Conference hydra::dejavu

    No.

    Why are many active topics being ratholed into endless, long, dull and
    mind boggling boring discussions on karma?  

    Jamie.

>    Why are many active topics being ratholed into endless, long, dull and
>    mind boggling boring discussions on karma?  

	It must be our collective fate. }B-)

    I think it's some kind of hypnosis.

    	Can we choose up sides, so I know who is who ?
    
    	I wanna be an ultra-rationalist, since my poetry stinks
    	and I can't compose music.
    
    						todd

    The ultra-rationalists will just end up arguing with themselves
    anyway.  The intuitives will just watch for awhile and then go away
    shaking their heads .. mystified.

>    The ultra-rationalists will just end up arguing with themselves
>    anyway.  The intuitives will just watch for awhile and then go away
>    shaking their heads .. mystified.
    
    I guess that's true !  I hadn't thought of that.  
    That Karl is pretty sneaky.  :-)

    
    I'm an ultra-rationalist who DOES write music and poetry...
    
    Where does that put me?
    
    I'm screwed.....
    
    
    
    guy

    >..that Karl is pretty sneaky.
    
    It was worth a shot.
    
    >I'm an ultra-rationalist who DOES write music and poetry...
    >Where does that put me?
    >I'm screwed.....
    
    No, NO !  You're BALANCED.  Your adult sensibly imposes rational
    boundaries but your happy, boundaryless child must be expressed.
    
    ;-)
    
    From the "oh, not another theory" dept.
    
    karl

>    Why are many active topics being ratholed into endless, long, dull and
   > mind boggling boring discussions on karma?  
    >Jamie.
    
    It was Meant To Be

    Hunh?  Women don't have a "g-spot".
    
    What we *do* have is an area on the wall of the vagina that backs
    onto the vicinity of the clitoris.
    
    That this was the cause of the original assertion was ascertained by
    experimentation.  The experimentation was initiated because (1) there
    are no nerve endings in the vagina and (2) there was no cellular
    differentiation between the "g-spot" and the rest of the wall.
    
    						Ann B.

    
    Karl,
    
    I'm glad someone thinks I'm balanced...:-)
    
    
    guy

    ....weebles wobble but they don't fall down... :-)

>    No, NO !  You're BALANCED.  Your adult sensibly imposes rational
>    boundaries but your happy, boundaryless child must be expressed.
    
    Or, maybe he has a stuffy, uptight constipated child being
    tyrannical to his immature, wacked-out stoned adult, which is trying
    to put a move on his attractive but matronly inner female parent, in some
    kind of oedipal tryst.
    
    Well, it could happen.
    
>    From the "oh, not another theory" dept.
    
    	From the "oh shut up, Todd" department.  :-)
    
    							todd

    :-)... good one, Todd.

    I wonder if Rene Descartes would have been ultra-intuitionist or 
    ultra-rationalist ?  Seems like both ... his whole rationally
    elaborated scheme was based almost entirely on strong intuitions
    about what he thought he could know with certainty.  He's an
    interesting test case for Karl's reason/intuition model, sort
    of an extremist at both ends at the same time ?  What do you
    think ?   Or am I misinterpreting what was meant by ultra-intuitionist,
    that has to have a symbolist or 'romantic' slant to it ?
    
    						todd

    
    Todd,   (a few back)
    
    Yup.  You hit the nail on the head....NOT! ;-)
    
    
    re: .17
    
    How does the song go?  - "Rene Descartes was a drunken fart
                              who was just as sloshed as Schleigel(sp?)..."
    
    
    guy

    re: .18,
    
>    How does the song go?  - "Rene Descartes was a drunken ...
    
    Isn't that the one sung by all the Australian Philosophy professors named
    Bruce  ?   

    
    re: .19 (todd)
    
    I don't know....anything's possible. :-)
    
    Not in MPFC's "Live at the Hollywood Bowl (Bowel)"....:-)
    
    
    guy
    

    Having started this note, I've been ruminating on which side of the
    philosophical fence I sit.  As if there's only two sides, intuitive and
    rational.
    
    However as a trained computer genius of over 22 years' experience, a
    part of my mind has been trained to.. think like a computer.. and wants 
    to consider itself ultra-rational.  And that anyone who has had
    experiences dissimilar from mine is lying or delusional.  See my recent
    rant(s) in the UFOs conference.  Oh, and that I control my reality.
    
