Brent, do you (or the authors) really think Ccness - as we use the term - a (deeply) HUMAN (or 'thinking' animal?) phenomenon? Are we so special? I came to believe that 'everything' (list, or not) is a wider connectivity than what we call 'living' (you may include plants as well) and is phenomena of the complexity total we call "Nature" (or: existence). If we take such wider stance, my speculations arrived at a complex interconnectedness based upon 'relations' all over. (No specifics what to call a relation - or how to respond to them). Those relations interplay with whatever 'happens' with/out our knowledge. I do not find it the ultimate (highest) format of Nature when we humans THINK. Granted: we have no indication to go further than such. HUMAN Ccness a 'subchapter"?
On Fri, Mar 6, 2015 at 8:06 PM, meekerdb <[email protected]> wrote: > > > *The attention schema theory satisfies two problems of understanding > consciousness, said Aaron Schurger, a senior researcher of cognitive > neuroscience at the Brain Mind Institute at the École Polytechnique > Fédérale de Lausanne in Switzerland who received his doctorate from > Princeton in 2009. The "easy" problem relates to correlating brain activity > with the presence and absence of consciousness, he said. The "hard" problem > has been to determine how consciousness comes about in the first place. > Essentially all existing theories of consciousness have addressed only the > easy problem. Graziano shows that the solution to the hard problem might be > that the brain describes some of the information that it is actively > processing as conscious because that is a useful description of its own > process of attention, Schurger said.* > > *"Michael's theory explains the connection between attention and > consciousness in a very elegant and compelling way," Schurger said.* > > *"His theory is the first theory that I know of to take both the easy and > the hard problems head on," he said. "That is a gaping hole in all other > modern theories, and it is deftly plugged by Michael's theory. Even if you > think his theory is wrong, his theory reminds us that any theory that > avoids the hard problem has almost certainly missed the mark, because a > plausible solution — his theory — exists that does not appeal to magic or > mysterious, as-yet-unexplained phenomena."* > > Read the rest: > > > http://www.princeton.edu/main/news/archive/S38/91/90C37/index.xml?section=featured > > 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 [email protected]. > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. > Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. > -- 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 [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
