The notion that humans have a genetically determined preference for grammar is an interesting one.  A specific sequence of molecules present in the DNA of every human determines the structure of all man's language, which ultimately influences the way we communicate with each other and perceive the world.  The implications of such a notion are intriguing.  If there's a genetic basis for the structure of language (and reality), then it was shaped by natural selection.  If it was shaped by natural selection, it can be further altered through natural or artificial selection.  Although it would be highly interesting to see what the effects of such selection would be on human populations (entire new ways of seeing the world?) such experiments would have problems with feasibility and ethics.  Maybe, even without direct intervention, such changes have been occurring over the course of human history, gradually changing the way humans interact with each other and the universe at large.  This idea could possibly be tested through some sort of wide analysis of modern texts with more ancient ones (or at least it could in a hundred thousand more years, if we're still around).

 Another interesting area of investigation would be the more rudimentary languages of animals such as whales, who some say have dialects and cultures (http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-12-evidence-sperm-whale-culture.html).  Do whales have common and inherent rules of language, similar to humans?  Do we even share some of these rules?  It would be fascinating to see how far back the structure of human language began to emerge, and what creatures we share this structure with.

A genetically determined skeleton of language also spells bad news for anyone who hopes to make contact alien species at any point.  Ignoring glaring biological differences that are likely to get in the way of any interaction between human and extraterrestrial, and the vast unlikelihood of running across anything with the sort of intelligence needed to communicate with humans, if they had a language it would likely be so fundamentally different from our own that we would have no chance of translating to or from it.

Damsio's distinction between emotion and feeling is an interesting one because it wouldn't have made any sense to say such a thing before we could measure the physiological aspect of feeling in the brain (or other internal organs).  The outward manifestation of feeling and the inward experience of feeling are the same thing if you can't verify the inward experience of anyone else.  This causes me to wonder what other aspects of the human experience may be further dissected and clarified in the future when technology gives us the capability; the relationship between subconscious and conscious thought comes to mind.

In the same vein, I thought Damiso's explanation of the way emotion precedes thought to be very interesting.  As he states, most people think of this relationship as going in the other direction.  However, Damiso's explanation makes sense when considered from the evolutionary framework he provides.  In fact, I thought all of his evolutionary and physical explanations of feeling were great.  It's amusing to think about how all of human culture is built upon evolutionary traits and developed responses that may not even be valid in our current state of technological advanceent.  Persuasion is just the result of a few misused (according to their original functions) mechanisms and structures present in the brain of Jane Austen, along with any other novel or work of art.  Some of these behaviors may even be harmful, as Damsio brings up (racism; anger; etc.).  He even states at one point "We can learn to disregard such reactions and persuade others to do the same".  The implication of what he's saying is that feelings are really only holding us back as a species.  This is interesting for two reasons:  it's probably true, which is funny given that feelings were obviously something that helped humans succeed in the first place, and it brings up the question of whether feelings or reaching humanity's full potential is more important.  There's nearly nobody (apart from a few abnormal individuals) who would give up all of their unreasonable and unproductive feelings in order to be a more productive member of society.  Of course, humans only have an affection for human feeling because we have feelings, in an odd self-fulfilling way.  If aliens came by with a massive feeling-amputation ray and immediately rendered all humans incapable of feeling, nobody would miss it (by definition).  We'd probably develop teleportation and begin to colonize other planets within the year.  The question is, without emotion, would anything people did even matter anymore?  Without feeling, the answer is no, at least under the current definition of meaning.  It should be noted that bacteria do just fine operating strictly according to biological tenets with no feelings or even nervous systems to get in the way.

Perhaps I'm missing something, but I fail to see the value in Jane Austen.  Her novels are often touted as  pieces of classic literature (as evidence by our "Penguin Classics" editions), but the plot seems like a Victorian soap opera and from what I hear all of Austen's plots are pretty much the same.   You could find droves of similar romance novels at any library, although Austen's writing is probably better.  Locution, not message.  Austen may be able to write eloquently, and this may be one of the reasons why she's highly regarded.  It just doesn't seem like there's any new ideas to be found in her writing, any underlying social commentary, or any sort of deeper message.  Just some woman pining after a prince charming who eventually comes round.   Maybe I'm not reading deep enough into her prose - but maybe others are reading too deeply into her prose.  This is one of the main problems I have with literary analysis in general.  Of course it's possible to read into Austen's writing and find a deeper meaning, but it's possible to read almost any meaning into any piece of prose if you try hard enough.  Of course, since Austen is dead, it's impossible to verify any deeper reading of her work (unless the message is obvious), but it's safe to assume that most deep interpretations of her prose will not have been her intent.

In relation to the other readings we did on empathy and consumption of fiction, I think Austen's work may even be a little harmful.  Assuming that reading fiction improves empathy (I know that it wasn't proven since there was only correlation), the 'empathy practice' you get from a novel would be dependent on the minds of the characters.  Of course, since these are only simulated minds, they do not reflect the way real people would act, but only how the author thinks such people would act.  If you are gaining your notions of how to interact with others and how they feel about things from Austen, you're probably going to be incorrect in some areas.

I find myself echoing the sentiments of the kind of person who thinks that violent media makes you more aggressive, or that watching porn makes you sexist.  As far as I know, these things haven't been proven...  So maybe I'm wrong about Austen.  Possibly, just seeing how Austen thinks the minds of other people work is beneficial - even if it's a bit flawed.  Obviously everyone's empathy is going to be a bit off, so there really is no objective standard of empathy to compare hers to, meaning there's value in reading any fiction - gaining insight into anyone's view of how other people work.