    On the other hand, I have had some extraordinary travels, encountered
    some remarkable people, and had some periods of extraordinary grace. 
    Which has led me to acknowledging my higher power, who/which sometimes
    has a name and a face, which has changed identity over the years,
    who/which is really in control.. and who likes the hell out of me.
    
    karl

SALSA::MOELLER 
    
    >And that anyone who has had experiences dissimilar from mine is lying 
    >or delusional.  
    
    That's not a very rational attitude.. :-)

    re: 1761.21, Karl (SALSA::MOELLER)
    
    	That's one of the things I've thought a lot about, too.
    
    	I've often wondered whether there is a need to be
    	'philosophically consistent' or 'logically consistent'
    	in our views, or whether we can and should harbor
    	separate and distinct viewpoints in different areas,
    	and not try to build a single, consistent point of view,
    	and especially a consistent scheme in our verbal reports
    	of our beliefs.  
    
    	Does a person who experiences a higher self or what they 
    	conceive as a unique experience of God/Goddess or Cosmic Muffinry
    	need to reconcile it with, and explain it in terms of,
    	say, information processing, or physical phenomena, or order
    	to demonstrate that their rational faculty is functioning
    	without any 'gaps ?'   I guess I've made that implicit judgement,
    	that part of my own personal growth is cultivating a consistent
    	sense of self and set of beliefs, while keeping both as fluid
    	as possible to allow me to keep learning.  
    
    	In contrast, a lot of people seem to make the opposite decision
    	implicitly at some point, to be much more tolerant of paradox
    	and inconsistency within their own belief system, or at least 
    	verbal reports of their belief system.
    
    	So, I'll throw out yet another cocktail party dichotomy, along
    	with right and left brainers, and rational and intuitive people;
    	folks who feel a need to build cognitive consistency, vs. those who
    	keep a looser cognitive world.
    
    						kind regards,
    
    						todd

    re: .23, Walster,
    
>    how can a rational mind compose poetry?
    
    	There's definitely a 'rational' component to poetry.
    	If creative composition and romantic expression had
    	no underlying _reason_ to them, you wouldn't be able to
    	communicate them to others.  That's part of the weakness of
    	the simplistic rational/intuitive model, I think.  
    
    	On the other hand, even if there were no such special metaphysical 
    	category as 'intuition' at all, and it could all be somehow reduced to 
    	unconscious computational algorithms, there would still be
    	tremendous utility in thinking of some things as having
    	'intuitive' aspects.
    
    	Imo, virtually no meaningful real life task, especially those 
    	involving multiple people, could possibly 
    	be a purely intuitive exercise (whatever that is) or purely an
    	exercise in detailed conscious sequential formal logic (good grief,
    	that seems like what some people think 'rationality' is supposed to
    	involve - how utterly boring !).  I left out 'rigorous' because
    	it ticks some people off.  :-)
    
    							todd

DWOVAX::STARK 
    
    
>    	I've often wondered whether there is a need to be
>    	'philosophically consistent' or 'logically consistent'
>    	in our views, or whether we can and should harbor
>    	separate and distinct viewpoints in different areas,
>    	and not try to build a single, consistent point of view,
>    	and especially a consistent scheme in our verbal reports
>    	of our beliefs.  
    
	If one's beliefs are to reflect reality... then they might
    	also include the paradoxes that reality contains.  
    	Reality isn't a single, consistent unchanging thing.
    	    
>    	Does a person who experiences a higher self or what they 
>    	conceive as a unique experience of God/Goddess or Cosmic Muffinry
>    	need to reconcile it with, and explain it in terms of,
>    	say, information processing, or physical phenomena, or order
>    	to demonstrate that their rational faculty is functioning
>    	without any 'gaps ?'   
    
    	I don't think it can be explained that way really.. one can
    	always try, I suppose but ....
    
    
    >    I guess I've made that implicit judgement,
>    	that part of my own personal growth is cultivating a consistent
>    	sense of self and set of beliefs, while keeping both as fluid
>    	as possible to allow me to keep learning.  
    
