New Technology Opening Old Doors To Theories of the Mind

Twyvel

Compassioately laughing out loud after reading your response----I was with you all the way to the last sentence but there you completely lost me-----could you please tell me what you meant "perzactly" by your last sentence.

perception
Perception, what "last sentence" of Twyvel, about whether or not something can exist if it is not being perceived? That reminds one of Bishop Berkeley's old conundrum of the sound of a falling tree in a forest where there is noone present to hear it. Bertram Russell in a discussion of "appearance and reality" noted that if we look at a table completely concealed by a table cloth, yet still see the shape of the table, BUT WITHOUT ACTUALLY SEEING IT, we have evidence that something can exist without being seeing. Amazing that so sophisticated a philosopher as Russell should assume (IF I understand him correctly) that the unperceived table (under the cloth) would still have the "as yet unperceived appearance" that a perceived table has, as opposed to being only some kind of substratum collection of spinning atoms that, when looked at by creatures with our sort of eyes, gives the impression of tableness. Notice, also, that there must be present OUR KIND OF EYES (not to mention brain/mind with the cultural conditioning that includes the concept of table, otherwise we might "see" a senseless epiphenomenon of atoms as does a congenitally blind person seeing for the first time, and not able to see any sensible "thing"--only a whirl of colors and shapes.
Someone once asked if a man can be wrong in a forest if his wife is not there to hear him.

could perceived reality be process rather than product?

mind
I don't know; let me ask my wife.

She says that, as Nietzsche argued, all there is in the universe is process. A truly accurate language would consist only of verbs and adverbs. But that's not the way we think or perceive the world (we do, of course, see not only with our eyes but with our minds as well). All that exists is "becoming" as opposed to "being" (according to Nietzsche, and Jaspers and other existentialists), but that's not the way we think. We must freeze the process into discrete "beings" (i.e., things, even processes are seen as discrete quasi things). We think in terms of qualities, quantities, etc. of things rather than vital processes. We take the world of processes like the processes underlying concrete trees and convert them into classes of abstract objects called "trees" with "tree-ness". These are abstractions (or "metaphors") by which we grasp the world. It's really a delusional process, even a useful falsification of reality, i.e., it's conversion into static abstract fictions in a cognitive process that reflects our (neurological) nature. If you don't agree, she says, take it up with Nietzsche.

mind
I don't know; let me ask my wife.

She says that, as Nietzsche argued, all there is in the universe is process. A truly accurate language would consist only of verbs and adverbs. But that's not the way we think or perceive the world (we do, of course, see not only with our eyes but with our minds as well). All that exists is "becoming" as opposed to "being" (according to Nietzsche, and Jaspers and other existentialists), but that's not the way we think. We must freeze the process into discrete "beings" (i.e., things, even processes are seen as discrete quasi things). We think in terms of qualities, quantities, etc. of things rather than vital processes. We take the world of processes like the processes underlying concrete trees and convert them into classes of abstract objects called "trees" with "tree-ness". These are abstractions (or "metaphors") by which we grasp the world. It's really a delusional process, even a useful falsification of reality, i.e., it's conversion into static abstract fictions in a cognitive process that reflects our (neurological) nature. If you don't agree, she says, take it up with Nietzsche.

as i sit back in my chair, i shall lift my feet onto what i perceive as a foot stool, and it works. but its still a perceived reality.

reality
You got it, dys. It IS a foot stool for all practical purposes. But it's not a "foot stool" in an ABSOLUTE metaphysical*sense, only in the RELATIVE sense of its relation to you and your mind/culture.

* please keep in mind that I do not use "metaphysical" in the New Age sense of the word.

"* please keep in mind that I do not use "metaphysical" in the New Age sense of the word."
whew i would have lost it if that be the case

let's agree to assume that we're talking about reality for now and leave out the falling tree in the forest.....let's start with the premise, limit ourselves to this for this discussion.........can we agree on this?

JL

Just to clarify, my question was about the last sentence to his post on page 6 at 1:15 PM talking about eastern mysticism and American pragmatism. It wasn't really important ---- just left me sort of scratching my head.

I agree totally about "being there to perceive it" at least I think that's what I mean.

Lola

Thanks for trying to get this back on track.

I want to go back to perception's question a few pages back.


I'm going to record a quotation from an article........I wish I could do more than this, but for now, it's all I have time for......so here it is.....It's from an article (perception I've quoted this article before on Abuzz, but not this part) it's from "Cognitive Neuroscience, Conflict and Compromise, in JAPA (The Journal of the American Psychoanalytic Association), 50/1, Winter, 2002, p. 78 and pp. 80 and 81. The article is written by Drew Westen, a Research Associate Professor, Department of Psychology and Director, Adolescent and Adult Personality Programs, Center for Anxiety and Related Disorders, Boston University. And Glen Gabbard, Training and Supervising Analyst, Houston/Galveston Psychoanalytic Institute, and Professor of Psychiatry, Baylor College of Medicine.

"Psychoanalysis has wrestled for years with the nature of conscious and unconscious representations and the interaction of affect and cognition. Unfortunately, cognitive psychologists have for the most part failed to take advantage of the fact that someone has been on this terrain before." p. 76 And the problem with this is that there has been a failure to distinguish between modes of thought.

On page 80, I'll move to the distinction between conscious and unconscious activation.

