Posted on 12/07/2002 9:46:51 AM PST by beckett
Sorry, that's a very bad typo : ) but not without irony.
I'm afraid that the more we learn about the hardware of the brain, the more it looks like software. I am particulary concerned by the digital computer metaphore being applied to the brain. This has been the standard model as long as I've been alive (and that's a pretty long time. I first read a discussion of the 12 billion vacuum tubes(!) necessary to emulate the brain back in 1957)
I would bet my life that this is a dead end street. It has led to endless and futile discussions of where the software is and where the memory is. The best we can say is that the software and memory are embodied in the interconnections of neurons -- a far more complex kind of computing than anything ever realized in electronics.
I would have to argue that until we can understand what we can see, we should refrain from inventing things and processes that we can't see. In short, we should not put dragons on the map in places we haven't explored.
But we are talking about the ability to see things that aren't there. This "ability" can be quite effectual--even successful by certain standards--because that "ability" has consequences that are actually preferred. That "ability" is not nothing.
I certainly agree with your statements and the example given. Art, architecture, science and more - see things that are not there... yet.
I would also add, that the effort to envision can effect outcome - for good or ill. We can become physically ill by dark imaginings or conversely, rise above our circumstance by the power of positive thinking.
Of course, fancy substituted for reality could look like Columbine.
For as he thinketh in his heart, so [is] he... - Proverbs 23:7
Yes, very important is the distinction between fancy and imagination (illustrated by the excerpt about Joyce above). That disctinction is not always kept, or even held with the same words. I am aware that Voegelin uses the term "imaginative oblivion." which is that particular skill to dream away which has been there all along. js1138 mentions the ability to "refrain from inventing things and processes that we can't see"; the other skill is the ability to deny existence to things we cannot see. That is a mistake that perhaps Kant could have disabused us of, but didn't.
Thank you for your response, A-G.
I once had a very high quality tape recorder of the type used by movie-makers for on-location recording. I was testing it by recording ambient noise in my Army barracks. While recording, someone walked up the stairs and entered the room.
Months later I was looking for a music tape and accidently put this test recording on. While wearing headphones of the type that cancel out all outside noise, I heard this person walk up the stairs and enter the room. For a couple of seconds I saw and heard this person in full detail and motion. It was absolutely convincing.
There are similar stories of people "playing back" events during brain surgery.
This phenomenon has been known for decades, but is still not understood. I assume, however, that it has a physical basis.
I suspect there are a lot of lurkers following this discussion, who might greatly appreciate a short definition of terms and bio of philosophers. Do you have something handy you could share?
There have also been a number of instances in near death experiences where the survivor can recount events which occurred while the brain was dead, from perspectives other than where his own body was at the time.
Of course, in an entirely materialistic epistemology these are explained away as biochemical phenomenon combined with wishful thinking. That however does not constitute a good hypothesis because the same phenomenon is experienced by children with NDEs.
On the big thread we exhaustively discussed the difference between materialist and physicalist. Personally, I am very glad we have Roger Penrose and others like him - because it requires an open mind to explore beyond the known body of physical laws. The materialist cannot "go there" because in his worldview "the physical realm is all that there is."
Fascinating. Let me share my own bizarre "seeing what isn't there" experience.
Years ago, at the end of a fairly normal dream, I had a "mini-nightmare" in which a wasp was flying at my face, hovering right before my eyes. Within the dream I of course tried to jerk my head back violently and, as often happens in such cases, I started awake.
I say "awake," because I could see my bedroom with my peripheral vision and was aware that I had just been dreaming. But there's a hitch. In the center of my visual field, a close-up of the dream wasp still hovered, buzzing its wings and twitching its legs. I wouldn't be surprised if the area it subtended corresponds with the visual field of the macular region of the retina.
I sat there like that for a couple of seconds--awake, aware of my surroundings, and watching a dream wasp in the middle of my field of vision--until the illusion broke up and was replaced with the expected normal view of the room.
I was calmly expecting this to happen before it did. I guess I realized that I didn't figure to be stuck looking at dream input in the middle of my visual field all day. (Now that would be something to call in sick with.)
That is precisely where we part ways. I would prefer to stretch the concepts of materialistic and biochemical. We have encountered no brick walls in researching the physical aspects of the mind, even though the problems are enormously difficult. So why insert dragons on the unexplored portions of the map?
It may be that the recognition involved in the first is not as habitual as the recognition of the second, at least nowadays. However, habits can be beneficial when they are good.
Our experience of illusion also has a follow-up: that after recognizing "it was just a dream" we pretend to have seen all. The wise man who refrains from that error is typically depicted--you guessed it--as blind.
I remain curious why people attach reality to phenomena which can be conjured up by physical and chemical manipulation of the brain. This approach closes off curiosity and avenues of research.
I am an longtime fan of Leonard Cohen. In fact, sometimes when I'm asked what I do for a living I say I'm a Bird on a Wire.
On those occasions when I am not a bird on a wire, I am, you guessed it, a drunk in a midnight choir.
Projection, (which, I think, is jargon particular to educational psychology) is then again this ability of ours to fancy or imagine, for good or ill (although I suspect that projection, nowadays, is supposed to be bad). OTH, the unknown is not particular to the one or the other. It applies to both. And so the path of exploration always deals with the unknown. Our recognition from this is that the human mind sees very little. Why is this important? Our limited knowledge always suspends what we do see, projected or not.
I can often remember my dreams as well, but they tend to be frustratingly incoherent meanders in which huge jumps of setting and cast go unnoticed at the time. It appears that elements from my grab-bag of memories are being mixed almost randomly. Sometimes there's a "theme." A common one is frustration. I just remembered that I have to get somewhere, but I can't get going. Or I'm looking for something--my car in many cases--and of course can't find it. Others are anxiety and regret over past choices.
I've also often realized at the time that I'm dreaming. That's not the normal case, although there's so little continuity of narrative, space, or time in my dreams that when I wake up I'm usually amazed that my dream character didn't spot it.
I have torn everyone who reached out to me
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.