From: ian glendinning (psybertron@gmail.com)
Date: Tue Nov 22 2005 - 19:45:54 GMT
Is this the same Platt ?
The one who ridiculed Ant for bringing hypnosis into the MD :-) ?
The one who ignored when I referred to neurosceintists Austin, Zeman,
Sacks and Edelman bringing evidence from hypnosis, sleep and other
altered brain states into understanding how minds work :-) ?
Anyway, to answer your questions ...
I'm no expert but ...
The description is necessarily simplistic, particularly in referring
to the layers without any physical or logical distinction, but the key
topological point is I believe true - that there are many more
feedback fibres diving back down through the cortex than springing up
into it.
It's also true (whatever "memory" mechanisms we're describing) that
prior experience conditions what is interpreted - experienced at the
higher conscious levels - and that the "false" impressions can govern
free-will decisions and actions. I blogged something a week or so ago
about Sue Blackmore staging the Libet experiment on free-will ...
http://www.psybertron.org/?p=1145 ... In that I refer to high-level
conscious control and command as well as lower level reflex and
hard-wired effects. Much processing can be delegated to lower levels
when the high level "isn't looking" and vice versa, the high levels
can countermand the lower.
As far as the hot stove is concerned ...
I'm always reminded of T E Lawrence
(or more likely David Lean).
Soldier, impressed - Doesn't it hurt sir ?
TEL, enigmatically - Yes, but the trick is not minding.
(Minding - is a wonderfully ambiguous word I find.)
(My personal view is that the massive, circular feedback loops provide
the "strange loopiness" that generates what we know as consciousness
and intelligence in the higher levels, but that's another story, after
Hofstadter.)
Is such a description consistent with MoQ.
Definitely, yes.
Finally, a question for you - why would you have any problem imaginig
where "value judgements" come in, (in this nest of feedback loops
between sensors, fibres, memories and motor actions) any more than say
a logical consideration or a calculated risk, or an impetuous whim ?
Ian
On 11/22/05, Platt Holden <pholden@sc.rr.com> wrote:
> Hi All:
>
> Interesting article in today's NY Times headlined, "This is Your Brain
> Under Hypnosis." In it are some ideas about how the brain processes sense
> data from lower to higher brain regions and back again. As I read the
> article I was struck by its relevance to Pirsig's theory of responses to
> DQ filtered by static cultural patterns. Here are some of the key
> passages. Perhaps those of a scientific bent can comment on how they see
> this as applicable to the MOQ, or where it deviates from, let's say,
> Pirsig's "hot stove" example.
>
> "Now, Dr. Posner and others said, new research on hypnosis and suggestion
> is providing a new view into the cogs and wheels of normal brain function.
>
> "One area that it may have illuminated is the processing of sensory data.
> Information from the eyes, ears and body is carried to primary sensory
> regions in the brain. From there, it is carried to so-called higher
> regions where interpretation occurs.
>
> "For example, photons bouncing off a flower first reach the eye, where
> they are turned into a pattern that is sent to the primary visual cortex.
> There, the rough shape of the flower is recognized. The pattern is next
> sent to a higher - in terms of function - region, where color is
> recognized, and then to a higher region, where the flower's identity is
> encoded along with other knowledge about the particular bloom.
>
> "The same processing stream, from lower to higher regions, exists for
> sounds, touch and other sensory information. Researchers call this
> direction of flow feedforward. As raw sensory data is carried to a part of
> the brain that creates a comprehensible, conscious impression, the data is
> moving from bottom to top.
>
> "Bundles of nerve cells dedicated to each sense carry sensory information.
> The surprise is the amount of traffic the other way, from top to bottom,
> called feedback. There are 10 times as many nerve fibers carrying
> information down as there are carrying it up.
>
> "These extensive feedback circuits mean that consciousness, what people
> see, hear, feel and believe, is based on what neuroscientists call "top
> down processing." What you see is not always what you get, because what
> you see depends on a framework built by experience that stands ready to
> interpret the raw information - as a flower or a hammer or a face.
>
> "The top-down structure explains a lot. If the construction of reality has
> so much top-down processing, that would make sense of the powers of
> placebos (a sugar pill will make you feel better), nocebos (a witch doctor
> will make you ill), talk therapy and meditation. If the top is convinced,
> the bottom level of data will be overruled.
>
> "This brain structure would also explain hypnosis, which is all about
> creating such formidable top-down processing that suggestions overcome
> reality."
>
> Is this analysis of how the brain works compatible with the MOQ? Am I the
> only one wondering where in this scenario value judgments come in?
>
> Thanks.
>
> Platt
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
> Mail Archives:
> Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
> Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
> MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
>
> To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
> http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
>
>
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archives:
Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
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 2.1.5 : Tue Nov 22 2005 - 20:02:47 GMT