Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id FAA03125 (8.6.9/5.3[ref email@example.com] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from firstname.lastname@example.org); Tue, 9 Apr 2002 05:15:51 +0100 X-Originating-IP: [126.96.36.199] From: "Grant Callaghan" <email@example.com> To: firstname.lastname@example.org Subject: Re: memetics-digest V1 #1011 Date: Mon, 08 Apr 2002 21:09:37 -0700 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: <LAW2-F35xqDCZx4FR0r000064e6@hotmail.com> X-OriginalArrivalTime: 09 Apr 2002 04:09:38.0174 (UTC) FILETIME=[5D8FF9E0:01C1DF7C] Sender: email@example.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: firstname.lastname@example.org
>On Monday, April 8, 2002, at 10:37 , Grant Callaghan wrote:
>>What you are calling seeing, I believe, is perceptions that we pay
>>attention to. The ones we are "conscious" of.
>Nope, just the opposite.
>>Any sudden change in my environment can trigger a refocusing of my
>And should. Survival mechanism.
>>We simply choose to ignore one signal in order to pay more attention to
>No, 'we' don't do any such thing. Our perceptual systems do all of that
>for us, without our knowledge. 'We' are not our senses.
>>Perception does not take place in the absence of [categorization].
>Here's the nit. Of course it does. The stimulus _has_ to precede the
>response. The perception _has_ to precede any analyzation. The flood of
>input is constant. Now, granted, the perceptual systems as a processing
>of this stimulus ignore things that have been determined, through
>evolution and through experience, as okay to ignore. And, that sudden
>change is not okay to ignore.
>Letting this flood of input stream in without control is what I'm
>talking about- allowing it all to be 'sudden change'- because that is
>one of the roots of the creative act, removing the filters, for however
>brief a time (and it _has_ to be brief), to allow for a new focus, a new
>stream of process, for what is seen, so commonly and usually so blindly,
>right in front of us.
>Sight, perception, and then thought. And only the thought stage is ever
>a conscious process, and it doesn't have to be. When they are all one,
P.S. I think I see where the problem lies. I think seeing is a process and
you think it is only part of the process. Blind sight is a good
illustration of where you went wrong (in my estimation). PBS did a show on
brain damage recently and one story concerned a man who had that portion of
his brain damaged which handles the categorizing process. He was unable to
see things, but he was able to point to what he could not see. His mind was
aware of it but "he" couldn't "see" it. His brain damage interupted the
process. someone stuck a finger in his mind's eye.
MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos:
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)
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Apr 09 2002 - 05:32:21 BST