Masquerade Ball Invitation Ideas

Stanislas Dehaene, reading. The greatest invention of mankind, and what happens here in our heads, Munich 2010 (2009)

1. description of the subject and the action subject in brain research
2. for interdisciplinary brain research
3. to neuro-physiological functions of the brain, consciousness and behavior
4. to neuro-physiological functions of the brain: competition versus reciprocity
5. to neuro-physiological functions of the brain: Gestalt perception
6. to neurophysiological function of the brain: Proto letters
7. To neuro-physiological functions of the brain: school
   

If I Stanislas Dehaene's book reading. The greatest invention of mankind, and what happens here in our heads "(2010) read to keep themselves in my agreement and disagreement on the scale. Many of his neurophysiological findings are tremendously exciting - are to be shown in the following post is - and help a process of clarifying one's own reflections on the relationship of phylogeny (biology and culture) and ontogenetic (individual consciousness) and correct them. But many of his comments and conclusions as to cultural and individual development are just annoying because they are limited in view of the overall context humanities and cultural development too much on the neuro-physiological function and therefore fall just short. That makes one uneasy mixture of half truths and half-falsehoods that the cognitive process are not very conducive.

The basic problem seems to me more and more especially in the imprecise, vague expressions to lie that I most brain researchers, and even find even with Stanislas Dehaene. By this I mean not its neurophysiological terminology itself, as regards the anatomy of the brain they are always very precise and inspect closely, - otherwise you can probably hardly neurophysiological research operate. As soon as they try to go beyond the neuro-physiological condition relationships and relate their findings to the individual behavior and social and cultural processes, and their language is strangely vague and metaphorical. To make clear what I mean, I would like to tentatively speak of the difference between description and action subject subject that is ignored by neurophysiologists throughout, resulting in the aforementioned uneasy mixture of half truths and half-falsehoods.

Description As subject I would call all those sentence subjects, which are provided with descriptive predicates. The brain and anatomy are the description of the subject of brain research. In regard to this subject description tries to brain research to identify all possible predicates. The neuro-physiological processes, observing the brain researchers meet in a still largely unknown to the general context of mutual functionality specific functions.

act as a subject I would call all those sentence subjects which are provided with action predicates: Someone doing something recognizes something decides something wants something, feels something . If I use these predicates, I do not describe a Opportunity (subject description), but I give someone the status of a subject's action. Also you can apply this action predicates in metaphorical intent on Description subjects - if you know what you do, if you control consciously so in order to illustrate the use of such metaphors, such as Dehaene the pleasing and instructive picture of the coordination of specialized neurons in the performance as a mentally limited demons Parliament. (See Dehaene, 2010 S.56ff.)

neurophysiologists but are not in very great regularity blind to the categorical difference between her description of the subject, the brain and its functionality, and action subjects such as humans. To select a still rather harmless example: Dehaene describes the advantage of pictograms against abstract letter saying that, in order to understand icons, does not have to learn to read extra, because "every normal brain can in the image of one ear to recognize the symbol for cereals. "(Dehaene, 2010, p.207) - This is certainly a rather innocuous mistake in the use of the information subject's brain 'as an action subject. But is the infamous, simple man 'future on the road, perhaps just that simple brain' on the street? This

Habit of presenting their subjects as a description of action led subjects, brain researchers much further generalizations and developments of metaphor. If eg Dehaene of the people 5000 years ago is the speech that developed the first writings, that occur suddenly as a neurophysiologist. Today's brain researchers Dehaene generalized so times just as with a light hand, his perspective through time to a group of people who have not had a magnetic resonance imaging and magnetic resonance spectroscopy had no service! These people have therefore tested not just any icons and symbols or marks and scratches to taste and discretion aesthetic and pragmatic refined and improved, but they have so Dehaene discovered "that the temporal region in the back of the head can also be used to the word not only verbally, but also writing to share" (see Dehaene, 2010, p.195). Imagine "the People" for 5000 year, as they - possibly cannibals? - Your brain on an open language and script to run experiments before they eat their prisoners!
have
So then, the prehistoric people in the cave of Lascaux, as they conjured with simple contours bison and horses equally accurate as alive on the cave walls, created not as art. (See Dehaene, 2010, 212) Dehaene sees in them rather an example of "a first, obviously strictly empirical manipulation of the people in his nervous system." (See Dehaene, 2010, p.203) One wonders, is whether brain researchers perhaps professionally simply are unable to imagine that people can see without going through the observation of brain functions or invent anything? Even the relatively modest

reductionism, the Dehaene itself begins seducing him to "family and social structure, religious traditions, musical styles, artistic expression, etc." without further specification its phenomenal structure to a "culture of neurons due. (See Dehaene, 2010, S.353) makes him blind to the autonomy of cultural phenomena. You do not have independent status is granted as a description of subjects, their identification requires specific cultural predicates. Instead metaphorized Dehaene cultural processes by means of a medical-biological terminology. Thus, cultural innovations spread in the brain like a virus epidemic, "... just like a mutant virus is a gap in the immune system of an organism found. ... As a winner will emerge those representations which are found within the human brain structure circuits that for an efficient neural recycling are. "(see Dehaene, 2010, p.167)

Who writes such processes of cultural understanding, perhaps a bit of brains, but nothing of culture. Dehaene does have the advantage over schwadronierenden Neuro pseudo philosophers like Metzinger, that he, the brain anatomy and function in its full context, the subject makes, but he finally isolated as compared to the functional context of the 'residual body'. As much as Dehaene sought to incorporate social and cultural contexts in his research, they are ultimately due to the constant confusion of subject and description of action due to subject and of permanent short-circuiting and back of neck condition contexts on the neuro-physiological phenomena as functionality completely leveled, so to disappear.