trouble juggling these items
around.  What I find interesting is the location of where
they first appeared.

As for jogging memories, I've concentrated too hard
moving these shapes around.  My memories are currently
suppressed and operating at low volume.  I have no problem
though typing out what I'm seeing in my head while I'm busy
constructing the words.

Looks to me I'm doing a whole lot of things all at once.  ;-)

Take care,
Heidi

"Heidi Graw" <hgraw@telus.net> wrote in message 
news:D12Ih.25351$lY6.12323@edtnps90...
|
| >"Nicci" <n.m.keele@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message
| >news:1173394488.317858.238330@64g2000cwx.googlegroups.com...
| (snip)
|
| >Nicci wrote:
| > Just as an experiment Heidi, could you just roll that little
| > ol' ball from the back of your mind to the front, and tell
| > me what it makes you think about? and will it jog any memories?
| > Is there any change in its colour at all?
|
| Alright...I'm visualizing that red ball.  It's sitting at the back of
| my brain.  I can feel it.  Energy is concentrated back there.
| Now, I'm slowly rolling it forward towards my forehead.
| It is changing over into a yellow triangle/pyramid.  It keeps
| wanting to shift over to the right hemisphere, but I'm exerting
| energy from my left hemisphere to pull and tug at
| that yellow triangle to hold it in place in the middle of my
| forebrain.
|
| A green polygon is now appearing at the back of my left
| hemisphere.  It's sitting back there and is feeling quite
| comfortable and 'at home'.
|
| Hmmm...I find this quite interesting.  When I first visualised
| that red ball, it appeared in my right hemisphere just above
| my right ear.  A yellow triangle popped up in the centre
| behind my forehead, and that green polygon at the back
| of my left hemisphere.
|
| By concentrating on these three shapes in three different
| colours, I can move and mix them around all over the place
| inside my head.  I have no trouble juggling these items
| around.  What I find interesting is the location of where
| they first appeared.
|
| As for jogging memories, I've concentrated too hard
| moving these shapes around.  My memories are currently
| suppressed and operating at low volume.  I have no problem
| though typing out what I'm seeing in my head while I'm busy
| constructing the words.
|
| Looks to me I'm doing a whole lot of things all at once.  ;-)
|
| Take care,
| Heidi

Sorry, I must retract my support.

k. p. collins 

>"Benjamin" <Benjamin@verizon.net> wrote in message 
>news:Pm3Ih.8698$7f.49@trndny08...
(snip)

>>Heidi wrote:
> | Looks to me I'm doing a whole lot of things all at once.  ;-)
> |

> Sorry, I must retract my support.
>
> k. p. collins

That's o.k., k.p.  If my brain defies all that is known within the 
neurosciences,
I really don't mind it at all.  It just means that I'm not just another 
brain on the block.
Mine's unique and different.  My brain has also served me well over the past 
50 years.
I'm very happy with it.  ;-)

Take care,
Heidi

On Mar 8, 6:33 pm, "Benjamin" <Benja...@verizon.net> wrote:
> "Kalman Rubinson" <k...@nyu.edu> wrote in message
>
> news:0061v2t5agf1omv1bunkd38okpqc1hughc@4ax.com...
> | On 8 Mar 2007 14:54:48 -0800, "Nicci" <n.m.ke...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
> |
> | >I don't agree that your red ball is
> | >an hallucination....no more than
> | >I would agree that Beethoven, or
> | >Dickens or any sculptor, musician
> | >or artist has 'hallucinated', I think
> | >we call that having something
> | >called 'imagination' Kal.
> |
> | Operationally equivalent
>
> Not-True.
>
> | even though you clearly regard the
> | term 'hallucination' as pejorative.
>
> In the most-common usage, it is --
> because there's always the 'pre-
> sumption' of "false-seeing".
>
> | The major difference is what the
> | individual does as a consequence
> | of the experience and, of course, the
> | general value of the outcome.
> |
> | Kal
>
> When "the brain" constructs a "model",
> the neural activation inherent literally
> drives the production of microscopic
> trophic modifications to neuron and
> glia structure and conformation.
>
> Subsequently, these "micro-mods"
> literally exist as "biological mass"
> that enables 'the' nervous system
> to "operate" upon them in ways that
> are exactly-analogous to the way =all=
> "mass" is operated-upon in physical
> reality.
>
> It's how and why what one experiences
> literally matters [use "matters" as a
> verb.]
>
> Which is why your comments are not
> only offensive, but Dangerous.
>
> You are trying to 'force' that which will
> enter into others experience -- in order
> to 'validate' what =you= have experienced.
>
> Such is unacceptable.
>
> k. p. collins

Someone should take away all the punctuation keys from k. p.
"Benjamin" Collins's keyboard.

