Toward a Science of Consciousness 1998

cijadra at zedat.fu-berlin.de cijadra at zedat.fu-berlin.de
Wed Apr 15 18:27:15 EST 1998


>           TOWARD A SCIENCE OF CONSCIOUSNESS 1998

Why make it a science?
So some idiots eventually mess around connecting a square kilmoeter of
the right cells for that prupose with a ton of silicon chips?

The conscious areas are sacred.

Not something to be messed with.

They are not made for unnatural huge metal fields, most artificial
fields and so on.
  

>PL2: IMPLICIT PROCESSES

>   * A. Greenwald: Simple mental feats that require conscious cognition
>     (because unconscious cognition can't do them.)

Examples?
A lot sof simple feats I do not need to be around for.
I'd say fastest way to know is to watch a bunch of autsists.

If you ever do I'd like if you send me the results.
     
>PL3: PATHWAYS OF VISUAL CONSCIOUSNESS

What???

Since when is consciousness visual??!

Who said so, and which areas, and what's the access pathway to there
from the own areas (if this is serious I am tempted to try to check it
out some year)?

Or do you mean magic? 
Like when you change occipital and other stuff and go to other
frequencies and link own centers to another? But I'd still not see
that as visual consciousness. I make the connections to the other
brain with the waves (or the other one, if (s)he is better) and I
receive via the fields into my areas and I steer, but that are just
carrier fields I make for exchanging data.
To call them conscious for me sounds like saying my phone is conscious
cause it talks.

Are you sure you are not mistaken?

>   * D. Milner: Unconscious visual processing for action:
>     neuropsychological evidence.
Most visual stuff for action is processed by the sequencer's areas;
guess folks, what it is good for; now, who would have thought that...
What's new about that?
Every autist who segregates the two CPUs of the brain and leaves
central command to the sequencer to go spacing off inside  could have
told you that ages ago if he had the way to put it into words.

Of course the other CPU is not blind, esle you'd bash into things
every few minutes.

Did you seriously think that your areas in the head are the only ones
that can access optical data or what?

I believe Western science is often amazing in coming up with stuff
that is obvious and has been so for (thousnads of) years.

>   * M. Goodale: Unconscious visual processing for action: evidence
>     from normal observers.

How do you get evidence from normals about non-conscious areas?
If I was a little more prejudiced I'd say I do not believe you that
normals can segregate their area enough from the other ones and dock
into a non-conscious one without disturbing it well enough  to come to
valuable results.

Or do you mean unconscious literal, that the person is uncosncious and
still does actions?

Whichever, to me at first it sounds like someone on my door wanting to
sell me THE insurance and vacuum cleaner "that I always needed iin my
life".


>PL6: COLOR AND CONSCIOUSNESS
b.s.

>   * M. Nida-Rumelin: Pseudonormal vision and color qualia
Pseudonormal?

>   * H. Hunt: Transpersonal and cognitive psychologies of consciousness:
>     A necessary and reciprocal dialogue.

There are sentences where one sufferes from the distinct impression
that the person who made them does neither understand the consious
areas nor the main psyche-areas...

    
>PL8: EMOTIONAL EXPERIENCE AND THE BRAIN

Why do you segregate from the body as if the adrenal glands and other
hormone generators would play no role?
The body systems belong to the brain systems, I do not believe it wise
to segregate them when discussion emotions.

>   * R.D. Lane: Subregions within the anterior cingulate cortex may
>     differentially participate in phenomenal and reflective conscious
>     awareness of emotion.

Might be mistaken, but I do not believe so.

In case you mean the thingie with two halves that is like a vast black
dome and where you can play with data, that one is not conscious.

It's the playground!  ;-)

And of course you get nice endorphine showers of you do the right
stuff there. You may have reached the point that many autists reach in
early childhood...  Now you just need to come to understand the point
of repetitive movements... 
Sorry, making stupid jokes...

>PL9: EVOLUTION AND FUNCTION OF CONSCIOUSNESS I

If you mean the own areas:

Have you ever watched "your consciousness" when going frequency
surfing? (And the emotional changes?)

And speculated about the original function of the mentioned
"playground"?

And then combined the two results?

I believe that that is most of the answer.


Selector. Priority giver.



>   * M. Winkelman: The fundamental properties of systems with
>     consciousness.

I am not that sure if there are fundamental ones.
There are so many who are conscious and they are so different.

An octopus is not like a dolphin and a dolphin not like a parrot.

Even just within ourselves I find there is a vast difference between
the two main conscious "blocks"..


>PL13: BLINDSIGHT

>   * P. Stoerig, A. Cowey, R. Goebel: Blindsight and its neuronal basis.

Where can one get information about the previous and the next ones?

>   * K. Yasue: Consciousness and photon dynamics in the brain.

>   * B. Hiley: Quantum theory, the implicate order, and the mind/matter
>     relationship

>C18: Altered states of consciousness

>C11: Parapsychology

>C13: Awareness, attention, and memory during sleep

>C6: Crosscultural perspectives


.................................................................................................................................
>   * A. Bergesen: Artistic consciousness: the art faculty of mind.
You use consciousness in a strange way.

>C21: Unity of consciousness and the self
???
What is that for a b.s. ?
Does the speaker assume the "I"-areas are not conscious or what?
If I had money I'd say any bet the bloke is a headblind babbler, who
is talking a lot of nonsense.

>___  The Mammalian Visual System (C. Koch)                  $45.00
Are you sure that that can be expressed that way?
Different mammals seem to have different ranges.
To me is sounds weird if someone has a title that sounds as if he knew
all.
Actually sounds more like one of those who do not even get what Carlos
Cataneda calls "seeing" and is segregating senses and limiting himself
to a few narrow bands or the spectrum of what is.
And from there is judging the perception of others.
But maybe I am too prejudiced.

> Consciousness and Lucid Dreaming (S. LaBerge)         

To anyone: How would you say it changes?





More information about the Neur-sci mailing list