In fact the chair the mind sees is quite often a low fidelity rendition of
the chair - with by far most sense data discarded along the way, especially
if it is on the periphery of the mind's current focus. The "chair", in the
mind, is rendered only as well as it need be in order for the mind to
experience it's 3d frame of reference and the world aligned around it in a
manner with the best evolutionary fitness. The chair the mind "sees" is
subject to the mind's current needs and the chair's relative centrality with
respect to those shifting priorities. The mind is a most masterful
reification engine. 

Because the mind is so involved in constructing the "chair" or at least our
perception of it - in any given moment  -- and is involved at every step
along the way of rendition, it must have a pretty vast inventory of "chair"
models  (and all the underlying abstract modeling such as edge rendering,
shape skinning/coloring etc. that are required in order to render the chair)
in its repertoire. And the chair we see is always the indirect rendition
presented to us by our minds; our minds are always manufacturing the reality
we perceive. Try to set the mind aside; it is harder than it sounds. The
mind is always filtering our experienced reality as actual reality impinges
on us and interacts with our own inner selves to generate our own individual
perception. or esthetic.

Thus a vision of the chair should be able to be generated in a subject's
mind by a proper stimulation of critical brain areas (obviously would need
to be a lot more fine grained than anything we can do with our current crude
tool set. and perhaps it is a good thing too -- IMO -- for re-writing
memory, opens all kind of scary Orwellian doors) 

-Chris

 

 

From: everything-list@googlegroups.com
[mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of meekerdb
Sent: Saturday, September 21, 2013 2:19 PM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: How PIP solves the hard problem of consciousness

 

On 9/21/2013 9:18 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:

No, memories I consider direct experiences, since they require only that we
are conscious. Indirect experiences would be experiences which we can only
detect using our body's sense organs. Indirect experiences are 3p, thus they
are bodies in space, direct experiences are 1p, so they can contain any
combination of imagined forms, thoughts, feelings, etc. 


That is not enough clear for me. I can't figure out what you mean by
indirect experience. I guess you mean experience (1p) occurring when you
think about a theory (like there is something on the other side of the
moon). That kind of things can mix a lot first and first person plural
aspects. 
Keep also in mind that 'bodies in space' are first person plural notion,
they are not 3p. 


No he means 'indirect' because you could experience the same vision by
having your optic nerve properly stimulated.  So when you 'see a chair' that
is indirect - it is an interpretation of what your optic nerve is doing.

Brent

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Reply via email to