Re: Is there "an unconscious"?
- From: John M Price PhD <jmprice@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: 9 Sep 2005 03:01:53 GMT
Sorry about the mail. I did not edit the headers first. I try not to do
that.
Followup intercalated as usual.
In article <SPPM1050907235525-19046@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> from sci.psychology.psychotherapy.moderated Greg Alexander <galexand@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>John M Price PhD wrote:
>> Greg Alexander <galexand@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> >Tim McNamara wrote:
>> >> "Greg Alexander" <galexand@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> >> > So who perceives the reality and how? That's a big question with a
>> >> > simple answer that I find hard to get a grip on. Without going into
>> >> > detail, I think the key of how is the way we reconstruct the external
>> >> > perceptions, finding the patterns of connections and rearranging the
>> >> > flood of info into simpler interpretations of the environment, and
>> >> > where each of those interpretations is further broken down into
>> >> > constituent patterns, etc. A continual/recursively simpler system.
>> >>
>> >> But we're still stuck with someone or something having to perceive the
>> >> representations. If the representations are themselves perception,
>> >> then that is direct perception.
>>
>> >It's not a problem having something perceiving our representations, so
>> >long as that something is somewhat simpler than the original.
>>
>> Why does it need to be simpler?
>If you were to try to explain our perception as
>1) looking at a complicated picture of our environment,
>2) transforming it to make it more complex, and then
>3) looking at an even more complicated picture
>Then I find this a bigger problem than the original homonculous
>problem.
I have never seen that stated anywhere. Cite?
>However, I don't think you're saying that. Are you?
>You're just misunderstanding what I'm saying and jumping to a
>conclusion.
If you don't write clearly, then you are easily misunderstood. If you are
misunderstood, then I am operating on that understanding, not jumping to
any conclusions.
>The way we process all the information is incredibly complex. Your
>examples themselves are of simplifying the representations. Splitting a
>signal to send to different parts of the brain which work with that
>signal in different ways means each of that processing is no longer
>working on all the input, but has a less complicated task.
But you forget that following that, it is reintegrated. this is called
the binding problem. I still don't see how this is simpler.
It
>rearranges the information if is sent into something simpler (such as
>detecting the horizontal/vertical bars)
Bars are simpler than circles? Just where do you get this stuff?
and is then re-integrated with
>other signals (and is still enormously complex, but composed in a
>different way more suitable to our brain).
Yeah, read Hubbel & Weisel. Livingston on color blobs, as well. Very
interesting stuff. For the development, start with Sperry.
>There's nothing simple about how it's done. My definition of simpler is
>breaking up the wealth of information to be processed in different
>ways, to find simpler patterns, which are then reintegrated. And this
>is recursive too (simple recursive stuff can be incredibly complex in
>action).
The whole damn brain can be seen as more than a little bit recursive. We
see that in the downward flow of information from primary visual cortex to
the visual thalamic nuclei! It gets more so other places, too.
>> Greg, there really are pictures in the brain - you
>> just need to know science methods to evince them.
>Well, I have no doubt that there are representations of pictures in the
>brain.
See the Kosslyn text. Think maps as I noted. The retinae are mapped.
Even the claustrum has a retinal map, and last I looked, no one knew what
it was for. (BUt, its proximity to the inferotemporal cortex makes me
think more of perception, but that is just a wild assed guess. I should
look see if more work has been done.)
I just see no value in the homonculus proposition at all. My
>understanding of the brain also would have our internal representations
>intimately linked to our experience and existing representations.
I have never advocated the homunculus position.
>Greg
>ps. I don't know how much I can value your recommended readings when
>you recommend them based on your misunderstanding of my words. Have you
>considered asking a question of me when you're confused?
Nor, for that matter, have I ever considered myself confused by your
screed.
If you didn't mean what you wrote, you should have written something else.
Or have you actually read the Churchlands' (husband & wife) works,
Kosslyn, etc? If what you read is reflected in what you write, read them
again.
I think you have largish gaps in your understanding of this material, and
that is what is causing to put what you have in usenet. Not a bad thing,
necessarily, but expect to be pointed to places where the gaps can be
corrected.
(c) 2004. Copyright, John M. Price, PhD. All Rights Reserved.
Contents may not be republished in any form or medium without prior
written consent of the author with the express and only exception of
followup postings limited to and within usenet.
--
John M. Price, PhD jmprice@xxxxxxxxxx
Life: Chemistry, but with feeling! | PGP Key on request or FTP!
Email responses to my Usenet articles will be posted at my discretion.
Comoderator: sci.psychology.psychotherapy.moderated Atheist# 683
GEMINI (May 21 - June 20)
You are a quick and intelligent thinker. People like you
because you are bisexual. However, you are inclined to expect too much
for too little. This means you are cheap. Geminis are known for
committing incest.
'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`''`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`
sci.psychology.psychotherapy.moderated is a moderated newsgroup.
Before submitting an article, please read the guidelines which are posted
here bimonthly or the charter on the Web at http://psychcentral.com/sppm/
Submissions are acknowledged automatically.
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Is there "an unconscious"?
- From: Greg Alexander
- Re: Is there "an unconscious"?
- Prev by Date: Re: Is there "an unconscious"?
- Next by Date: Re: Is "I love you" appropriate in therapy?
- Previous by thread: Re: Is there "an unconscious"?
- Next by thread: Re: Is there "an unconscious"?
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
Loading
