Isn't it lucky?
staring at my.screen
Thu Jan 9 16:43:00 EST 1997
In article <32d537d7.57900946 at nntp.ix.netcom.com>, rogue007 at ix.netcom.com
(temporary email address) wrote:
> In <82pvzf491t.fsf at zip.eecs.umich.edu> Michael Hucka
> <hucka at eecs.umich.edu> wrote...
> >I think there are many ways to do it without going through the 5
> >senses. Chemical means are probably the most obvious; foods and drugs can
> >cause subtle changes in various aspects of brain and behavior, and most
> >people probably wouldn't consider such manipulations "perceptual".
> This is extremely interesting. Can you give some examples of changes
> in brain and behavior resulting from foods or drugs that aren't
> detected by the senses (I'm assuming that by 'brain and behavior' you
> mean responses by systems within the brain to stimuli, and other
> similar responses in other organs or organ systems)?
He means that the manipulations are not carried out by delivering
information to the senses. "Aperceptual" manipulation is not necessarily
_non-perceivable_, nor does it imply that changes in perception will not
take place. It's just that once the manipulation is perceived, it's too
late to resist...
smisch at tiac.net (emoticons implied by context)
'Where in the world are lunatics allowed to bathe naked in the moonlight?' -- R.D. Laing
More information about the Neur-sci