Showing posts with label desensitization/mindlessness. Show all posts
Showing posts with label desensitization/mindlessness. Show all posts

21 Jul 2009

Graceful Motors. §49, Matter and Memory. Bergson



[Search Blog Here. Index-tags are found on the bottom of the left column.]

[Central Entry Directory]
[Bergson, Entry Directory]




Graceful Motors


Henri Bergson


Matter and Memory

Matière et mémoire


Chapter II

Of the Recognition of Images. Memory and the Brain

Chapitre II

De la reconnaissance des images la mémoire et le cerveau



§49 In one kind of recognition the basis of the sense of familiarity is the consciousness of a well-ordered motor accompaniment.




Consider. We have seen something before. Now we see it again. It feels familiar. For, we recognize it.

Bergson will discuss one kind of recognition. It’s bodily. And it’s instantaneous.

There is, in the first place, if we carry the process to the extreme, an instantaneous recognition, of which the body is capable by itself, without the help of any explicit memory-image. (109d, boldface and underline mine)

Il y a d’abord, à la limite, une reconnaissance dans l’instantané, une reconnaissance dont le corps tout seul est capable, sans qu’aucun souvenir explicite intervienne. (93a)

Take for example when we are in a new place. We are indecisive about where to turn. So our bodies might jerk one way, while also feeling pulled other directions. This makes our bodily motions discontinuous. For, there is no predicting or indicating where we turn next. [Thus our motion lacks grace. For more, see Time and Free Will §9, and the entry comparing Herbert Spencer and Bergson’s theories of grace.] Bergson writes:

For instance, I take a walk in a town seen then for the first time. At every street corner I hesitate, uncertain where I am going. I am in doubt; and I mean by this that alternatives are offered to my body, that my movement as a whole is discontinuous, that there is nothing in one attitude which foretells and prepares future attitudes. (110a.b, emphasis mine)

Je me promène dans une ville, par exemple, pour la première fois. A chaque tournant de rue, j’hésite, ne sachant où je vais. Je suis dans l’incertitude, et j’entends par là que des alternatives se posent à mon corps, que mon mouvement est discontinu dans son ensemble, qu’il n’y a rien, dans une des attitudes, qui annonce et prépare les attitudes à venir. (93a)

But, we continue exploring the new town. Before long, we come to anticipate what lies at every turn. So our bodies move more fluidly. And we come no longer to have distinct perceptions of our surroundings.

Later, after prolonged sojourn in the town, I shall go about it mechanically, without having any distinct perception of the objects which I am passing. (110b)

Plus tard, après un long séjour dans la ville, j’y circulerai machinalement, sans avoir la perception distincte des objets devant lesquels je passe. (93b)

At the one extreme, we are disoriented, our bodies disorganized, and our motions are uncertain and graceless. As well, we seem to be hyper-aware of all the confusing details around us. We do not yet know which ones are important to observe, and which others bear no relation to our interests. Yet, the familiarity we come to develop places us at the other extreme. Then we are so well oriented that we move about without much explicit awareness of our surroundings, as though we were on ‘autopilot.’ Our minds can be somewhere else, because we already know which external details we need to observe, and all the rest we can ignore. Our bodies move gracefully and organically, because they know in advance what to expect with each change of direction.

In the beginning, we perceive things happening all around us. But we do not yet know what to do with that information. So these perceptions do not organize our responding motions. And after our full familiarity, our motions are so well organized that they have no need any longer of our perceptions. Our bodies can get around without needing us pay much attention to what is going on around us.

Bergson addresses that period of adjustment between these two extremes. In such cases, we are still perceiving the world around us, but also these perceptions induce fluidly-mechanical (continuous) motions. So initially we are fully perceptive but not motionally automatic. And much later we will move automatically, while perceiving almost nothing. In between these states are phases where there is both perception and automation; for, during this period, our automatic movements are induced by our perceptions.

So Bergson has us consider two things together:

1) As we are becoming familiar with our surroundings, we will have perceptions that guide our bodies to perform the appropriate reactions.

2) We would call these perceptions of familiar things ‘recognitions.’

Because recognitions produce automatic motor behaviors, we might conclude that “the consciousness of a well-regulated motor accompaniment, of an organized motor reaction, is here the foundation of the sense of familiarity;” and so “at the basis of recognition there would thus be a phenomenon of a motor order.” (111a)

Bergson provides further reason to think so. When we recognize some common object, we thereby recall how we use it. And knowing how to use something means that we are familiar with the sorts of motions we would undertake when putting it to use. Hence we see also that our habits involved in using objects organize our perceptions together with our motions. This is the foundation of recognition. (111b.c)




Images from the English translation [click to enlarge]









Images from the original French [click to enlarge]














Bergson, Henri. Matière et mémoire: Essai sur la relation du corps à l'esprit. Ed. Félix Alcan. Paris: Ancienne Librairie Germer Bailliere et Cie, 1903. Available online at:http://www.archive.org/details/matireetmmoiree01berggoog


Bergson, Henri. Matter and Memory. Transl. Nancy Margaret Paul & W. Scott Palmer. Mineola, New York: Dover Publications, Inc., 2004; originally published by George Allen & Co., Ltd., London, 1912. Available online at:http://www.archive.org/details/mattermemory00berg





5 Jun 2009

Bateson, Sensing Difference and Sensing Nothing, in Mind and Nature: A Necessary Unity


by Corry Shores
[Search Blog Here. Index-tags are found on the bottom of the left column.]

[Central Entry Directory]
[Gregory Bateson, Entry Directory]

[The following is citation.]

