Re: Unconscious Processes
- From: "Rick Craik" <craik2004@@personainternet.com>
- Date: Wed, 26 Oct 2005 16:21:58 -0400
"Glen M. Sizemore" <gmsizemore2@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:20051026123446.100$8F@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
> "Curt Welch" <curt@xxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> news:20051025175029.972$st@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> jbromer@xxxxxxx wrote:
[snip]
>>> and all too often, insight that would
>>> be helpful in understanding a situation can be suppressed based only on
>>> some initial response criteria that is itself largely unconscious. The
>>> other problem is that since there may be a large number of unconscious
>>> processes
>>
>> I think the "unconscious processes" are nothing more than inner workings
>> of the networks of neurons that, when working together, end up causing
>> more neurons to remain inactivate, and some small set, to become active
>> next.
Irrelavant neurons remain inactive, they need not be "caused"
(inhibited) to remain inactive, because of thresholds. Relevant neurons
may have timely inhibitors that delay activation, thus exhibitng timely
processes with respect to that which is called "largely unconscious".
>
> For the most part, "unconscious processes" are not processes at all - they
> are simply made up explanatory fictions.
>
[snip]
Rick
.
- References:
- Unconscious Processes
- From: jbromer
- Re: Unconscious Processes
- From: Curt Welch
- Unconscious Processes
- Prev by Date: Re: Jeff Hawkins Q&A
- Next by Date: Re: Jeff Hawkins Q&A
- Previous by thread: Re: Unconscious Processes
- Next by thread: Re: Unconscious Processes
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
