The views are not mine. Antonio Damasio who has described cases where brain 
trauma  shows the necessary interrelationships of both feeling/emotion and 
reason  Others have also discussed the issue, Oliver Sack.  Semir Zeki, among 
them. 
WC 


--- On Tue, 9/30/08, GEOFF CREALOCK <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> From: GEOFF CREALOCK <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: Re: Consciousness Assayed
> To: [email protected]
> Date: Tuesday, September 30, 2008, 4:44 PM
> I agree with most of what William wrote/opined in his last
> post.
> I understand the feeling/reasoning function a little
> differently. 
> Logic/reasoning and feeling are present in our thinkng. At
> times the 
> proportion of one may approach zero ("Snakes in a
> Pllane" or recalling a 
> phone number). That they occur together does not imply that
> each requires 
> the other.
> Geoff C
> 
> 
> >From: William Conger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >Reply-To: [email protected]
> >To: [email protected]
> >Subject: Re: Consciousness Assayed
> >Date: Tue, 30 Sep 2008 13:33:13 -0700 (PDT)
> >
> >With respect to definition, If consciousness is nothing
> except living then 
> >it is nothing at all.
> >
> >It's rather quaint to speak of pure consciousness,
> brute consciousness and  
> >sure consciousness.  We can't blame Peirce for that
> because he had to work 
> >in the dark regarding how the brain functions. 
> Nowadays, the Cartesian 
> >mind-body split that relies on the division of reason
> from emotion or 
> >emotion from imagination is largely put aside, except
> in religious beliefs 
> >that assert a spirit world or life after death of the
> body (like Peirce). 
> >But Peirce did seem to see necessary interlinking among
> his three types of 
> >consciousness.
> >
> >So far, the biologists can't say what consciousness
> is, or if it is, in 
> >material terms. Yet we assume it is a functioning of
> our awareness, 
> >somehow. Neurologists now claim , based on clinical
> evidence, a unity of 
> >feeling and reasoning where one can't function
> without the other.
> >
> >This unity of mental processes (in continual loopback
> rather than linear 
> >activity) does echo Peirce at least in suggesting he
> was on to something 
> >modern.
> >
> >I do think Peirce came too soon.  If he were working
> today, with the 
> >benefits of new technologies and clinical options,
> he'd probably be a major 
> >contributor in both science and philosophy.
> >WC
> >
> >
> >--- On Tue, 9/30/08, Frances Kelly
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > > From: Frances Kelly
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > Subject: Consciousness Assayed
> > > To: "Aesthetics List"
> <[email protected]>
> > > Date: Tuesday, September 30, 2008, 1:49 PM
> > > Frances to list members...
> > > Below is my roughly edited version as culled from
> Peircean
> > > written passages of what Peircean consciousness
> is
> > > purported to
> > > be. It would be interesting to see if Peirce is
> correct,
> > > and how
> > > his theory stands up now in the face of recent
> findings and
> > > studies in fields currently dealing with
> consciousness.
> > > ------
> > > Consciousness is simply living, and in live
> organisms this
> > > state
> > > entails being variously unconscious or
> subconscious or
> > > preconscious or conscious. It is a quasi mental
> action for
> > > many
> > > nonhuman organisms or a mental action of the
> psychical
> > > psyche for
> > > most humans, but it will vary by degree depending
> on the
> > > kind of
> > > organism having it or the sort of organism
> bearing it.
> > > Consciousness by definition, and for it to be
> structurally
> > > consistent with the phenomenal categories under
> the general
> > > philosophy of realist pragmatism, is a trident
> that
> > > involves
> > > feeling and reacting and knowing.
> > >
> > > Feeling is pure consciousness, and is that trait
> of
> > > consciousness
> > > which may entail say a fleeting instance of time
> as a
> > > passively
> > > felt quality, without any recognition or analysis
> of what
> > > seems
> > > to be on the part of the living host.
> > >
> > > Reacting is brute consciousness, and is an
> interruption
> > > into the
> > > field of consciousness where there occurs a sense
> of
> > > insistence
> > > toward the resistance of an external fact, such
> as engaging
> > > another thing of matter or life like illness with
> the goal
> > > of
> > > perhaps a cure. The consequence of reaction is
> behavioral
> > > habits
> > > of conduct like a display or gesture or deed.
> > >
> > > Knowing is sure consciousness, and is a synthetic
> > > consciousness
> > > that tends to bind qualities and facts like time
> and space
> > > together with an awareness of sensing and willing
> and
> > > thinking
> > > and finally of learning about phenomena.
> > >
> > > Consciousness in the world of phenomena
> originally emerges
> > > in
> > > organisms as continuant things or representamena
> that are
> > > not yet
> > > existent objects or signs. It is a case of the
> self solely
> > > alone
> > > representing the self by the self to the self for
> the self
> > > as the
> > > self. As a qualitative state of representation,
> it is
> > > fundamentally iconic in essence and substance and
> presence.
> > > It is
> > > hence logically senseless and without any logical

Reply via email to