Momento Ergo Sum

       "And suddenly the memory revealed itself. The taste was that of the little piece of madeleine which on Sunday mornings at Combray (because on those mornings I did not go out before mass), when I went to say good morning to her in her bedroom , my aunt Léonie used to give me, dipping it first in her own cup of tea or tisane. The sight of the little madeleine had recalled nothing to my mind before I tasted it; perhaps because I had so often seen such things in the meantime, without tasting them, on the trays in pastry-cooks' windows, that their image had dissociated itself from those Combray days to take its place among others more recent; perhaps because of those memories, so long abandoned and put out of mind, nothing now survived, everything was scattered; the shapes of things, including that of the little scallop-shell of pastry, so richly sensual under its severe, religious folds, were either obliterated or had been so long dormant as to have lost the power of expansion which would have allowed them to resume their place in my consciousness. But when from a long-distant past nothing subsists, after the people are dead, after the things are broken and scattered, taste and smell alone, more fragile but more enduring, more unsubstantial, more persistent, more faithful, remain poised a long time, like souls, remembering, waiting, hoping, amid the ruins of all the rest; and bear unflinchingly, in the tiny and almost impalpable drop of their essence, the vast structure of recollection." ~The Madeleine by Marcel Proust

"Of course, once Proust began to remember his past, he lost all interest in the taste of the madeleine. Instead, he became obsessed with how he felt about the cookie, with what the cookie meant to him . What else would these crumbs teach him about his past? What other memories could emerge from these magic mouthfuls of flour and butter?" ~Marcel Proust: The Method of Memory by Jonah Lehrer (pg. 81)
_________________________________________________________________________________
        Lehrer discusses memory in the terms that Proust believed were true. He tells of how a weak Proust wanted to leave a mark on the memories of others. Proust was a master of flowery language and introspection according to Lehrer. Proust had an ability to see into himself and his mind through mundane or trivial acts. Through the eating of a cookie, Proust is able to envision his own ability of remembering and memories about himself that are very much unrelated. Lehrer's article tells of how Proust's work and thoughts on memory were very complimentary to the scientific aspects and studies. Proust himself recognizes the power of art and science but tells of how the artist deals with the reality of the situation (Lehrer 77-78). Proust is a visionary of memory and describes many things that help give an artistic light to scientific theory.
         While the topics of both readings were of memory, i want to focus on something a little different. Proust talked of how memories were plagued by influence of ones self. In other words, when someone remembers something they change little details in order to convenience themselves. Lehrer tells of how Freud studied this in victims of sexual abuse. (Lehrer 82-83) This theory that memories are what we want to believe means that we in fact cannot tell the truth and thus our memories tell more about the person recalling them than the memories contents. For this reason, I propose a look not into memories of the past, but memories that have sprouted from the great void of nothing. The French call this Deja Vu. It is when one recognizes a current happening that has either unknown or no groundings in the past. In the case of Proust, this brings to mind an interesting hypothesis.
           If memories have actual roots to a past happening, and a person remembers said happening with thoughts that are influenced by their personality; then what does it mean for said person if only the latter were true. In other words, if a memory has no roots but someone remembers it then what does this say about this person. Therefore, is Deja Vu the subconscious commentary of a persons actions or rather is it a the wishes of the self being portrayed in reality. Barring miraculous events, sorcery, or prophecy; one must really look at this in the light of the mind-subconsciousness relation. Deja Vu is curious in this aspect because of the ambiguity of their meaning. It is the raw view of oneself through a blind belief in a fake history. Deja Vu, in the context of Proust, is like a subliminal message from our self to our-self but we must be open and ready to study and learn from them. Rather than focusing on memories, I believe Proust is trying to get to a core idea of finding "Self" through our experience of life. However, Proust may not have considered Deja Vu because of its uncommon nature and thus focused on regular memories. If someone were to talk to Proust about Deja Vu, I wonder what his response would be and what he could find out about himself or others based on there own happenings. So remember, next time you have that weird feeling think about it in terms of your own self. Think of what your subconsciousness is trying to tell you or maybe even remind you.

Paying Attention: Why Students are Poor

Some people who attend public lectures upon natural philosophy, with the expectation of being much amused and instructed, go home with sensations similar to those of the poor Eskimaux; they feel that they have had too much of every thing. The lecturer has not time to explain his terms, or to repeat them till they are distinct in the memory of his audience.[16] To children, every mode of instruction must be hurtful which fatigues attention; therefore, a skilful preceptor will, as much as possible, avoid the manner of teaching, to which the public lecturer is in some degree compelled by his situation. ~Practical Attention: Chapter 3 by Maria Edgeworth (Pg 73) [Pg3 of the word document]

Another view that has become increasingly popular in recent years is called the selection-for-action view.... attentional limitations should not be attributed to a limited capacity or mechanism. Instead, the limitations are byproducts of the need to coordinate action and ensure that the correct stimulus information is controlling the intended responses. ~Attention: Theory and Practice by Addie Johnson & Robert Proctor (pg 22)

____________________________________________________________________________________

       

          Proctor and Johnson recount a history of the study of attention and its importance. They break up the study of Attention into five periods, beginning with the philosophical pre-psychology period and ending with the modern age of fMRI's and PET scans that are able to reproduce full three dimensional renderings of the brain. They discuss how the views of attention went from thoughts of animal spirits and humors swimming through the rippling hills of the brain to internal capacities and abilities of developing minds. The main question becomes, "How should attention be interpreted?"

Yet some things never change...