    	One can cultivate a consistent sense of self without having a
        beliefs cast in stone.  Beliefs can be a very strange set of
        things... since reality and circumstances change all the
        time... how can one just keep on believing the same old things
        as life changes constantly around one?  I think it's what you
        are that counts... not what you believe.
    
>    	In contrast, a lot of people seem to make the opposite decision
>    	implicitly at some point, to be much more tolerant of paradox
>    	and inconsistency within their own belief system, or at least 
>    	verbal reports of their belief system.
    
    	That's how I see it.... as Topher pointed out so eloquently..
    ... even a stopped watch is right at least twice a day... if one's
    beliefs are unchanging, you'll be right once in awhile... but if
    your beliefs change as circumstances change... you've got a better
    chance of keeping up with the paradoxes of reality, I think.
    
>    	So, I'll throw out yet another cocktail party dichotomy, along
>    	with right and left brainers, and rational and intuitive people;
>    	folks who feel a need to build cognitive consistency, vs. those who
>    	keep a looser cognitive world.
    
    
        Together..... we seem to have made it all work though... we must
         be doing something right. :-)
    
>    
>    	There's definitely a 'rational' component to poetry.
>    	If creative composition and romantic expression had
>    	no underlying _reason_ to them, you wouldn't be able to
>    	communicate them to others.  That's part of the weakness of
>    	the simplistic rational/intuitive model, I think.  
    
    
    	I think one needs to be both... choosen at appropriate times...
    don't you think?
    
    
>    	Imo, virtually no meaningful real life task, especially those 
>    	involving multiple people, could possibly 
>    	be a purely intuitive exercise (whatever that is) or purely an
>    	exercise in detailed conscious sequential formal logic (good grief,
>    	that seems like what some people think 'rationality' is supposed to
>    	involve - how utterly boring !).  I left out 'rigorous' because
>    	it ticks some people off.  :-)
    
	We need both.

    
>    "you wouldn't be able to communicate them to others" unless you had
>    experienced "some thing" like the author had, in which case you are
>    not using your rational part (whatever that means ;-)
    
    
     You can't communicate it to them but you can show them... you can
     draw circles in fields and ships in the sky and symphonies and
     masterpieces in stone and oil.
    
     You can show them.. you can share the experience with them... even
     if you can't describe it or adequately communicate it in a rational
     manner.
    
>    where DOES inspiration come from?
    
     That which has no name... same place everything else comes from.    
    
>    does composing music/poetry come from the dream state (sleeping)?,
>    i.e., subconscious inspiration?
    
    
     Not necessarily, one would think.. :-)
    
>    
>    (i only mention this as i have heard wonderful music in my dreams,
>    and have always wished that i could translate it into the music language
>    of notes, bars, etc. while still asleep. one was a rap record which
>    had great music. as i went through the different conscious levels, i
>    found myself listening to two crickets speaking. ha. ha.).
    
     :-)
    
>    and when you read those words, and hear those notes, or voice, is it
>    a connection which is being manipulated by the media, producing a
>    desired effect, which many mistake for 'god talking to me'?
    
     well... call it what you will... it's still god talking to you.. ;-)    
    
>    is there such a thing as 'inspiration from the mind'?
    
  We don't even know what "mind" means yet... never mind what "inspiration"
    means...     

    re: .27, -wal,
    
>    does composing music/poetry come from the dream state (sleeping)?,
>    i.e., subconscious inspiration?
    
    Let me offer an alternate way of looking at this ...
    that only an infinitessimal part of *anything* we do is
    conscious, that we just have a stronger feeling of 
    understanding the mechanisms for some thought processes than others.
    
    Do you understand the 'rational' process of composing a simple
    sentence like the one I'm writing here ?  It's not exactly poetry,
    yet I have no idea how it works.  How about the rational
    process of understanding it ?  And is there any reasoning involved 
    in understanding the argument I'm presenting here ?
    
    I guess I'm saying that I have little confidence in the hard 
    boundaries often drawn between reasoning and intuition.
    
    						kind regards,
    
    						todd

    Yep.. that's how I see it too, Todd.

RE: .23

>    how can a rational mind compose poetry?
>    
>    and
>    
>    how can a rational mind understand poetry?

    Methinks that there be a common confusion here (and in some of these
    other notes).

