Brain Science Podcast discussion

Proust Was a Neuroscientist
This topic is about Proust Was a Neuroscientist
49 views
Recommended Reading > Can the Arts inform Neuroscience?

Comments (showing 1-6 of 6) (6 new)    post a comment »
dateDown arrow    newest »

message 1: by Roger (new)

Roger Morris (roger_morris) | 34 comments "Of course Proust wasn't a neuroscientist. Or was he? Science writer Jonah Lehrer argues 19th century artists from Paul Cezanne to Virginia Woolf, Gertrude Stein to Walt Whitman anticipated some of the great discoveries about the mind and brain in their ground-breaking art and prose -- realisations that science is only rediscovering now. He's calling for a radical rethink of truth, art and science. Art can make science better, he reckons."

Listen to the interview with author Jonah Lehrer:

http://www.abc.net.au/rn/allinthemind...

Roger (http://www.faithinterface.com.au/)


message 2: by Ginger (new)

Ginger Campbell (GingerCampbell) | 311 comments Mod
I read Proust was a Neuroscientist when if first came out. It is an interesting book, and a good introduction. I think it is more likely to attract humanities types to neuroscience than the other way around.


message 3: by Jim (new)

Jim 23 (Jim23) | 1 comments BSP made a big impression on me. I now think Art is a tool to begin Neuroplastic changes so we can think new thoughts about our changing world.
Reconsidered John Lenon and Yoko Ono's "Imagine Peace" artwork with what you know about plasticity. Maybe we need to sit an imagine peace to grow a brain capable of thinking about something previously unthinkable like ending war.


message 4: by Ginger (new)

Ginger Campbell (GingerCampbell) | 311 comments Mod
Jim wrote: "BSP made a big impression on me. I now think Art is a tool to begin Neuroplastic changes so we can think new thoughts about our changing world.
Reconsidered John Lenon and Yoko Ono's "Imagine..."


That is an interesting application of the idea of brain plasticity!


message 5: by John (new)

John Brown | 52 comments In the visual field, I always used to like Escher for his optical illusions. I think this sort of art inspired people like Richard Gregory, who investigated all sorts of optical illusion. He has a web-site, but he is now in his 90's.
I find the illusions in Magritte's paintings very stimulating. However, they do not seem to lie in the area of the visual cortex, as do Escher's and Gregory's work, but more in the ontological parts of the brain. I think I recall these are performed in the temporal gyrus. In the middle ages, there were very stylised visual symbols for the various religious concepts. We have lost all these now, but Magritte seems to invent a new symbolism for our secular age.


message 6: by Dustin (new)

Dustin Moraczewski | 5 comments Not so much neuroscience but this topic reminds me of Gödel, Escher, and Bach:
https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/2...

If you haven't heard of this important book it weaves art, music, and logic into one "golden braid". It does have small sections that deal with neuroscience but not much.


back to top

unread topics | mark unread