On Mar 8, 7:12 pm, "Heidi Graw" <h...@telus.net> wrote:

> That's o.k., k.p.  If my brain defies all that is known within the
> neurosciences,
> I really don't mind it at all.  It just means that I'm not just another
> brain on the block.
> Mine's unique and different.  My brain has also served me well over the past
> 50 years.
> I'm very happy with it.  ;-)

You may be happy, we're happy you're happy, but that is not a good
enough reason to keep spamming a group that has nothing to do with any
of your stuff.
More appropriate forums to be proposed would be
alt.paranormal, rec.arts.sf.random, rec.arts.sf.tv,
alt.religion.scientology, etc. *Not this one.

Kalman Rubinson <kr4@nyu.edu> wrote in message news:cnd0v2p9mv301v40ap3j0sbje15nqnmc6u@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 08 Mar 2007 15:19:10 GMT, "Heidi Graw" <hgraw@telus.net>
> wrote:
> 
> >Try it out and let me know what you experience.
> 
> A hallucination.
> Kal

I tried it too, after a short while I kept hearing Heidi's voice
repeating ad nauseum:"'Nuff said. 'Nuff said. 'Nuff said.
 'Nuff said. 'Nuff said. 'Nuff said. 'Nuff said. 'Nuff said. 'Nuff said.
 'Nuff said. 'Nuff said. 'Nuff said. 'Nuff said. 'Nuff said. 'Nuff said."
Indeed!
pjk

"Benjamin" <Benjamin@verizon.net> wrote in message 
news:O21Ih.11638$ig.9053@trndny01...
| "Kalman Rubinson" <kr4@nyu.edu> wrote in message
| news:0061v2t5agf1omv1bunkd38okpqc1hughc@4ax.com...
|| On 8 Mar 2007 14:54:48 -0800, "Nicci" <n.m.keele@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
|| [...]

I RETRACT my comments in
the last four paragraphs in my
post linked-to above.

I Apologize to Kalman Rubinson.

K. P. Collins 

"Heidi Graw" <hgraw@telus.net> wrote in message 
news:6g4Ih.42770$cE3.28426@edtnps89...
|
| >"Benjamin" <Benjamin@verizon.net> wrote in message
| >news:Pm3Ih.8698$7f.49@trndny08...
| (snip)
|
| >>Heidi wrote:
| > | Looks to me I'm doing a whole lot of things all at once.  ;-)
| > |
|
| > Sorry, I must retract my support.
| >
| > k. p. collins
|
| That's o.k., k.p.  If my brain defies all that is known within the
| neurosciences,
[...]

If that were actually the case,
then there would be no reason
for anyone to bother with any-
thing you say or do.

All you've been doing is describing
quite-routine "mind's-'eye'" stuff
that virtually anyone can do, and
does do, for instance, when they
describe a scene to another in-
dividual.

Yes, it's wonderful that humans
can so imagine, but it's nothing
that "defies all that is known with-
in [Neuroscience].

How do you think Artists compose
their paintings and scupltures, Com-
posers, their music, Inventors, their
machines, etc.?

Really, please stop cross-posting
to bionet.neuroscience. b.n is a
=Science= 'place', where folks
gather to do serious =work=, not
to be "Creative".

k. p. collins 

Ok, noting there have been various calls for order,
I think its only fair to get it back onto topic,

Assuming there is & are subtle differences percieved
in the content of literature and hence pictography
depending upon your reading direction (eye tracking)
and these could be dependant upon the cultural biases,
is there a common or universal human pattern or
direction for reporting or registering sceneries?

eg. instead of reading X & Y what about Z? forwards
or backwards? I would have said that emphasis would
be placed on objects closer in the visual field, so
is it possible to say, lay the bare foundational
structure of a language purely on visual real-time
perception? perhaps the colour of objects is more
significant in some way, sound, motion,etc. I didnt
mention perpective engineering here due to there
being so many ways to represent depths of field.

The language element comes in thru communication.
How could more complex grammars and syntax have
formed, if there are common biological bonds of
sight, sounds, taste, etc perception between us?

Thanks

n.