    "Rational" does not mean "purely analytic."

    In the misleading terminology of pop-psychoneurophysiology, rationality
    is a function of the co�rdination of the left and right cortical
    hemispheres.  Without this rationality peotry could not possibly be
    understood, much less be composed.  Poetry of course also involves
    the mid-brain (emotions, etc.) so it is more than a purely rational
    process.

    If your question was "how can a purely rational mind compose/understand
    poetry?" I would have to ask me to show me such a beast.

				    Topher

    I guess I've been one of the ones who misunderstood the distinction 
    between logical and rational.  Since it's a crucial part of the
    VERSUS theme, let's try to hash it out, please.
    
    Please give an example of something rational that is not logical,
    and something logical that is not rational.
    
    My initial take on this is :
    
    Rational - able to reason (v), based on reasoning.
    Reason (v) - to use your ability to think and draw conclusions
    
    Logical - of or according to logic, correctly reasoned.
    Logic - the science of reasoning
    
    Other than 'logical' having more formal connotations regarding
    specific systems of reasoning, I don't see any significant
    difference that applies.  Both concepts imply a specific
    kind of systematic thought and symbol manipulation process
    with the same overall characteristics.  
    
    re: Topher,
    
>    If your question was "how can a purely rational mind compose/understand
>    poetry?" I would have to ask me to show me such a beast.
    
    Is a computer a purely rational mind ?  
    
    Have you ever heard the android/cybernetic organism Commander Data's 
    poetry on the popular TV show, 'Star Trek the Next Generation' ?   
    
    						todd

RE: .33 (todd)

    The logic that we have managed to codify only covers a small part of
    "rationality".  You might say that AI is an attempt to codify some
    of the rest.  

    "Logic" as we now have it only describes the analyzing part of reasoning
    and is useless it is supported by someone supplying the synthesizing
    and coordinating parts.  (I've slipped into the not-really-adequate
    terminology of the dialectic for convenience -- close enough for
    government work).  Reasoning is analysis and synthesis, deduction and
    induction, creation and instantiation.  And "rational" covers all of
    those.

    Of course, rational without emotional is useless.  Spock and Data are
    fictional.  Every time that Spock said "curious" he was expressing an
    emotion.  Emotion is what provides motivation, a system which was
    purely rational would be capable of solving problems and writing poetry
    (or an indistinguishable simulation of poetry, if you prefer) but would
    have no "reason" to.

    To simulate human reason to the level that he does -- to be able to
    understand ordinary speech with its innuendo and implied backgrounds 
    -- Data would have to have a much better "model" of human emotions/
    motivations than he claims to have on Star Trek.  That model would
    virtually have to pervade his social/speech processing circuitry (it
    is widely believed, by the way, that human reasoning developed under
    the evolutionary pressure of having to deal with ever more complex
    social interactions).  Data's emotions might be child-like and/or
    without "peaks", but he would have them (and, of course, generally
    he does on the show).  He might not be able to write good poetry --
    many people do not have the necessary cognitive skills -- but it would
    be more subtly bad than what he produces on STtNG.  Data provides some
    interesting commentary on the human condition, but none on the "android
    condition."  Don't look to him for what a "real" AI would be like.

>    Is a computer a purely rational mind ?

    No -- it is neither rational nor a mind, at least none that we have now
    are.  You might consider it "pure" however. :-)

				    Topher

    re: .34, (Topher)
    
>    "Logic" as we now have it only describes the analyzing part of reasoning
    
>    Reasoning is analysis and synthesis, deduction and
>    induction, creation and instantiation.  And "rational" covers all of
>    those.
    
>    Emotion is what provides motivation, a system which was
    
    Thanks very much for that clarity.
    
    Using your attractive way of looking at this, where does
    'intuition' fit in ?   You polarized reason and emotion,
    whereas VERSUS polarized reason and intuition.  
    
    Is intuition a special case of or special way of viewing reasoning,
    or is it a concept that overlaps reasoning and emotion somehow ?
    
    						todd

RE: .35 (todd)

>    ... where does 'intuition' fit in ? ...
>    
>    Is intuition a special case of or special way of viewing reasoning,
>    or is it a concept that overlaps reasoning and emotion somehow ?

    I'd say the latter.

