Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id EAA12164 (8.6.9/5.3[ref email@example.com] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from firstname.lastname@example.org); Mon, 26 Nov 2001 04:23:11 GMT X-Originating-IP: [22.214.171.124] From: "Scott Chase" <email@example.com> To: firstname.lastname@example.org Subject: Re: Study shows brain can learn without really trying Date: Sun, 25 Nov 2001 23:18:08 -0500 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: <F556TXL4kvv4bU1Oe7Z00016ec0@hotmail.com> X-OriginalArrivalTime: 26 Nov 2001 04:18:08.0971 (UTC) FILETIME=[5AAAE9B0:01C17631] Sender: email@example.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: firstname.lastname@example.org
>From: "Dace" <email@example.com>
>Subject: Re: Study shows brain can learn without really trying
>Date: Sun, 25 Nov 2001 17:58:22 -0800
>Hi Dace, Vincent,
>The following haunted me for a few days,
>Outside the context of
> > self-referential mentality, there can't be any self-propagating ideas.
>I don 't know, but the first thought I had about this sentence was, and
>what about the " subconsciousness " !? Are we pretty sure that it has a
>self- referentality structure !? Are we pretty sure that there are no
>self- propagating ideas in the subconscient levels of our minds !?
>Quite the opposite. 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?
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)
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Nov 26 2001 - 04:34:38 GMT