Neural silence and systemic connectivity: How imagination emerges from dynamic brain network interplay across cultures

Indigenous epistemologies treat imagination as a relational and ecological process, not an isolated neural event. For instance, Māori *whakapapa* (genealogical imagination) binds cognitive and environmental systems, challenging the DMN-centric model by framing imagination as a reciprocal dialogue with place and kin. These traditions also emphasize silence—not as cortical idling, but as a space for ancestral voices, contrasting with the Western focus on measurable neural activity. The omission of such frameworks in neuroscience reflects a deeper erasure of Indigenous ways of knowing that integrate imagination with ethics and ecology.

Historically, imagination has been framed alternately as divine inspiration (Plato’s *mania*), a mechanical faculty (Hobbes’ 'decaying sense'), or a computational process (modern AI models). The 19th-century pseudoscience of phrenology localized imagination to the frontal lobes, mirroring today’s neuron-centric reductionism. Meanwhile, pre-modern Islamic scholars like Alhazen linked imagination to perceptual integration, anticipating modern predictive processing theories. These historical shifts reveal how imagination is a contested concept shaped by power—whether religious, colonial, or scientific—rather than a fixed biological function.

Cross-culturally, imagination is often framed as a bridge between the seen and unseen, from Hindu *maya* (illusionary creativity) to Japanese *ma* (negative space in art). In Tibetan Buddhism, *dream yoga* trains the mind to navigate imaginative states as a form of spiritual practice, suggesting that 'neural silence' may be a trained capacity rather than a default state. African philosophical traditions like *Ubuntu* ('I am because we are') extend imagination to collective futuring, contrasting with Western individualism. These comparisons highlight how cultural frameworks shape not just the *content* of imagination but its very *mechanisms*.

Neuroscience now recognizes the DMN as a hub for imaginative processes, particularly during 'resting state' where the brain integrates past experiences and future simulations. Studies using fMRI show that imagination arises from dynamic coupling between the DMN and executive networks, with 'silence' enabling this integration by reducing sensory interference. However, most research is conducted in WEIRD (Western, Educated, Industrialized, Rich, Democratic) populations, limiting generalizability. The 'new theory' referenced in the headline likely builds on predictive processing models, where imagination is a form of Bayesian inference—yet this still frames it as an individual, computational process rather than a social or ecological one.

Artistic and spiritual traditions have long treated imagination as a liminal space between reality and possibility, from Sufi poetry to Aboriginal dot painting. In Western art, the surrealist movement explicitly explored imagination as a subconscious force, while in African traditions, masks and rituals serve as tools to 'externalize' imaginative states. Modern psychedelic research suggests that altered states of consciousness can temporarily dissolve the DMN’s dominance, enabling novel imaginative patterns—echoing shamanic practices. These traditions reveal imagination as both a creative and a transformative force, not merely a cognitive epiphenomenon.

Future models of imagination must account for its role in collective problem-solving, from climate adaptation to AI co-creation. Research in *social neuroscience* shows that group imaginative processes (e.g., brainstorming) can synchronize neural activity across individuals, suggesting imagination is not just intrapsychic but intersubjective. Climate models increasingly rely on 'imaginative futuring' to engage publics in scenario planning, yet these efforts often lack grounding in non-Western epistemologies. The rise of neurotechnology (e.g., brain-computer interfaces) also raises ethical questions: could 'optimizing' imagination for productivity erode its creative or subversive potential?

Neurodivergent individuals, such as those with autism or synesthesia, often experience imagination in ways that defy neuron-centric models, offering critical insights into its diversity. For example, autistic individuals may rely more on visual-spatial imagination than verbal, challenging the dominance of language-based cognitive frameworks. Similarly, disabled artists and activists use imagination to reimagine societal structures, framing it as a tool for liberation rather than mere cognition. The exclusion of these perspectives in neuroscience reflects a broader ableism that equates 'normal' brain function with Western scientific paradigms.