    Intuition is ideas/decisions/thoughts whose source/derivation we are
    not consciously aware of.  Intuition is frequently the result of
    unconscious reasoning including both analysis and synthesis.  Since
    each of us has a geniuous buried in our subconscious, and since the
    subconscious frequently has powers of observation and memory which are
    consciously unavailable, intuition is frequently capable of reasoning
    accurately to conclusions or acts of mental creation which is far
    beyond what we are consciously able to do.  ESP also seems to ride
    intuition to consciousness (though many mistakenly attribute the
    results of subconscious observation and reasoning to ESP).  So
    intuition may be rational and a rational person makes use of intuition.

    But intuition may also be the result of bad reasoning and emotion, and
    since we cannot examine how an intuitive concept is reached it is
    difficult to avoid these errors.  Intuition frequently seems to be
    telling us how things are, when it is actually telling us how we want
    them to be, how we fear they might be, or how something similar was
    even though that is irrelevant in this case.

    Many people irrationally fear emotion and therefore intuition (which
    may easily be "contaminated" by emotion), are misidentified as
    rationalists.  They are not -- a true rationalists recognizes the value
    of intuition.

    Also worth noting is that, for reasons closely allied with the reasons
    why "logic" really only effectively captures "analysis", synthetic
    reasoning is more likely to be intuitive.  It is hard to be conscious
    of synthesis, which leaves it intuitive.

					Topher

    re: .36, (Topher),
    	Thanks very much !
    
    		todd
    

CADSYS::COOPER 
    
    
	Ok, but....

>    But intuition may also be the result of bad reasoning and emotion, and
>    since we cannot examine how an intuitive concept is reached it is
>    difficult to avoid these errors.  Intuition frequently seems to be
>    telling us how things are, when it is actually telling us how we want
>    them to be, how we fear they might be, or how something similar was
>    even though that is irrelevant in this case.

     Ok Topher but... how can this be?  I mean... if 'intuition' implies
     that things actually work out *as expected*... then what's the
     difference between "how things are" and "how we want them to be" or 
     "fear them to be"?   I mean.. what difference does it make what generates 
     that expectation?  I'm having a lot of trouble explaining this... 
     Trying again... I mean... how do you know that fear or desire or
    something similar isn't just another vehicle for intuition? And if the
    results are the same... then what difference does it make anyway?
    

    Let's say that someone is telling us something that, it true, would
    require us to seriously re-examine some of our fundamental assumptions.
    Being human, we would then subconsciously (and possibly consciously)
    *want* them to be wrong.  Our intuition would then very likely say
    that they *are* wrong, regardless of the truth of what they are saying.
    If what they are saying is true, and we listen only to our intuition --
    and reject what they are saying out of hand -- then we will miss an
    opportunity to grow and to learn.

    Of course another situation is that someone is telling us something,
    which seems unflawed to our conscious mind.  But we have this nagging
    fear -- an intuition -- that there is something very wrong with it.  In
    fact, our subconscious *has* found something wrong with what they are
    saying.  If we ignore that fear -- for example, attribute it to some
    petty, inappropriate association, such as our feelings about the person
    telling us -- then we will be accepting something which is not true and
    will set up blocks to learning and growing.

    What's the solution?  There is no easy one.  No one promised you a
    magic guide (or at least no one should have).  You do your best to
    figure out why you feel a certain way, and failing that, you try to
    judge on the basis of past experience how much reliance to put into the
    specific intuition.  Most important is that you do not deny your
    intuition -- listen to it for what it will teach you whether it is
    right or wrong about the specific situation.

				    Topher

    Yes.. I see what you mean now.

    For discussion purposes, Webster's II says:
    intuition - n. - 1.a. The act or faculty of knowing without the use of
    rational processes: immediate cognition. 1.b. Knowledge acquired by the
    use of this faculty. 2. Acute insight.
    
    I read with interest Topher's discussion of the conscious and unconscious
    mind. I have recently been listening to some tapes by M. Scott Peck
    wherein he speaks at some length about this very subject. Paraphrasing
    Peck, he says that the unconscious mind is truthful and basically has no
    reason not to be. When something or someone challenges our world view,
    then it is the conscious mind which strives to reject the new data and
    likewise suppress the unconscious. This theory makes more sense to me
    than the Freudian view that the unconscious tries to suppress the
    conscious.
    
