Re: Study shows brain can learn without really trying

From: Scott Chase (
Date: Fri Nov 30 2001 - 04:05:02 GMT

  • Next message: Joe Dees: "Re: the hook"

    Received: by id EAA23080 (8.6.9/5.3[ref] for from; Fri, 30 Nov 2001 04:10:00 GMT
    X-Originating-IP: []
    From: "Scott Chase" <>
    Subject: Re: Study shows brain can learn without really trying
    Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2001 23:05:02 -0500
    Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed
    Message-ID: <>
    X-OriginalArrivalTime: 30 Nov 2001 04:05:03.0308 (UTC) FILETIME=[300740C0:01C17954]
    Precedence: bulk

    >From: "Dace" <>
    >To: <>
    >Subject: Re: Study shows brain can learn without really trying
    >Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2001 22:34:11 -0800
    > > <The 20th century seems to have passed you right by.
    > >
    > > > The important distinction is that consciousness is something that
    > > > exclusively to the individual mind, while the unconscious is
    > > > embracing all of us. It's the set of instincts according to which
    > > > human mind operates. Occupying a kind of twilight zone is the
    > > > subconscious
    > > > mind, which is individual despite being unconscious.>
    > > >
    > > I don't know which 20th Century you lived in. I assume you're
    > > referring to the idea here of the collective unconscious? Not a very
    > > proposition outside of pro-Jungian psychoanalytical circles.
    >I'll admit my take is Jungian, but the reality of the unconscious,
    >collective or individual, is part and parcel of 20th century enlightenment,
    >every bit as fundamental as E=mc[]'d.
    > > Breathing is unconscious behaviour- our brain is regulating it
    > > making sure we do it, but we are not conscious of that process. But it
    > > an individual thing. I do not breath because my species tells me to
    >Yes, you do. Breathing is universal to the species. It's a part of us
    >follows from our species-identity as opposed to our individuality. Whether
    >the binding agent is morphic or genetic, we are defined collectively.
    >The funny thing is that the subject heading of this thread stems from an
    >article discussing the importance of the unconscious in learning.
    Is UNconscious any better a privative term than INvertebrate, which vaguely
    refers to that which is *not* a vertebrate? At least with the latter we
    actually know what a backbone is, where...ummm...what is consciousness to
    contrast it with the "un"-conscious?

    Aren't both catch-all terms? Are you stuck in the 19th century?

    Did Jung get Nietzsche (coiner of *das Es*...appropriated by Freud) correct
    in his _Zarathustra_ lectures? How much of psychoanalytical thought is
    indebted to Nietzsche (and Schopenhauer, von Hartmann, and Carus for that

    Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at

    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 : Fri Nov 30 2001 - 04:16:08 GMT