Erin,
I'm afraid I cannot set aside my conviction that consciousness is not an
emergent property of the activity of the brain to give a fair appraisal.
His use of "resonance" is, to me, yet another hopeless attempt to find a
spatio-temporal object and/or process that can account for consciusness,
much like trying to do so by appealing to information processing, or
fractals, or chaos theory. In the case of resonance, it has appeal
because it is something that, on the one hand, is a concentrated locus
of activity, yet on the other, we can grasp it as an object. But it is
precisely this paradoxical ability that is the hallmark of
consciousness. As I've said before, the mystery of awareness is that to
be aware of the passage of time (as we must be to notice the continuity
of a resonance), requires a non-temporal stance, which no
spatio-temporal activity can account for. (There is, of course, some
hope for quantum models, since they appear to be non-local, but I
certainly don't expect an "explanation" of consciousness to come from
that or any other source. Rather, I assume everything else, including
quantum mechanics, is to be explained in terms of consciousness).
- Scott
enoonan wrote:
> I was curious to what the feedback to this model of
> consciousness would be. The model is definitely based on a desire to
> link brain and consciousness but consider the ideas present
> regardess of whether you think consciousness emerges from
> brain processes or not.
> I think he raises some undiscussed issues like
> expectation, intentionality, unconscious procedural memories that
> never resonate.
> There is a lot of jargon in it but I would appreciate any feedback
> about the model.
>
> Thanks,
>
> 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