On 05.04.2012 21:44 meekerdb said the following:
On 4/5/2012 11:49 AM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:

Display to whom? the homunculus?

No, he creates an interesting scheme to escape the homunculus:

p. 110. “(1) the unconscious brain constructs a display in a medium,
that of conscious perception, fundamentally different from its usual
medium of electrochemical activity in and between nerve cells;

Is it a physical medium, made of quarks and electrons? Is it an
immaterial soul stuff? Or is it just a placeholder name for a gap in the

It is just a placeholder. The modern science cannot explain the nature of that medium.

(2) it inspects the conscious constructed display;

Is the display conscious or the 'it' that's doing the inspection.

It is the unconscious brain.

(3) it uses the results of the display to change the working of its
usual electrochemical medium.”

Sounds like a soul or homunculus to me.

Here it again the unconscious brain. As I have written, 'consciousness display' just gives new possibilities to the unconscious brain to rule over all the servomechanisms.

Hence the unconscious brain does the job.

But the display is denoted 'conscious'? Is it not part of the brain?

It is an open question. For example Gray asks

“Might it be the case that, if one put a slice of V4 in a dish in this way, it could continue to sustain colour qualia? Functionalists have a clear answer to this question: no, because a slice of V4, disconnected from its normal visual inputs and motor outputs, cannot discharge the functions associated with the experience of colour. But, if we had a theory that started, not from function, but from brain tissue, maybe it would give a different answer. Alas, no such theory is to hand. Worse, even one had been proposed, there is no known way of detecting qualia in a brain slice!”.

No one knows. This is the state of the art.

I should say that this does not answer my personal inquiry on how I
perceive a three dimensional world, but this is another problem. In
his book, Jeffrey Gray offers quite a plausible scheme.

Doesn't sound anymore plausible than a conscious spirit.


When Gray considers would be explanations, he mentions dualism and panpsychism (for example quantum consciousness). Yet, he does not give an answer. His statement is that we do not have a theory of consciousness.

However, the phenomenon is there and he has shown how to research it in the lab.


You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
For more options, visit this group at 

Reply via email to