Niki wrote:
> Ok, noting there have been various calls for order,
> I think its only fair to get it back onto topic,
> 
> Assuming there is & are subtle differences percieved
> in the content of literature and hence pictography
> depending upon your reading direction (eye tracking)
> and these could be dependant upon the cultural biases,
> is there a common or universal human pattern or
> direction for reporting or registering sceneries?
> 
> eg. instead of reading X & Y what about Z? forwards
> or backwards? I would have said that emphasis would
> be placed on objects closer in the visual field, so
> is it possible to say, lay the bare foundational
> structure of a language purely on visual real-time
> perception? perhaps the colour of objects is more
> significant in some way, sound, motion,etc. I didnt
> mention perpective engineering here due to there
> being so many ways to represent depths of field.
> 
> The language element comes in thru communication.
> How could more complex grammars and syntax have
> formed, if there are common biological bonds of
> sight, sounds, taste, etc perception between us?
> 
> Thanks
> 
> n.
> 
I doubt there is any common pattern. I've read that some arctic peoples 
can read newspapers upsidedown and sideways as easily as rightside up, 
left to right.  Folks in Papua did even recognize polaroid phots of 
themselves until they were told what the image represented.  The first 
experience of vision is chaotic for folks who could see after surgery, 
for the first time.  It takes several weeks of aculturation to be able 
to organize visual data into meaningful patterns.  Seeing is very 
ideological.

Sure there are common biological bonds between all of us.  Our 
biological equipment.  Ears, eyes, etc. But I think you're intimating 
that various "values" might be attached to this.  I'm skeptical about 
that.  A lot of people in the world love the taste of rancid fat, and a 
lot find it repulsive.  I used to hate the taste of cooked bellpepper, 
but once I was at a diner where stuffed bell pepper was served and I had 
to eat it to be polite.  It used to make me vomit, in fact, but after 
this dinner, I actually like it.

Can you think of a language that has LESS complex grammars and syntax? 
All natural languages seem to be equally complex and sophisticated - 
language development doesn't seem to follow a progressive model.

On 9 Mar, 17:30, "Erik A. Mattila" <e...@nospamimpix.com> wrote:
>I doubt there is any common pattern. I've read that some arctic peoples
>can read newspapers upsidedown and sideways as easily as rightside up,
>left to right.  Folks in Papua did even recognize polaroid phots of
>themselves until they were told what the image represented.  The first
>experience of vision is chaotic for folks who could see after surgery,
>for the first time.  It takes several weeks of aculturation to be able
>to organize visual data into meaningful patterns.  Seeing is very
>ideological.

Do you remember that book that came out a few years ago 'drawing on
the right side of your brain'? the basic idea was to draw upside
down & the results I saw were very impressive. Is reading upside
down difficult? its an aquired skill, and not even I've been sure
what to look for in a photograph unless its been pointed out to me.
I've noticed my spelling and syntax are worse when I've been painting
or drawing, but then the reverse is also true. I also think theres
a mighty big difference between creating the work and the reading
or percieving of it.

Rather than suggest that we instantly recognise what we
see clearly, I think we have to learn from birth how to
objectify what we encounter, and not necessarily by naming
what it is, maybe we identify by association of a couple
of other senses as well?. Objectify is such a strong word
tho, and especially if your experience of whatever-it-
happened-to-be is unamable. eg. an instance, if the
reflections on a mug of water remind you of thirst because
once it was just out of reach, but you learned the word
'thirsty' later, the reflections and feeling that somethings
only just out of your reach are an instance, an event that
go to make up part of our lifes experiences. They arn't
everyones experiences but some will be similar.
So, without a name and without a mutual agreed expression
the 'object' or 'sound' won't communicate exactly what you
feel or felt it to mean.

So how can we get the idea across that 'water' wasnt simply
an expression of being cold and fed up? or delight? to say
'thirsty'?. I think intonation and pitch say something
about the object and our intentions, the word and the way
its pronounced or said.

Similarly there are symbols and compositions particularly in
early paintings that can't be understood unless you knew who
had painted them or you were there at the time. Lets say we
make a lucky guess.

So we want to show thirst in a picture, we have a cup there,
and its a silent movie or mime, an artist paints his model
gasping and reaching for a drink. Simple.

Before musical notation people learned by rote and gestural
signs, but then we'll never know if ever or what a musical
'sign' for being thirsty was, & I don't know anything about
choreography(even tho my dad was trained as a dancer:) If
anyone in Sci.Lang has any pointers about ancient choreography
firmly associated with specific sound + emotional content
I'd be very interested.

>Sure there are common biological bonds between all of us.  Our
>biological equipment.  Ears, eyes, etc. But I think you're intimating
>that various "values" might be attached to this.  I'm skeptical about
>that.  A lot of people in the world love the taste of rancid fat, and a
>lot find it repulsive.  I used to hate the taste of cooked bellpepper,
>but once I was at a diner where stuffed bell pepper was served and I had
>to eat it to be polite.  It used to make me vomit, in fact, but after
>this dinner, I actually like it.

I'd say if most people have similarly designed senses and
we've developed them to full working capacity we should
at very least have one sense, for use as a mutual channel
for the purposes communication even if we lose other
senses later on do you agree?.

