Re: Study shows brain can learn without really trying

From: Scott Chase (ecphoric@hotmail.com)
Date: Wed Nov 28 2001 - 23:59:01 GMT

  • Next message: Joe Dees: "Re: circular logic"

    Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id AAA19823 (8.6.9/5.3[ref pg@gmsl.co.uk] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk); Thu, 29 Nov 2001 00:04:01 GMT
    X-Originating-IP: [209.240.222.132]
    From: "Scott Chase" <ecphoric@hotmail.com>
    To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
    Subject: Re: Study shows brain can learn without really trying
    Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2001 18:59:01 -0500
    Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed
    Message-ID: <F208b6n5iR05hmeKYrZ0000e2b7@hotmail.com>
    X-OriginalArrivalTime: 28 Nov 2001 23:59:01.0446 (UTC) FILETIME=[A6DC1E60:01C17868]
    Sender: fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk
    Precedence: bulk
    Reply-To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
    

    >From: "Dace" <edace@earthlink.net>
    >Reply-To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
    >To: <memetics@mmu.ac.uk>
    >Subject: Re: Study shows brain can learn without really trying
    >Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2001 19:54:10 -0800
    >
    > > > It's in the human unconscious that memes thrive.
    > > >That's their breeding ground and hiding place.
    > > >
    > > >Though the mind, by itself, is unreflective, the human mind is indeed
    >built
    > > >up in the context of self-referential mentality. This is not the case
    >with
    > > >animals. While chimps, et al, carry a germ of mental awareness, it
    >doesn't
    > > >shape them in any profound way. "Subconscious" implies a mind that
    >forms
    > > >under the weight of mental self-existence, not one that forms naturally
    > > >according to standard, biological pathways.
    > > >
    > > >
    > > Isn't the supposed "unconscious" based on one of those privative
    >definitions
    > > at its root when all is said and done (ie- the *not*concious is merely
    >that
    > > vast collection beyond what is conscious, whatever that last term may
    >be)?
    > > OTOH subconscious is that below cosciousness, not that this adds any
    > > clarity. Either term winds up being a catch all. Defining consciousness
    > > clearly would be a feat enough, so contrasting that which is either not
    > > conscious or below conscousness would be extremely difficult. Would the
    >sky
    > > be the limit?
    >
    >The 20th century seems to have passed you right by.
    >
    >The important distinction is that consciousness is something that inheres
    >exclusively to the individual mind, while the unconscious is species-wide,
    >embracing all of us. It's the set of instincts according to which every
    >human mind operates. Occupying a kind of twilight zone is the subconscious
    >mind, which is individual despite being unconscious.
    >
    >Ted
    >
    >
    [sarcasm mode on]

    Thanks for the clarification.

    [sarcasm mode off]

    _________________________________________________________________
    Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp

    ===============================================================
    This was distributed via the memetics list associated with the
    Journal of Memetics - Evolutionary Models of Information Transmission
    For information about the journal and the list (e.g. unsubscribing)
    see: http://www.cpm.mmu.ac.uk/jom-emit



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Nov 29 2001 - 00:10:34 GMT