--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Hugo" <fintlewoodle...@...> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <jstein@> wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Hugo" <fintlewoodlewix@> wrote: > > > > > > > > And where is all that stored in your brain? Where did > > > > the "data" of the experiences come from? > > > > > > I'd say it was invented in the same way that the dreaming > > > mind conjurs up all sorts of fantastic stuff. > > > > See, that's where I just get boggled. I see stuff in > > my dreams that I've *never* seen before, either "live" > > or in photos or drawings, haven't read about, etc. > > Plenty of what I see *is* familiar, but some of it > > simply ain't. > > Hmmm, depends what you mean by "never" I get stuff > that's wild but hasn't ever happened (I hope) but > it's still feasible in a monster-ish or sci-fi way. > The acid halucinations are also stuff from the world > but in ways you wouldn't think of, just a kind of > spontaneous modern art. Like I was sitting in a > church once and looked up at the beams of light shining > through the rafters and saw a troop of gorillas sitting > as they do when resting in trees, just the mind making > more out of shadows that was there but a striking image. > > What do can you see that hasn't existed before? It's all > made up of concepts of various things, unless your mind is > truly out there!
Well, I don't have a particularly "out there" mind, I don't think. Most of the examples I can recall offhand are architectural. I have several recurring dreams, each set of dreams having a common theme and common type of architectural setting, but each individual dream takes place in a different structure radically unlike any I've ever been in. Some sets take place in realistic structures, some in shockingly impossible ones, all highly detailed. None of the details, as far as I can tell, are like anything I've ever seen in real life. I guess if an architect had such dreams, you could make a case that he was creating structures from his imagination in his dreams just as he does in real life, except without any limitations. But I'm not an architect, and in real life I'm not creative in the sense of coming up with brand-new stuff. (Symbolically, I strongly suspect the buildings in these recurring dreams represent my mind, my subjective state, in which I'm wandering around exploring with some dim purpose, or trying more or less successfully to get from one place to another.) > > (On the other hand...I just learned yesterday something > > I'd never heard, although apparently it's been public > > knowledge for awhile--that Francis Crick came up with > > the double helix while high on LSD. For some reason > > I get a huge kick out of that.) > > I always thought that he had dreamed about two mating > snakes entwined. Are you thinking of Kekule intuiting the structure of the benzene ring? He claimed to have had a vision of a snake eating its own tail while daydreaming. Or maybe Crick did say he'd dreamed it because he didn't want it known that he used LSD. It didn't come out that he had until after he died. Either one underlines the point that the > conscious mind isn't what does any of the actual thinking, > that's all done deep down, the aware part of us just forms > an outline of the problem. But where does the data come from that the deep-down part of the mind is using? I don't see how the brain can *create* data de novo. <snip> > > > Did I say it's our brains that control it? > > > > Yes, you did--see quote above, "because it's our brains > > that control it"! > > I know, I was kidding. A case of not thinking before typing. Got it. > > No more than > > > windows vista is controlled by the chip in this computer, > > > it allows it happen but doesn't know or care whether it > > > does or not. > > > > So where does that leave us? > > Not being able to trust our own instinctive opinions > about what happens in our minds I guess, which could be > worrying but most people just ignore it - if they ever > given it any thought that is. Why is the thought that we can't trust our instinctive opinions about what happens in our minds so trustworthy? I have the sense that this approach just circles back and bites itself in the butt. > > > Gut feeling is a bad thing to go on as we are too good at > > > kidding ourselves. > > > > Your analogy to Windows Vista sorta breaks down here, > > doesn't it? (Assuming the OS is functioning properly, > > that is.) > > I don't see the analogy breaking down but our OS can, the > two interact more in the human body than in the computer. > We have the feedback system of the fight/flight response > for instance so we can be scared of things that aren't real > and it'll be the same as if they were. > > If you don't take the analogy that far and think of some- > thing like the TM explanation of mental activity, it doesn't > have any actual parallel in the mind but we accept it as a > good explanation regardless. It's a software option that > thinks it knows how the machine that supports it functions > but doesn't really and it doesn't affect *how* the machine > runs because it's job is just - in the case of consciousness > - to allow the creation of metaphors and patterns out of > those metaphors, which is what all our thoughts are. > > The job of science here is to let us know which of the maps > we create corresponds to what's actually happening. I'm very dubious that we can make a definitive distinction between creating patterns out of metaphors, on the one hand, and knowing what's "actually happening," on the other. How do we know our notions of what's actually happening aren't really just more of those same metaphors and patterns? There's no such thing as pure information--there's always an interpretation involved, always some pattern-making. I think > it's coming along well, that Horizon doc I posted from > youtube yesterday had some fascinating things in it, > I'd watch it if you get the chance. OK, thanks, I'll try to get to it. Heh. Just to throw a spanner into the works: http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=gut-second-brain This piece has a link to a SciAm Mind article about intuition ("gut feeling"), which unfortunately costs $7.95 to read beyond the very intriguing first two paragraphs...I'm tempted, but I'll probably refrain.
