Yes Justin, amnesia is an interesting and integral aspect of our 'being'. I think it was about a year and a half ago that we watched the following TED video here on Mind's Eye. It is quite enlightening!
"Jill Bolte Taylor got a research opportunity few brain scientists would wish for: She had a massive stroke, and watched as her brain functions -- motion, speech, self-awareness -- shut down one by one. An astonishing story." http://www.ted.com/talks/jill_bolte_taylor_s_powerful_stroke_of_insight.html On Sep 6, 1:12 pm, Justintruth <[email protected]> wrote: > If you are interested in memory I would suggest trying to gain access > to someone who has amnesia. I recently had that experience. A friend > of mine had temporary amnesia. > > It was AMAZING! > > She went into a kind of loop that lasted only a few minutes if that. > She asked the same thing and I gave the same answers. We went over and > over it for over an hour. I adjusted the "litany" to minimize her > anxiety but it was incredible. She did at times seem like a machine! > But then she was a dear friend and the only thing that kept me ok and > kept me trying to convince her that she would be ok was the doctor's > assurance that it was almost certainly temporary and she would be ok > in a few days. > > Anyway it truly is amazing the role memory plays. I talked to and OT > and it turns out that if the amnesia is permanent it is one of the > most debilitating problems. > > On Sep 5, 11:29 am, archytas <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > That most of our knowledge is in memory at any particular time is a > > given. What is perhaps surprising, however, is the degree to which > > even our current conscious knowledge typically depends on memory. > > Look at the sky and come to believe that the sunset is beautiful. This > > is a newly formed belief about an event currently taking place (not I > > can assure you round here - we haven't seen the sky for some time). > > The justification of a current event is no doubt dependent on other > > beliefs that you hold. For example, if you didn't at least tacitly > > believe that you were looking west or that it is evening and not > > morning, the belief wouldn't be justified (I assume that the > > phenomenology of sunsets and sunrises is indistinguishable). Now I am > > not, however, supposing that all knowledge of the external world is > > inferential. Your belief that the sky is red might well be > > epistemically basic. Nor am I insisting that your sunset belief is > > psychologically inferential. My only claim here is that many > > relatively simple beliefs we form about the external world typically > > depend for their justification on background beliefs; and background > > beliefs are memory beliefs. Virtually all of what we know (or are > > justified in believing) at any given time resides in memory. > > > Theories of consciousness are generally: > > Metaphysical theories of consciousness - either - > > Dualist theories or > > Physicalist theories. > > There are many variants of these. > > > There are a number of specific theories of consciousness I am aware > > of, generally - > > Higher-order theories > > Representational theories > > Cognitive theories > > Neural theories > > Quantum theories > > Nonphysical theories. > > > I am yet to spot any practical work in this field that might help us > > move on as a society. Davies, M. and Humphreys, G. 1993. > > Consciousness: Psychological and Philosophical Essays. Oxford: > > Blackwell might help if you want the punishment! > > > What currently interests me is memory and why we have so little > > justified knowing consciously involved in the current consciousness of > > a decision (or at least its rationalisation). You could get the drift > > from this: > > > Me: Why are we at war in Afghanistan Prime Minister? > > PM: To keep the streets of London safe my boy. > > Me: I'm older than you, you patronising dirt bag, but leaving that > > aside, it makes no sense to me to go an kill Afghans to keep the > > streets of London safe. > > PM: This is my profound judgement on the matter. > > Me: When I am profound I can usually demonstrate my evidence to > > others, why can't you? > > PM: You have to trust me. Matters of national security are involved. > > Me: As when we and the French got the Israelis to invade Egypt so we > > could take over the whole middle east in a policing action in 1956 you > > mean? Or as in the secret war we fought in Indonesia for 20 years? > > Or as in pretending Iraq was full of WMDs? Or as in bumping off one > > of our own scientists? Or as in the way you have set up all kinds of > > bodies to find the positive and shut out real criticism across the > > board? If we are winning this war why are we now blowing up our > > precious helicopters so regularly? > > PM: You should be proud to be British. Afghanistan was responsible > > for 9/11. > > Me: They were mostly Saudi. > > > It would go on and on. What is this consciousness they can control? > > > On 5 Sep, 15:50, archytas <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > The ultimate sum of the universe is often held to be zero. One also > > > has the statistical zero of the vacuum hinting at massive energies > > > 'elsewhere'. I share Justin's reservations about Dennet. In the > > > detail of phenomenology (something most of us could get into) there is > > > attention to 'the things themselves' (and in marxism too - > > > methodologically). Science is phenomenological in my view, yet very > > > few scientists are aware of the detailed explanations of what they > > > do. One can do a lot of poking about as a technician without ever > > > understanding what any of it means beyond the monthly pay cheque > > > continuing to arrive. The old arguments are whether what we call > > > consciousness is an emergent property of enough complexity in the > > > organisation we call life, or sneaks in from another world (however we > > > want to put this). Physics has lots of stuff being borrowed and lent > > > to 'other worlds' these days. > > > > On 5 Sep, 14:48, Justintruth <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > These experiments lend a lot of experimental support to > > > > > > consciousness being primarily chemical and electrical. > > > > > Actually they do not. > > > > > They just lend a lot of experimental support to consciousness being > > > > manipulate-able through chemical and electrical manipulation of ones > > > > brain. > > > > > But we already knew that. All it takes is to ingest a beer (or two), > > > > or -and I am not an advocate- ingest some LSD, and you will know. But > > > > even without the mind altering chemicals you need only understand the > > > > laws of perspective and observe the fact that the point of view of > > > > your consciousness is from your body. A little anatomy and you have > > > > the role of the brain. This was known for a long time. Look at the > > > > anatomy of the senses all of them tied by little wire-like structures > > > > called nerves with signals on them the interruption of which > > > > terminates the conscious experience of the connected transducing > > > > sensor. Otherwise why wouldn't we believe that destroying ones eye > > > > would cause deafness instead of blindness. > > > > > None of that is even one shred of evidence for your mind being your > > > > body... or, if you prefer to use that language... and say that your > > > > mind is your body ... then you must be willing to reform the current > > > > meaning of the phrase "your body" and therefore the meaning in physics > > > > of matter ultimately needs to be reformed to include consciousness > > > > unless you agree that "your body" is not material. Something has to > > > > give somewhere. Either your mind is not your body, or your mind is > > > > your body. If your mind is your body then either your body is physical > > > > (made of matter) or it is not. If it is made of matter and your mind > > > > is your body then matter is conscious and the laws of physics need to > > > > incorporate that into their descriptions. Otherwise, if your body is > > > > not solely material but your mind is still your body then there is > > > > something non-material in your body that is your mind. Or else you can > > > > say your mind is not your body and your body is material which is the > > > > current method I think. > > > > > Consciousness cannot properly be described as a "property" of matter > > > > as it is not something essential but has an existential role for the > > > > one who is conscious. It appears to be associated with specific > > > > structural arrangements of matter and not the individual components > > > > and dependent on the movement of the mechanism as well as its shape. > > > > However, neurology has not yet nailed down the specifics completely > > > > but is making fast progress. It will be very interesting when > > > > neurology leads to technology and will be a major ethical challenge. > > > > > What we know is that the arrangement of matter in the form of a > > > > neurology results in reports of consciousness from others and an > > > > experience of our own consciousness. This can be deduced from very > > > > simple evidence independent of modern neurology which is currently > > > > engaged in flushing out the details of the relationship. > > > > > No doubt we will eventually understand the specific correlations and > > > > what produces our own experience of Being and being conscious meaning > > > > what the specific arrangements are and how they are tied to detailed > > > > phenomenological descriptions of experience. This was what Husserl > > > > wanted to do about hundred years ago. It will take a little more time > > > > for the likes of Dennet to catch up. > > > > > Perhaps then, we can even get a read on some of the problems like > > > > Synchronicity and get a serious look at it scientifically. Perhaps > > > > not. I suspect that our current world view will be very nearly > > > > completely eliminated by the progress and the surety with which the > > > > simple assumptions of our current thought are held will one day be > > > > seen as, if not an unexplainable superstition or ignorance, like we > > > > consider those who killed in Greece over arguments about whether the > > > > number 0 existed, or else as a kind of arrogance that was prevalent in > > > > history. > > > > > Hell, the truth is Dennet is a provacateur not a philosopher. When you > > > > look in detail at his position it evaporates and he is not at all > > > > saying what he causes his audiences to believe that he is saying. > > > > Check out Searle. Again, like Dennet he is > > ... > > read more »- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups ""Minds Eye"" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/minds-eye?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
