Jeannerod introduces the concept of mental imagery and the question of
whether mental imagery is merely composed of memories of visual images.
We are then presented with evidence which shows that congenitally blind
people are also capable of complex mental representations. It is then
put forward that visual images are not dependent upon the eye but upon
the activity of the visual cortex and
> Spatial imagery processing ability need not depend on visual perceptual
> experience, it would depend on the spatial properties of the brain areas
> which are involved in generating the images
When discussing the reported motor imageries experienced by those with
phantom limbs Jeannerod uses the term "intention" and discusses these
subjects' being aware of their intention to move their arm, and having
a full mental image of the motor skill r
If we accept that our mind is our experience which is also our
intention we then can see that the problem of imagining moving versus
actually moving is a subset of the mind/body problem. Therefore this
analysis is a practical way of researching some p
Are the images we "see" in our heads mere recapitulations of the
neurological "jangling" we had at the time of that action/vision in the
first place or are they separate "mental" entities?
Jeannerod weighs up evidence for and against motor imagery activating
the same brain areas as when that movement actually occurs within an
individual He concludes:.
> The hidden part (the representation) exists in its own
> right. The two are equally important to study, because, as Bernstein
> (1967) conjectured, they do not map entirely onto each other.
> Describing the overt movement does not give full access to the
> representation; and conversely, fully describing the representation
> (if this were at all possible) would not tell what the corresponding
> movement would be
But continues his summary with conjecture that we may discover a way of
studying the activity of the brain that would provide us with an
explanation of representations of motion.
So we are still left with the ongoing question : there seems to be this
separate "mind" science tells us that there must be an explanation -
what is it!?
Matsers, Kate.
P.S. Stevan asked how my speech synthesiser said ">" it calls it a
"right angle bracket".
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Tue Feb 13 2001 - 16:23:55 GMT