philechat

Since perception is formed through the interaction of the object and the mind (stimulated by the sensory organs), we have some trouble when dealing with imagination, which conjures up experiences of perception without the actual sensory stimulation. It also seems strange that objects perceived from different experiences, such as experience of pinkness and the experience of elephant, could be combined together into a single piece of sense-perception experience ("pink elephant").

Another problem with imagination is the fact that different brain cells are activated when one "imagines" a visual experience compared to the actual visual experience itself. The visual experience (color, form, scene, etc.) from imagination and dreaming can be very similar to actual perception of the objects, yet these "imaginary perceptions" are activated by a different set of brain cells.

And hallucination blurs the line between imagination and actual sensory experience. A hallucinating person might be convinced about the experience of a certain object, while his brain is performing the act of imagining. Or is hallucination the actual stimulation of "visual center" (assuming visual hallucination) rather than the "imagination center" of the brain?

Any takers?

owleye

philechat...

I read through your post and am asking myself what it is that you find puzzling about imagination? What is the challenge that you are asking us to consider?

owleye

philechat

When our mind receives sensory information a certain area of our brain is stimulated. When we imagine a particular sensory event there is no stimulation at the "sensory" site of our brain, while another area of the brain is stimulated and we have some "experience" of our imagination which recalls (sometimes 2 or more) sensory events, in altered form.

The problem is, how can such experience be recalled and combined in our mind? How does the sensory information received in one area in the brain be transfered to other forms, and later be "reused" in imagination? How does imagination differ from hallucination? Thus the question.

I am just wondering how brain cells from other area of the brain can conjure up similar "mental image" without the senses being stimulated.

[ August 06, 2002: Message edited by: philechat ]</p>

DRFseven

It's not a different part, it just doesn't include the whole part that was involved in the original perception. When you imagine a flowerpot, the cells in the beginning of the activated area in the visual cortex for the original perception activate. In addition, in the imagining of the flowerpot, there is a slight widening of the area around the primary visual cortex cells that originally were engaged in the perception of a flowerpot. But, yes, it is fascinating.

Keith Russell

philechat:

Your posts are simply a more complex way of asking the question we artists dread:

Where do you get your ideas?

(I know writers who dread this question, too!)

I believe the question can only be answered (and the answer understood) via a proper theory of concepts.

Lastly, allow me to say this:
Imagination is not more important than knowledge. Creativity requires equal measures of both. (Yes, I believe that, in this, Albert Einstein was wrong.)

Keith Russell.

owleye

philechat...

I'm afraid I'm still in the dark about what you are perplexed about? Are you asking a neurophysiological question or a philosophical question?

Imagination is usually thought of as that in us which determines its object, having previously learned rules for doing so (implicitly or explicitly). Thus, when we draw a cat from our imagination, we do so because we are following a set of rules that we've learned to associate with what a cat looks like when drawn. Note how different our drawings would be if we learned what a cat looks like if we had stored mental images of them, as if our mind were a camera.

In any case, I suspect your dabbling into the depths of our neural network is keeping you from understanding how our mind works rather than aiding it.

owleye

philechat

owleye:

So according to you, it's more like such pathways:

Experience--&gt; abstraction into a certain set of rules --&gt; memory of rules --&gt; imagination as re-configuration of rules.

I guess I should make the grounds clearer:

1. Experience is defined by the interaction of object and mind

2. Imagination is the experience of object(s) that does not require the object(s) to be present at time of experience, i.e. no interaction between object and mind, but an experience conjured up purely in the mind.

3. Most of the time we have the ability to distinguish between experience and imagination, but in some cases (hallucinations, "mystical" experiences) there is a blurring of lines between imagination and experience.

4. Question is "how are we able to distinguish whether an object is actually present or not?" How are we able to know if a given experience is "real" or not? (Ahhh...the schizophrenic in me is playing tricks again )

atrahasis

Hey,


Think about this philechat
"A man can do as he will, but not will as he will".......Schopenhauer

"It is said that men may not be the dreams of the Gods, but rather that the Gods are the dreams of men"........Carl Sagan

Ierrellus

philechat:

Read up on synaesthesia. N. Humprey tells of people who can "see" through their backs. I am able to "taste" through my skin. I get a definite taste from shampooing my hair and a distinctive taste when I get an X-ray. The tastes register in my mouth.

IMO, imagination is one's ability to reassemble what is known from experience. It is the ability to combine "pink" and "elephant". I love surrealistic art (Hello Dali).

Ierrellus
Pax

Keith Russell

Yes, imagination is a type of memory.

Imagination is not perception.

Yes, the drawing of a cat (from memory) will be different than a drawing of a cat done from life.

But, neither necessitates imagination.

Now, drawing a cat in pirate boots, or a cat made of water, or an invisible cat with a visible smile...now that's imagination.

Keith.