Real and Imaginary Cognition (Anselm) – Neuroscience
Hello Rabbi Michi,
In your book “The First Founding,” page 76, you explain (in the context of Anselm’s argument) that when a person imagines an object or sees it, the same neurons work in the brain.
In addition, you explain, in light of the fact that we can distinguish between imagination and reality, it appears that there is a part of the brain that is responsible for distinguishing between imagination and reality (distinguishing between the act of “translation” and the act of creation).
Later (p. 77), you write based on the above that there is a difference in recognition between “X” and “X exists.” That is, it is a different type of recognition .
I wanted to ask: If at the end of the cognitive process, the neurons that work when I imagine are the same neurons that work when I also see an external object, why should this be treated, as a scientific (neurological) term, as a different kind of cognition?
I will borrow the concept of the “discovery context” that appears in your book: the part of the brain responsible for distinguishing between imagination and reality is ostensibly just a distinction in the way the brain has activated the neurons responsible for cognition, both imaginary and realistic. But cognition itself is the same cognition.
I didn’t understand the question. To the same extent, you could also argue that when neurons reflect something to me, an image, a scientific finding, etc., it’s just a hallucination.
My question is about what you claim there, that these are two different types of cognition.
I ask that in light of what you wrote there on page 76, it seems that these are not different types of cognition but exactly the same type.
Apart from that, the brain also knows how to identify for me the *way* in which I came to these cognitions, whether through “translation” or through creation. But cognition itself is the same cognition
I understood. And that's what I answered. The translation neurons tell me that this is a picture from reality and not a created picture. What I wrote is that if you don't believe them, don't believe any neuron.
I mean I absolutely believe them.
But they only tell me *how* this recognition came about, and I believe them. But does that mean that the recognition in both cases is *of a different kind*, when the difference is only in the *way* that this recognition is in my mind?
I don't understand this nonsense. These neurons are telling you that this image is coming from outside. That's all. Either you believe them or you don't.
Leave a Reply
Please login or Register to submit your answer
