death of the mind.
johnh at faraway.hgmp.mrc.ac.uk
Sat Jul 10 06:56:08 EST 2004
"Glen M. Sizemore" <gmsizemore2 at yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:2b64cd9306d188c86ca98cd98b30b531 at news.teranews.com...
> Odd that Peter would have referred you to O'Regan and Noe, and then say
> he does about "seeing red" (but then, Peter is a complete idiot). O& N is
> indispensable reading after Science and Human Behavior, About Behaviorsm,
> and an undergrad text on behavior analysis. I leave out Verbal Behavior
> because it is not really possible to read it on your own.
Your recommended reading list is timely. Still haven't tracked down a copy
of Science and Human Behavior. I'm just wrapping one period of learning and
am heading down your way. Tonight I was browsing through an old Skinner
classic, "Are Theories of Learning Necessary?" I'd rephrase that: "Aren't
Theories of Learning Pretentious in their Aims?" I liked Skinner's remarks
that some tend to create theories because they can't find data ... .
Still very much at sea on a lot of this. After listening to Bryan Kolb's
lecture on brain plasticity I am more convinced than ever that studying
neurophysiological changes in order to understand how learning occurs is
just far too premature. Kolb himself made this assertion, he even stated at
the start of the lecture something about the "hypothesis of learning" and
when one questioner pressed him to explain these remarkable changes in the
brain after drugs and learning he said little then remarked, "I'm just
handwaving". Could you elaborate on his cynical remark re "hypothesis of
learning"? Or did I misinterpret his remark???
> "John Hasenkam" <johnh at faraway.> wrote in message
> news:40efc9eb at dnews.tpgi.com.au...
> > "Peter F." <effectivespamblock at ozemail.com.au> wrote in message
> > news:cAHHc.407$QT.10976 at nnrp1.ozemail.com.au...
> > > "Eray Ozkural exa" <erayo at bilkent.edu.tr> wrote in message
> > > news:fa69ae35.0407051611.69e9b24f at posting.google.com...
> > > > Try to answer whether you have a mind or not. Do you, for instance,
> > > > possess a subjective experience? (ie. 1st order consciousness) Do
> > > > see colors? Just *what* is this phenomenon? How can we explain it
> > > > physically?
> > > >
> > > > Mind is not simply perception, it is more than that (as it includes
> > > > such things as planning for instance). What kinds of abilities does
> > > > *your* brain have in addition to audio-visual/haptic/olfactory etc.
> > > > perception? What do you call these abilities and their subjective
> > > > experience?
> > > >
> > > > Does the totality of these functions exist?
> > Hey Peter,
> > Not true to say seeing red is a photoelectric effect, we see red even
> > the frequencies are not those we think of as designating red. With age
> > frequencies hitting the retina change because of change in the vitreous
> > matter, but we still see the same colours. Seeing colours is not just a
> > product of the visual system, clearly other types of information modify
> > colours we see.
> > Consciousness? Some time ago you referred me to paper by O'Regan and
> > there it still lies on my desk amidst too many other things. Hey, it was
> > good enouigh for me. To be honest Peter, these days I'm having trouble
> > seeing the problem with consciousness and if memory serves me well I
> > you advising me many months ago that at the end of the day we may just
> > well find that consciousness is really not that hard to understand at
> > One way I think about this is to equate questions about consciousness
> > qualia with questions like: How come there are only two poles in
> > It is just that way, what else is there to explain?
> > These days I think brains are good dream machines, they just happen to
> > create very useful dreams, so I like your radical doubt idea in the last
> > paragraph. Reminds me of Dennis Sciama, prof of QM at Oxford I think who
> > began his lectures with, "The world is a fantasy, let's find out about
> > Trust you are well,
> > John.
> > > Seeing red is an photoelectric pattern (or aspect) of What Is going
> > > being reflected at a complex biological (evolved) level of What Is
> > on;
> > > And so on for every conceivable (or not) aspect of What Is going on.
> > >
> > > So, one should be very accepting of a fundamental inexplicability of
> > > everything (or anything) - including of course of the usually
> > > extremely ill-defined (hence and usually seldom well-understood) word
> > > "consciousness".
> > >
> > > P
> > >
> > >
More information about the Neur-sci