"Cognitive researchers often speak of activation without indicating whether they are referring to conscious or unconscious activation. Behind this use of the term is an implicit assumption that conscious activation is on a continuum with unconscious activation, such that the more activation spreads to a representation, the more likely it is to become conscious. Yet this assumption makes little sense from either a psychodynamic or a strictly cognitive perspective. From a dynamic perspective, a representation can be at a high state of activation, and hence influence thought, feeling and behavior, but be completely inaccessible to consciousness because it is threatening. From a cognitive perspective, many processes, (e.g. procedural memories, processes that lead to understanding of grammar) can be highly active but inaccessible to consciousness.

It is probably more accurate to propose that conscious and unconscious activation are distinct phenomena, with unconscious activation necessary but not sufficient for conscious activation. Multiple representations are simultaneously activated at any given time outside of awareness.................

........The distinction between conscious and unconscious activation maps roughly onto anterior (prefrontal) versus posterior cortical activity. When people perceive or represent information in their minds outside of conscious awareness (as when an interaction with the analyst primes a network of association related to an experience from childhood that nonetheless remains unconscious), posterior regions of the brain in the occipital, temporal, and parietal cortex are activated, depending on the nature of the representation. (If the representations are affectively significant, they likely activate limbic regions such as the amygdala.) If the person consciously deliberates on the thought or image, areas of the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex are also activated."

Does this help answer your question, perception?

Lola

Thanks for clearing that up---obviously the use of sub-conscious has been discarded or never actually used and unconscious is "the" word. I was struck by the authors repeated use of "representations" outside of awareness. I had many times come to realize the existence of these happenings in the cognitive sense but when he talked about it in the dynamic sense, it was very educational. However you won't have to worry about any competition from me trying to be a psychoanalyst.

I do think however that I have actually done what the author talked about in the dynamic sense ----- this was done while trying to recall certain events during my childhood that caused certain other events. By placing (what he called a representation) and what I call a series of thoughts about some easily remembered events, it triggered memories of other events and then more memories. Do you consider what I have just said a correct analogy?

His comments about mapping various activities in different portions of the brain are obviously the result of micro imaging and focuses attention on the giant strides being made in neuroscience that benefits cognitive psychology.

Lola

We experience consciousness as being located in the brain, but why? I think it's because that's where we are aware of thinking and internal dialogue; consciousness is attached to its object. And because of that we have an awareness of being "in here" and the world as being "out there", we create a "duality", apparently where there is none.

Even though we locate consciousness as being in the brain there is in fact no location in the brain where consciousness is, that is, experientially. In terms of mental consciousness, consciousness is just somewhere in there observing these thoughts and images. The thing about consciousness is that it isn't "embodied" in anything; there's always a distance between the subject as consciousness and what it is aware of.

Personally I don't think consciousness is in the brain. I think it is the other way around; the brain is in consciousness. Consciousness uses the brain as a tool or mechanism to work through.

Diane

Consciousness might be all there is, as some sages have said. I agree with you about quantum theory and Zen although I'm not science oriented at all.

If things have to be perceived to exist then how does that affect our understanding of the causal world? I have never perceived my brain, do I have one? Do I need a brain? I suspect if someone had a look they would find one, but does what they perceive have anything to do with me?

Consciousness is an ontological issue, i.e. "Who or what is this " I"

just to add to my and possibly others confusion, there seems to be a cultural relativity regarding the conscious-unconscious continium.

JlNobody

Re: cause and effect may only come into existence upon perception.

Perhaps its poor wording, but it's related to the idea that the perceiver is the perceived. If it's true doesn't that radically effect our understanding of causation, and indeed our understanding of this entire manifestation?



I don't know what effect it would have if you bumped into a cause.

Hey JL---I just realized after going back and reading----it was your last sentence on page six that left me scratching my head---sorry for the mixup.

Lola, the article you posted was very helpful in my understanding of conscious and unconscious activation. I look forward to further conversation on the subject and I'm also interested to read your answer to perception's question.

Dyslexia, thank you so much for adding to my confusion along with yours. It's always nice to have company. I wonder if brain imaging has been done on cultures which have a much closer relationship between their conscious and unconscious, such as the Australian aborigines who have a closeness with the spirit world--or to a world that they perceive but which isn't there in the 'real' sense.

Lola has kindly reined us back to the original subject which is important for this complex thread, but if you or twyvel would like to start another thread, I would be happy to join both of you as we all companionably lose our minds on a walkabout through quantum theory and the concept of zen as related to perception. I will be going on a trip that I had to postpone for a few days, but I should be able to check in tomorrow night for a liitle while.

mind
Twyvel, Yes, consciousness is attached to its object. If my memory serves me the phenomenologists say that perception is "intended"(intentional). I believe they mean by this that perception or consciousness is necessarily "directed" to objects. As you say, this leads to the "in here"--"out there" bifurcation of experience and maintenance of "ego" in the mystics' (not psychoanalytic) sense of one who is separated and surrounded by the world. Your frame of reference is very subtle: I don't know if I should be your follower or have you locked up.
What last sentence, perception? My apology for digressing". I know that I (and Twyvel) have introduced a different topic to this thread. I will try to restrain myself. Twyvel, we should start up a different thread and leave the shrinks to themselves.

Give me hard science any day. It's something I can hold onto. And I always appreciate a sense of accomplishment. If it's not real or only an illusion, I don't care. It describes a world I can feel and touch, experience, and respond to and that's preferable to me to something unknown and unknowable out there somewhere. It's simply a personal preference. So I prefer to stay within these boundaries for this discussion. I hope some will stay to discuss the topic at hand.