Why

Two psychologists tracked activities of the brain in progress of comprehending a joke using two different techniques - fMRI and EEG. (Vinod Goel at the University of Aberdeen and Peter Derks at William and Mary College in Virginia.) Both of them produced a clear evidence that understanding a joke involves a sudden creative shift. An awkward relation or inconsistency within "our description of the world and ourselves within it" strikes us as funny and prompts an adjustment.

A transition from English-like landscapes to landscapes of Australia as we see them now is easy to follow in Australian art. Land did not change much in these two hundreds years, but our perception of it definitely did.

There is obviously plenty of room for improvement of "our description of the world and ourselves within it" in which the humour plays a small but important role. A rigorous scientific approach serves the same purpose as an artistic painting, a drama in theatre or good fiction do. The enrichment of "our description of the world and ourselves within it" enables us, quite literarily, to see (perceive) in a better, more fulfilling way.

In the other hand, if we take that phenomena we perceive, exist "out there" as we perceive them today we reject a possibility of perceiving them differently tomorrow. We apply brakes and loose ourselves in more and more contradicting details and producing more and more complex theories to explain them. (Reminds me of the ever increasing complexity of the Ptolemaic System used to maintain earth at the centre of the universe.)

Willy-nilly - things change. The constant speed of light or an effect preceding a cause are not taboos any more and a grand unifying theory might be just around the corner only if we could change how we see things. The fact that some nagging details will spoil our celebrations should not discourage us. There might be another, even better grand unifying theory just around another corner only if we could change how we see things. In this, looking into how we see things and why we see them the way we do might be more significant than we suspect.

Shall we ever rival Maxwell's creature? Who knows? We might have a chance.

Discussions, suggestions, questions and answers related to this site are welcome at Yahoo! group listed under Science > Cognitive Science as Imagination is Greater than Knowledge.