Sensing Difference and Sensing Nothing

Gregory Bateson

Mind and Nature:

A Necessary Unity

Ch. IV

Criteria of Mental Process

Criterion 2. The Interaction between Parts of Mind is Triggered by Difference

The sense of touch is one of the most primitive and simple of the senses, and what sensory information is can easily be illustrated by using touch as an example. In lecturing, I commonly make a heavy dot with chalk on the surface of the blackboard, crushing the chalk a little against the board to achieve some thickness in the patch. I now have on the board something rather like the bump in the road. If I lower my fingertip – a touch-sensitive area – vertically onto the white spot, I shall not feel it. but if I move my finger across the spot, the difference in levels is very conspicuous. I know exactly where the edge of the dot is, how steep it is, and so on. (All this assumes that I have correct opinions about the localization and sensitivity of my fingertip, for many ancillary sorts of information are also needed.)

What happens is that a static, unchanging state of affairs, existing, supposedly, in the outside universe quite regardless of whether we sense it or not, becomes the cause of an event, a step function, a sharp change in the state of the relationship between my fingertip and the surface of the blackboard. My finger goes smoothly over the unchanged surface until I encounter the edge of the white spot. At that moment in time, there is a discontinuity, a step; and soon after, there is a reverse step as my finger leaves the spot behind.

This example, which is typical of all sensory experience, shows how our sensory system – and surely the sensory systems of all other creatures (even plants?) and the mental systems behind the senses (i.e., those parts of the mental systems inside the creatures) – can only operate with events, which we can call changes.

The unchanging is imperceptible unless we are willing to move relative to it.

In the case of vision, it is true that we think we can see the unchanging. We see what looks like the stationary, unmarked blackboard, not just the outlines of the spot. But the truth of the matter is that we continuously do with the eye what I was doing with my finger-tip. The eyeball has a continual tremor, called micronystagmus. The eyeball vibrates through a few seconds of arc and thereby causes the optical image on the retina to move relative to the rods and cones which are the sensitive end organs. The end organs are thus in continual receipt of events that correspond to outlines in the visible world. We draw distinctions; that is, we pull them out. Those distinctions that remain undrawn are not. They are lost forever with the sound of the falling tree which Bishop Berkeley did not hear. They are part of William Blake’s ‘corporeal’: ‘Nobody knows of its Dwelling Place: it is in Fallacy, and its Existence an Imposture.’

Notoriously it is very difficult to detect gradual change because along with our high sensitivity to rapid change goes also the phenomenon of accommodation. Organisms become habituated. To distinct between slow change and the (imperceptible) unchanging, we require information of a different sort; we need a clock.

The matter becomes even worse when we try to judge the trending of phenomena that are characteristically changeable. The weather, for example, is continually changing – from hour to hour, from day to day, from week to week. But is it changing from year to year? Some years are wetter and some hotter, but is there a trend in this continual zigzag? Only statistical study over periods longer than human memory, can tell us. In such cases we need information about classes of years. (106d-108c, major emphases mine)

Similarly, it is very difficult for us to perceive changes in our own social affairs, in the ecology around us, and so on. How many people are conscious of the astonishing decrease in the number of butterflies in our gardens? Or of birds? These things undergo drastic change, but we become accustomed to the new state of affairs before our senses can tell us that it is new. (108)

The feinting of the boxer, who makes moves as if to hit with his left hand without hitting, deceives us into believing that that left hand is not going to hit – until it does hit, and we are unpleasantly surprised.

It is a nontrivial matter that we are almost always unaware of trends in our changes of state. There is a quasi-scientific fable that if you can get a frog to sit quietly in a saucepan of cold water, and if you then raise the temperature of the water very slowly and smoothly so that there is no moment marked to be the moment at which the frog should jump, he will never jump. He will get boiled. Is the human species changing its own environment with slowly increasing pollution and rotting its mind with slowly deteriorating religion and education in such a saucepan?

But I am concerned at this moment only with understanding how mind and mental process must necessarily work. What are their limitations? And, precisely because the mind can receive news only of difference, there is a difficulty in discriminating between a slow change and a state. There is necessarily a threshold of gradient below which gradient cannot be perceived. (109)



Bateson, Gregory. Mind and Nature: A Necessary Unity. London: Wildwood House, 1979.

More information at:

http://books.google.be/books?id=aQtHAAAAMAAJ&q=Mind+and+Nature:+A+Necessary+Unity&dq=Mind+and+Nature:+A+Necessary+Unity&ei=CWcpSpDIF5TyzQSqiZj7Cg&hl=en&pgis=1

7 May 2009

Neural Adaptation [Desensitization] in Marieb & Hoehn, Human Anatomy & Physiology

by Corry Shores
[Search Blog Here. Index-tags are found on the bottom of the left column.]

[Central Entry Directory]
[Computation Entry Directory


Marieb & Hoehn

Human Anatomy & Physiology


Information about the stimulus -- its strength, duration, and pattern -- is encoded in the frequency of nerve impulses (the greater the frequency, the stronger the stimulus). Many but not all sensory receptors exhibit adaptation, a change in sensitivity (and nerve impulse generation) in the presence of a constant stimulus. For example, when you step into bright sunlight from a darkened room, your eyes are initially dazzled, but your photoreceptors rapidly adapt, allowing you to see both bright areas and dark areas in the scene. (495, emphasis mine)

Marieb, Elaine N., & Katja Hoehn. Human Anatomy & Physiology. London: Pearson, 2007.