    As for intuition, I don't have an opinion about where it emanates from.
    I don't consider myself to be very intuitive. The few times I have
    trusted my intuition and acted on it, however have been quite fruitful.
    Perhaps I only remember the times I was right. 8^) I can think of a few
    instances though where I thought plainly that "this is intuition" and
    my intuition in those cases always panned out.
    
    Peace
    Karl

EDSBOX::STIPPICK 
    
    >When something or someone challenges our world view,
    >then it is the conscious mind which strives to reject the new data and
    >likewise suppress the unconscious. This theory makes more sense to me
    >than the Freudian view that the unconscious tries to suppress the
    >conscious.
    
    I agree, Karl.

    the concept of intuition comes clear too in the game of chess, many
    strong players for example look at a position and make the best move
    with little actual analysis at the conscious level, they use their past 
    experience and the feel to the current position and make a move that they 
    'feel' is good, a computer can spend millions of instructions to evaluate 
    every possible derivation from that position to say 10 moves ahead, only to
    come up with the same move as being the best one and which the human 
    made with few seconds looking at the board.

    i dont know if this is the same type of intuition mentioned in the last
    few notes, my intuition tells me it is probably the same ;-)

    /nasser

    I think so too, Nasser.

>    When something or someone challenges our world view,
>    then it is the conscious mind which strives to reject the new data and
>    likewise suppress the unconscious. This theory makes more sense to me
>    than the Freudian view that the unconscious tries to suppress the
>    conscious.
    
    I'm  not sure I follow this.  Maybe we are thinking of 'conscious mind'
    and 'unconscious mind' differently. 
    
    How would you interpret the phenomena of hysterical 
    blindness, given this viewpoint, Karl ?  The person does not see what
    is in front of them, though their sensory apparatus is working.  
    In fact, some reports say that they tend to bump into things *more* 
    frequently than someone who is truly blind, implying that they are
    perceiving the objects at some level, and acting on it (in a sense)
    but the visual experience never reaches awareness.
    
    In this example, the unconscious is suppressing the 'truth' that 
    there is something there to see.  They are not consciously rejecting
    something, they are 'unconsciously rejecting it.'   Or did I misinterpret
    your theory ?
    
    If there were actually such an organ as a conscious mind, this might
    be easier to talk about, but I think there isn't ... I feel it's just a 
    model of what influences there are on our behavior and experience that we 
    aren't aware of internally, and which ones are.
    
    So, (imo) the question of which of these imaginary conceptual 
    organs is actively working to suppress the other might even be meaningless.
    A lot of different kinds of processes seem to work together to create
    conscious and unconscious effects.
    
    In order to perceive something in the usual sense, there are 
    both unconscious and conscious processing going on.  A lot of filtering
    of what matches or doesn't match our cognitive worldview can take place
    *before* something ever becomes conscious, at at least during the
    process of something becoming conscious ... at least as I understand
    this.  
    
    							kind regards,
    								todd

    
    re: .27 (::MONTALVO)
    
    Yes, I think there is something like "inspiration of the mind."
    
    I use it a lot.  Whenever I want to write some music or poetry
    I will often begin with some completely dry, theoretical idea.
    The other day I had a basic seed of a musical idea based on 
    theory.  I finally got my guitar, sat down, and worked out the
    chords based on the theory, and found I could make the theory
    "work".  In the end, it still seemed that the final product was
    something greater than the numbers game.  I couldn't have pre-
    dicted the feeling that the music gave me, or the way in which
    it seemed to expand my awareness of certain theoretical elements.
    
    Certainly, finding the chords that made the theory "work" were
    selected by a rather subjective judgement based most likely on 
    past experience of recorded music....
    
    Does the fact that I started with something "rational" mean that
    my creation is inherently dry and uninspired?  I doubt it....
    
    
    guy

Hi Todd. I am not exactly a psychological researcher so I will speak from my own
experience and take an occasional flyer out into the wild blue yonder of theories.
In the instance you describe, why would the unconscious suppress video to the
conscious? I don't associate acts of will with the unconscious but rather the
conscious mind. Blindness in this case is the symptom of the conscious trying
desperately to suppress the unconscious. That is my wild eyed guess anyway.

