宣泄的概念与文学形式的虚构表现有关，因为它的特点是不由自主的反应:笑和眼泪，分别。这些反应反过来有助于定义故事如何被理解:在喜剧中，主角的结局很好;悲剧的结局很糟糕。因为任何既存的世界都独立于我们的努力而存在，并且在很大程度上是通过讲述它的故事而被理解的，所以我们不能说能够选择这些故事的内容，(即它们不是我们编造出来告诉自己的故事)，就像我们不能自由地选择和控制我们对它们的宣泄反应一样。那么，虚构的文学是否仅仅是代入了一个代入的世界，从而让读者不必面对真实的世界呢?或者，它更接近于一种心智的训练，以便在世界对读者完全相关之前，对世界作出适当的反应，就像亚里士多德在《政治学》接近尾声时对音乐所说的那样?冒着做一个错误的二分法的风险，虚构的文学是远离这个世界，作为一种逃避吗?还是转向世界，为它做准备?认知科学是如何处理这个问题的，如果这样的考虑在那个领域是相关的?

If the human brain is such a marvel, why in near-term evolutionary time is it getting smaller? If language is such a marvel, why are fewer languages spoken today than 100, 200, and 1,000 years ago? How come large mammals disappear whenever prehistoric humans appear? Who killed the Neanderthals and why? Can David Eagleman explain why Neanderthal genes are different when spliced in brain organoids? Can neuroscience explain the difference in innervation in these experiments?

我不认为依格曼博士或任何人对这些超出猜测的问题有足够的答案。但大卫的机会比大多数人都大。我来问一下。读者好吗?是在下降吗?改变吗?如何，为什么，为什么不?

"For sale: baby shoes, never worn."

在讲完第一个故事数万年后，人类还能凭直觉听出一个好故事吗?似乎没有。看起来，更多的信息正在为更多的来源和媒体形式创造更多的信息，以及围绕着糟糕的媒体的思想集会。

Is language the brain's attempt to understand itself? Is language a social entity all and of itself? In either case, do we want to have this discussion in English? ʻAʻole anei ʻoe e noʻonoʻo i ka ʻōlelo Hawaiʻi? (Wouldn't you rather be thinking in Hawaiian?)

Questions for Dr. Eagleman. What are dyslexia and ADHD? What is deep reading? Can one be encouraged and the other not? Why can't the brain adapt to mental illness and cure/make sense of itself as it does sound from the leads of a cochlear implant? What can we do for our kids and ourselves to live more deeply?

我喜欢极好的p值，但我不相信科学能帮我找到Craigslist上从未穿过的婴儿鞋，它比查尔斯·布可夫斯基(Charles Bukowski)解释他对女性的兴趣所赋予的意义还要多。

可以总结一下吗?有些问题似乎可以用你自己的方法轻松回答，尤其是第一段中关于人类学主题的问题。剩下的似乎是一个可读的废话，但我知道什么?——顺便谢谢你的布可夫斯基参考资料。我还没听说过他，他的作品看起来很有趣。

This show did not go where I thought it would. The decline of readership is a social brain function and largely driven by changes in our modes of reading. There are far too few scientists studying this. I was hoping to hear more on that. I think the decline is actually a quickening, but I would like to hear someone else say that.

I had not heard the study on audible books but I look forward to finding it. I too am surprised by that finding as my method is so different doing one or the other.

我将继续读下去。

The phrase "audible books" may sound a bit like MIT Professor Noam Chomsky's famous phrase "colorless green ideas", since reading a book and hearing one read are very different kinds of activities. For as you suggest, reading could be seen primarily as a cognitive response to the story-stimulus, since anticipating its outcome on the basis of what has already been read constitutes in some sense the real work of the fictive representation, the quantity of which in cases of wide readership can not compare to the work of a single individual as author of the work; which is closer to the meaning the term logos had for the Greeks. The question subsequently arises whether reading constitutes a literary Nominalism independent of the story, and indeed conceivable independently even without one, or if the story itself can be described in terms of a literary Realism, existing on its own, for which readers are mere accidents of monograph distribution.

Looking forward to reading Pollan's new book: This is Your Mind on Plants. About psychedelics. Never got heavily into such things. No hard drugs. Pollan is younger than I and has written of such matters before. Philosophy takes many roads...