Re: death of the mind.
From: AlphaOmega2004 (OmegaZero2003_at_yahoo.com)
Date: 07/12/04
- Next message: AlphaOmega2004: "Re: death of the mind."
- Previous message: AlphaOmega2004: "Re: death of the mind."
- In reply to: John Hasenkam: "Re: death of the mind."
- Next in thread: Joe Legris: "Re: death of the mind."
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Mon, 12 Jul 2004 15:18:17 GMT
"John Hasenkam" <johnh@faraway.> wrote in message
news:40efd95a@dnews.tpgi.com.au...
>
> "Glen M. Sizemore" <gmsizemore2@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:2b64cd9306d188c86ca98cd98b30b531@news.teranews.com...
> > Odd that Peter would have referred you to O'Regan and Noe, and then say
> what
> > 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.
Perhaps we should study how the rocks outside i the garden decay instead.
BWHAHAHAHAHA!
>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???
>
> Regards,
>
>
> John.
>
> >
> >
> > "John Hasenkam" <johnh@faraway.> wrote in message
> > news:40efc9eb@dnews.tpgi.com.au...
> > >
> > > "Peter F." <effectivespamblock@ozemail.com.au> wrote in message
> > > news:cAHHc.407$QT.10976@nnrp1.ozemail.com.au...
> > > > "Eray Ozkural exa" <erayo@bilkent.edu.tr> wrote in message
> > > > news:fa69ae35.0407051611.69e9b24f@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
> you
> > > > > 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
> when
> > > the frequencies are not those we think of as designating red. With age
> the
> > > 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
> > the
> > > colours we see.
> > >
> > > Consciousness? Some time ago you referred me to paper by O'Regan and
> Noe,
> > > 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
> of
> > > seeing the problem with consciousness and if memory serves me well I
> > recall
> > > you advising me many months ago that at the end of the day we may just
> as
> > > well find that consciousness is really not that hard to understand at
> all.
> > > One way I think about this is to equate questions about consciousness
> and
> > > qualia with questions like: How come there are only two poles in
> > magnetism?
> > > 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
> > it."
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Trust you are well,
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > John.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > > Seeing red is an photoelectric pattern (or aspect) of What Is going
> on -
> > > > being reflected at a complex biological (evolved) level of What Is
> going
> > > 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
> implicitly
> > > > extremely ill-defined (hence and usually seldom well-understood)
word
> > > > "consciousness".
> > > >
> > > > P
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
- Next message: AlphaOmega2004: "Re: death of the mind."
- Previous message: AlphaOmega2004: "Re: death of the mind."
- In reply to: John Hasenkam: "Re: death of the mind."
- Next in thread: Joe Legris: "Re: death of the mind."
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