          The viewpoint that Proctor and Johnson is an interesting one. They say that, "attentional limitations should not be attributed to a limited capacity or mechanism." This means that instead of attention loss being blamed on natural, biological limits. Instead they say, "the limitations are byproducts of the need to coordinate action and ensure that the correct stimulus information is controlling the intended responses." In layman terms, loss of attention is caused by the coordination of thoughts or objects being received and their related appropriate actions. Thus not a limit in capacity or how much time attention can be held but in how many thoughts or objects that can be mentally processed at once.

          This is very contradictory from the views of Edgeworth who tells of a natural ceiling to how long or complex a thought may be. This is an a theory that instead gives a natural limit to mankind and thus shows a more clear evolution in thinking as time goes on. However this also does not allow multitasking to be taken into account in a clearly definable way. This division in theories are not just scientific in thought but also allow for philosophical undertones. Proctor and Johnson leave an interpretation of complexity and unlimited human possibilities. Edgeworth's on the other hand is open to a more realist approach or set boundaries that will shift over time and mutation. However, both ideas are allowable and undefinable at this time without a clear winner. How to measure and define attention is important, but if one loses att.....

SQUIRREL!!!

Any-who, attention is important for furthering human knowledge, but by understanding how attention works one can streamline how to teach effectively and maximize attention. By better understanding attention maybe we can finally figure out why reddit, Wikipedia, and Facebook are so addicting.

First Reading - Postulation and Placement: Finding the "Mind" in the Brain

A Circle round divided in four parts

Hath been great Study 'mongst the men of Arts; 

Since Archimed's or Euclid's time, each Brain 

Hath on a Line been stretched, yet all in Vain; 

And every Thought hath been a Figure set,

Doubts Cyphers were, Hopes as Triangles met; 

There was Division and Subtraction made, 

And Lines drawn out, and Points exactly laid, 

But none hath yet by Demonstration found

The way, by which to Square a Circle round:

For while the Brain is round, no Square will be, 

While Thoughts divide, no Figures will agree.

And others did upon the same account,

  Doubling the Cube to a great number mount;

But some the Triangles did cut so small, 

Till into equal Atoms they did fall:

For such is Man's curiosity and mind,

To seek for that, which is hardest to find.

~Margaret Cavendish's The Circle of the Brain cannot be Squared

What else am "I"? I will use my imagination. "I" am not that structure of limbs which is called a human body. "I" am not even some thin vapour which permeates the limbs- a wind, fire, air, breath, or whatever I depict in my imagination; for these are things which I have supposed to be nothing. Let this supposition stand; for all that I am still something. And yet may it not perhaps be the case that these very things which I am supposing to be nothing, because they are unknown to me, are in reality identical with the "I" of which I am aware? ~Descartes' Mind as Consciousness pg 22

 Bonnet concluded that it implied that body and soul could not be two distinct and separate substances but that animate beings constituted what he called an ‘être mixte’ (6). Julien Offray de La Mettrie also seized on this implication in his mid-century works, l’Homme Machine  (1747) and Traité de l’âme  (1751) (see Smith, 2002a). He concluded, like Bonnet, that the division of creation into two parts – body and soul – was absurd. Both, he writes, were created together, at the same instant, as if ‘by a single brush stroke’ (de La Mettrie, 1745, p. 2). To think otherwise was nothing more than a casuistry designed to throw dust into the eyes of the watching theologians (6). But this sort of panpsychism has, of course, tricky implications. Does all matter have this ‘dual aspect’? Leibniz, at least, recognised this implication and was content to allow his fundamental units – the monads – to possess both attributes. ~C.U.M. Smith's Brain & Mind in the 'Long' 18th Century pg 20

       The 18th century is a point of many important happenings of science and the arts. Smith discusses that the 18th century should not be limited by dates arbitrarily picked but organized by the start and finish of an era in varying realms of knowledge. He sights many examples of possible 18th centuries based on varying criteria and paradigms, but his main focus is on that of the mind and the "soul" or "spirit". First it discusses the nerve chords of the body and the question of them being hallow. Then it moves on to the idea of the location of the "animal spirit" and the debate of the separation or inclusion from or with, respectively, the body. Along with this was the idea of perceptions of the mind through irritability and sensibility. Finally the piece covered the thoughts on Electricity and its transmission throughout the nervous system.

      Although the history accounted by Smith is brief but wide in scope, I wanted to focus on one topic in particular. This manifests itself into one question: Where are our personalities located? This is a fundamental question of life. It is one that we have tried to solve for many years and some have tried but ultimately failed. Descartes talks about the personality (or soul) being separate from the body but in order for it to exist as an individual it must have an ability, in this case it is to think, in order to be able to actively participate in the surrounding world.

The internet is the 21st century's philosophical salon.

But even Descartes didn't know how to describe the physical entity of the personality let alone tell where it originated. He could only tell that there was an abstract thing called the soul or spirit and he said that it was of another substance than the body, which included the brain. We all know, through modern science, that the brain is not a spiritual vessel but it contains areas for controlling actions and processes. 

         Cavendish's poem makes a comment on the study of the brain throughout the 17th and 18th centuries. She tells of the study to "square the circle" or in other words to define the brain and its parts clearly.

Not to be confused with the Pythagorean Variety

It tells of how we try to reason, "every Thought hath been a Figure set" and map, "And Lines drawn out, and Points exactly laid" the brain in order to more fully understand its inner workings. However, it concludes with our failure, "But none hath yet by Demonstration found The way, by which to Square a Circle round" and while it may have been a dead end during the 17th and 18th centuries, today it is helps us formulate new ways to "Square the Circle". While new technologies allow us to delve further into the personality, the question of location is left in the realm of poets, philosophers, and students alike. 

What if indeed...