I am not sure if I quite follow your further comments about the concept of a
conscious and unconscious mind. In one instance you seem to acknowledge that
there is such a thing and in another you seem to refute that. Perhaps the
distinction between brain and mind should be made here. IMO the mind is not an
organ at all. A computer dweeb like me would really like to boil the concept
down to something like "the mind is the program which runs in the brain", but I
have come to believe that it is in fact much more than just a bio-algorithm of
our personal experiences. I won't say much more except that I am fascinated by
the mystery.

Peace
Karl

    There is currently a discussion in the Philosophy conference about
    a book on one idea about the nature of the mind.  Central to this
    is the idea of *many* parallel mental processes.  Thus, the idea of
    A conscious mind and A subconscious mind may not be correct.
    
    		*		*		*
    
    I can't become blind using *my* conscious mind, nor do I know of
    anyone else who can do it.  (Other than taking off my glasses, of
    course.)  So I find it easier to beleive that this is a subconscious
    process than a conscious one.
    
    						Ann B.

    
    re: .47, Karl S.,
    	Aha, I think I've figured out the difference.  For the sake of
    	discussion, let's call the function of consciousness that "decides 
    	what should be conscious" so to speak, the executive.  You interpreted
    	the Freudian model as having an executive module in the
    	'unconscious' that represses experience, and you've challenged that by 
    	saying that the 'conscious' is actually where this executive module 
    	resides, and decides what we should and should not be aware of.
    	Is that right ?
    
    re: .48, Ann,
    	I was thinking of it the same way, until the above thought hit me.
    	If I understand his view, I think Karl would say that, for example, 
    	the awareness of body sensation in hypnotic anaesthesia, or the
    	visual awareness in hysterical blindness is 'chosen' by the 
    	person consciously, that they are consciously_suppressing_the 
    	sensation in a sense.  That the 'conscious mind' trips a
    	gate that prevents further sensation from reaching awareness
    	(and in the case of hysterical blindness, also suppresses the
    	memory of having tripped that gate).
    
    	Dennett (referring back to the Philosophy discussion) uses the
    	colorful terminology of 'Stalinesque' (from Stalin) revision to describe
    	apparently editing perception before it reaches our awareness
    	(reference to putting on a grand spectacle that provides an
    	illusion for propaganda purposes).
    
    	He uses the term 'Orwellian' (from Orwell) to describe memory
    	revisions after the fact.  [He concludes that the two are
    	indistinguishable in his final theory].
    
    	So, for example, we might pose the question
    	of whether the blindness results from our editing the
    	visual experience before it is presented to awareness, 
    	or  seeing and then 'forgetting' that we were aware, and also 
    	forgetting that we decided somehow not to see.  
    
    	If there were a switch in a 'conscious mind' that decided not
    	to see things, this would (probably) fall under Orwellian revision,
    	since we would see and then forget that we saw, and forget that
    	we had decided not to see.  This would appear to be closer to
    	Karl's interpretation.
    
    	If there were a switch in an 'unconscious mind,' that decided not
    	to provide visual awareness, then we would have more 'Stalinesque'
    	revision of experience before it happened.  This would seem closer
    	to Karl's interpretation of Freudian theory of the unconscious.
    
    	Dennett firmly rejects the extremely intuitive notion of a single 
    	executive module in the brain or in the mind.  I don't know how much 
    	of his theory is 'right' but it certainly addresses a lot of the 
    	perceptual quirks that most other theories basically wave their hands 
    	at or leave to outright mysticism.
    	
    	Sorry this got so long.  
    
    							kind regards,
    
    							todd

    Todd,
    
    Since your conceptualization of what constitutes a `conscious mind'
    differs markedly from mine, I certainly have no intention of telling
    you whether or not your concept matches Karl's!
    
    							Ann B.

    re: .50, Ann,
    	Oh, I'm sorry, I wasn't asking you to compare the concepts, I was
    	just elaborating on what I thought they were and wondering
    	if you had similar thoughts or an interest in discussing it,
    	since you had apparently noticed the discussion in the other
    	conference.  
    
    	Well, this *is* the topic for ultra-rationalists to talk to 
    	themselves, after all.  ;-)
    
    							todd