Yes, I think the values fluctuate, I used to hate spouts...
and I'm still opposed to their use, but then some people
love things and an allergic reaction as well.

>Can you think of a language that has LESS complex grammars and syntax?
>All natural languages seem to be equally complex and sophisticated -
>language development doesn't seem to follow a progressive model.

I was thinking along the lines of, what if we all knew that
things with spikes hurt your feet if you stand on them, you'd
avoid them in your path. If they're right in front of you its
the first thing to avoid, and if they're a distance away you
still have the time to walk through the muddy pool, so how
could we communicate a sequence order and urgency to someone
else?

I'd guess there would be less complexity where there was more
mutual understanding of the things that were being discussed.
For instance
'Excuse me Mrs Mattila but your husband appears to be violently
sick in our bathroom and I think I should call an ambulance!"
"No! no need to worry yourself about it, seriously!, he loved
our meal!!"

Ta!

:)
n.

"Nicci" <n.m.keele@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1173524987.488392.309230@h3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> Do you remember that book that came out a few years ago 'drawing on
> the right side of your brain'? the basic idea was to draw upside
> down & the results I saw were very impressive.

I'll just stick to the art stuff & leave the rest for others - but the idea
wasn't to draw upside down, but to take a photo of some one, turn that
upside down, and draw from that.. The reason it works is that the upside
down photo is then usually perceived in a much more abstract way, and the
drawer (I hesitate to use the word artist here) is simply studying the
relationships between features in the photo, and not going through the more
complex process of mediating external perception with internal
representation.

The results aren't all that impressive, but they usually do give hope to
folks who believe that a) they can't draw a face, b) drawing is simply a
matter of hand-eye coordination,  and c) the way a face should look when
drawn should be translatable back to photographic representation.. The end
result (following her program) at best comes seems to be results like the
profile used to decorate the front of the book - stiff, awkward, unnuanced,
flat as a pancake.. And considering it's a profile - the simplest of all
representations of the head, that's not saying much...

Cheers;
Chris

On 10 Mar, 13:30, "CB" <caldwell.brob...@gmail.com> wrote:
>I'll just stick to the art stuff & leave the rest for others - but the idea
>wasn't to draw upside down, but to take a photo of some one, turn that
>upside down, and draw from that.. The reason it works is that the upside
>down photo is then usually perceived in a much more abstract way, and the
>drawer (I hesitate to use the word artist here) is simply studying the
>relationships between features in the photo, and not going through the more
>complex process of mediating external perception with internal
>representation.

Drawing what you see, not what you think the drawing should
look like, kinda thing?! The drawings I saw were like a leap
from a painting by numbers to a Klee or Sheile in 2 lessons :)
...I happen to like their draughtsmanship.   Who was that artist
who said something like 'if you spent 10 years being taught how
to draw, you spend another 25 or 30 trying to unlearn to draw
properly again'?

>The results aren't all that impressive, but they usually do give hope to
>folks who believe that a) they can't draw a face, b) drawing is simply a
>matter of hand-eye coordination,  and c) the way a face should look when
>drawn should be translatable back to photographic representation.. The end
>result (following her program) at best comes seems to be results like the
>profile used to decorate the front of the book - stiff, awkward, unnuanced,
>flat as a pancake.. And considering it's a profile - the simplest of all
>representations of the head, that's not saying much...

>Cheers;
>Chris

Art appreciation and aspiration seems like a lot of things.
I really like music, but sometimes I hear something fantastic
and very rare which is out of my usual range. I often see
something in a painting that eludes my ability to describe
it and will sometimes make me want to explore it fully, its
usually a technique, a new skill,tho compositional arrangements
are different, a new life experience will give new insights.
Like when you reread a book after many years. I don't discuss
art much now and it took years out of my life.

I was looking up language and gestural communications and Googled
up the Savanna theory, which appears in sci.Anthropology, and
a discussion about the beginnings of language. There wasn't much
about gestures, but I've got to read through a hell of a lot!

The Nowak & Krakauer (1999) list;
http://www.isrl.uiuc.edu/~amag/langev/cited/nowak99theEvolution.html

Then theres a kinda leap there I assume through socialisation,
to culturalised gestures and the spoken word.

Is behaviour an outward expression of internal thought processes
soey dependent upon the learned social skills such as languages?
If you think concurrently with your actions, will the mode of
thought eg speech, influence your behaviour? and what if you're
an artist and think in pictures most of the time? do we mime
everything from our shopping lists for example? and what mediates
the process and makes our decisions as to the 'thought' process
that would be best to use and what stops us from singing out
loud, speaking our thoughts or acting out a scene from a TV
advert?

Do we talk about art and what we see, or paint what we
see to call it art?

(I was looking up the Mannerists, but maybe sometime soon)

:)
n.