> [Krimel] > When we have an experience, we are essentially filtering in certain > stimuli from the environment. Something is lost right at the moment of > sensation since our senses only respond to a certain range of input > everything outside of that range is killed. Once we have a sensation and > we try to assimilate it into our conceptual schema those parts of it that > don't fit are either killed or held in abeyance waiting to pile up enough > incongruity to force our schema to accommodate to new data. >
[John] I have some vague recollection of an understanding that a lot of what we ignore gets into our brains anyway. You can access it with hypnosis, for instance. And the thought came to me as I was reading your analysis, that maybe this information that we ignore contributes to the unconscious realization of Quality we can't consciously define, but somehow intuitively "feel". An interesting idea. [Krimel] I chalk this one up as an urban legend. It's kind of like the claim that we only use 10 percent of our brains. Just doesn't make sense. Just so you won't think I am just talking out of my ass here. These are a could of clips that illustrate how bad we are at constructing memory or even relying on our perceptions: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p1aEqBaK3aM http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=53VKinwC2Zc > More Krimel} > So yes when we divide the world into parts something is killed. When we do > it well, what is killed s specifically and intentionally a bunch of stuff > that doesn't matter at the moment. It is true that sometimes what we elect > to ignore or what we are unable to perceive turn out to be important. If > that's the case we will discover it soon enough and no about of wandering > about aimlessly looking for it in advance is going to help. {John] I think that is a very good point you make about "aimlessly looking for it in advance". The implication to me is the value of unfocused meditation - something I usually have a hard time getting excited about but by your explanation, starts to make some sense. And then, you go even go further with explaining emotions in mammals which really perked up my ears because of the dialogue I've been enjoying with [Krimel] There is a phenomena that occurs when people think really, really hard about a problem and can solve it. Then they go to sleep or take a vacation and the answer just comes to them. Here are a couple of examples: http://xnet.kp.org/permanentejournal/summer06/otto.html http://www.bellaonline.com/articles/art19119.asp [John] Rationality is dependent upon emotions which are dependent upon breasts. It might be technically reductionist, if you took it that way, but it's also extremely enlightening with the proper synthesis/analysis/different modalities approach. [Krimel] I believe some of this goes back at least to David Hume who claimed that "reason is slave to the passions". http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/hume-moral/ [John] Well hopefully Dave can help you out there. I am more impressed with your contribution than critical. [Krimel] I am afraid Dave has backed himself into a corner and just doesn't know where to turn or how to run away. But thanks! Moq_Discuss mailing list Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org Archives: http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
