PATRICK: but the
>consciousness-unconsciouss distinction maybe is an interesting one after
>all.
>Bo, to say we can experience the unconsciousness from the outside is
>interesting. I take it as the unconsciousness having an ontological
>status, not just an epistemological one: Although we can't experience
>the unconscious directly (in my terminology), it nevertheless is REAL.
ERIN: That was Wim. Yes I agree the conscious and unconscious should be
distinguished and both are real. I am less sure that conscious is outside of
unconscious.
PATRICK>I'm not sure if I get "the conscious is part of the unconscious in an
>active state". Do you mean simply that consciousness is a kind of active
>state of the brain?
ERIN: No I mean that only a limited amount of unconscious can be conscious.
Active as whatever is in focus.
Thanks for you homonculi summaries, very interesting.
Any info you learn in the future I would be interseted in hearing
about it.
I guess whether conscious is outside of unconscious is like the debate
whether there is a homunculus. Typically I don't like the idea of
one but I have never heard about the fractality idea until your
post. I will think about it some more, I thought it
prevented an organism from acting autonomously but maybe
infinite regress isn't so bad now that you explained it that way.
I will think about it.
Thanks again,
did you hear about that car they built that can drive itself?
>
>But before collapse particles can
>be in multiple states in superposition. After collapse you have a
>particle in some state, and others in other states, but they're then
>seperated. The conscious moment is then somewhere between superposition
>and collapse... at times at this I'd wish I had more than just a very
>basic knowledge of QM! Come back at this in a year, and I hope I can
>give you a better account of this view.
>
>There's also, I should mention, the fractality-idea. You know this
>sitting buddhist type Mandelbrot-pictures, which repeat themselves in
>always different varieties when you zoom in, which you can do to the
>infinite. According to this view, the infinite-regress thing is not a
>problem at all. A fractal is an example of a 'thing' in which there's
>infinite regress in some way, but nevertheless is real.
>
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:02:20 BST