"Eray Ozkural exa" <erayo at bilkent.edu.tr> wrote in message
news:fa69ae35.0402111755.6df8233d at posting.google.com...
> "AlphaOmega2004" <OmegaZero2003 at yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:<095b2cd3e29032d12dba75f872672918 at news.teranews.com>...
> > I agree.
> > One point though - there is a philosophical position that memory is a
> > regenerative process. That is, once the appropriate NCC's are activated
> > (becoming the casual agent for the personal experience of a memory), the
> > memory is regenerated from those processes each time. Aeach time they
> > regenerate, the processes that accept the memory process inputs *are*
> > content of consciousness proper.
> > This avoids the content-match conundrum (athe notion that sub_personal
> > processes cannot match personal_experential processes) posited by Noe et
> > in the current Journal Of Consciousness Studies.
>> OK, but I don't see how that position is philosophical. :)
The philosophical question is whether there are neural correlates at all (in
the sense that Cog. Neuro. has defined them) and if so,in principle, *can*
they be content-match correlates, and if so, just what kind of
content-matching is being acheived by the NCs?
Note that there are subtle refinements/alternative_compositions of the
> Eray Ozkural