Hello Wim,
>
My dictionary lacks
>an entry for 'inhibitory'.
Its probably easiest to think about this way.
excitatory --resonates--helps to remember/become conscious
vs.
inhibitory---doesn't resonate--helps to forget
Grosssberg started with the stability-plasiticity dilemma.
This model illustrates how the sensory and cognitive parts of the
brain resonate into consciousness even while they are helping
to direct the contextually appropriate activation of spatial and
motor circuits that cannot.
So he goes on to talk about that since our bodies are developing
it is most adaptive for procedural memories to never resonate because it needs
to be continually updated with our "new" bodies.
>
>I wrote:
>'Not "learning" and "intentionality" should be core concepts in a model of
>subconscious mental activity, but "habitual repetition" and "imitiation".'
>You replied:
>'Intentionality is essential to consciousness.'
>I agree that intentionality is essential to awareness. Exactly for that
>reason I propose not to use it in a model for subconscious (unaware) mental
>activity.
Sorry,that sentence makes sense now I think I just read it too late at night.
>My model is as follows:
>Intellectual patterns of values, involving 'awareness' and 'intention', hold
>together systems of ideas, consistency of adoption/denial of ideas and
>'personal identity'. The process of focusing awareness and intention belongs
>to the intellectual level. 'That on which we focus' and 'that which we
>intend' can belong to any level of values. It can also be (and is usually)
>experienced in terms of SOM subjects and objects.
>Social patterns of values, involving 'habitual repetition' and 'imitation',
>hold together 'groups', a sense of belonging and 'personal skills'. The
>processes involved are unaware. We can focus awareness and intention on the
>results of these processes (and label them as 'emotion' and 'intuition')
>however.
>Biological patterns of values, involving hard-wired reactions and
>bio-chemical interaction (as between ants), hold together species, patterns
>of instinctual behavior that are needed to feed, procreate etc. and
>recognizable features of one's looks and way of moving (enabling us to
>recognize someone we haven't seen for decades). We cannot even focus
>awareness and intention on separate processes involved (not without the help
>of science).
I do agree with what you wrote here. Thanks again for commenting
on such a jargon filled post.
The main reason why I posted is that I wanted peoples thoughts
on expectation and intention in relation to consciousness.
I thought the idea of expectations leading awareness was
interesting because it suggests that experience is almost
backwards in time.
That Pirsig stove example that continues to pop up is that
you experience something then react to your experience.
But this suggests you expect to experience something and the
event either matches your experience or doesn't.
I thought intentionality was interesting because I think awareness seems to
continue to develop throughout the levels. Basically I think
awareness develops as our expectations become better.
But I think there is a big leap going from awareness with intentionality
and awareness without intentionality.
Going back to that thermos joke where you put hot things in
the thermos keeps it hot and you put cold things in and
it keeps it cold, how does the thermos know that?
Glenn suggested that this wouldn't be appropriate to tell MOQers
because of the idea of inorganic awareness.
I think the main problem is that consciousness and awareness is
tangled up with intentionality.
Erin
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