There is no Stream of Consciousness

Discussion in 'Human Science' started by whatsherface, Jul 28, 2002.

  1. whatsherface imaginary entity Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    136
    "Throughout history there have been people who say it is all illusion. I think they may be right. But if they are right what could this mean? If you just say "It's all an illusion" this gets you nowhere - except that a whole lot of other questions appear. Why should we all be victims of an illusion, instead of seeing things the way they really are? What sort of illusion is it anyway? Why is it like that and not some other way? Is it possible to see through the illusion? And if so what happens next."

    From Dr Susan Blackmore.

    I like this. There is not only insufficient evidence to suggest that our own senses can be trusted, but rather overwhelming evidence that they cannot.

    How is it that we seem to be designed to want to test anything? If we knew that our senses were adequate measures we would never have developed anything like a scientific method to check? Why do we bother if we aren't going to want to know what we find out?

    "How do we know that we know what we think that we know?" ("Russberg")
     
    Last edited: Jul 28, 2002
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Merlijn curious cat Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,014
    Thanks for the interesting link.
    But... I don't understand your reply to the paper. What does it have to do with the subject of Blackmore's work?
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. whatsherface imaginary entity Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    136
    Only that our own brains are designed to deceive us, yet we seem to have an inbuilt ability too to 'see around it'?
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Merlijn curious cat Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,014
    did you even care to read the article?
     
  8. whatsherface imaginary entity Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    136
    :/ Obviously, or i would not have posted it. Did you? Why did you bother to comment at all?
     
  9. Merlijn curious cat Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,014
    Because I have a masters degree in cognitive psychology, with a specialization in philosophy of mind.
    that's why.
     
  10. Adam §Þ@ç€ MØnk€¥ Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,415
    I think it's fair to say Merlijn knows this psychology stuff fairly well.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  11. whatsherface imaginary entity Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    136
    What has he published? I think it safer to say Blackmore is better known in the industry?
     
  12. Merlijn curious cat Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,014
    Whatsherface
    The fun part is, that when I post in the math & physics dept. people are always willing to listen taking my posts serious. But when I post here, often I get those childish remarks as those from you.
    I haven't even finished my Bachelor's in mathematics, but I got a master's in psychology PLUS 1,5 years of scientific research experience!
    How is that for strange?

    Ofcourse I don't have the kind of reputation etc. of Blackmore.
    But since you asked for it: here we go.....

    Here is a paper of me, it was for a graduate course in Human Machine Interaction at the "Vrije" University Amsterdam- it's not published in a journal, but I got 90% for it (and I did not put it on the inernet myself):
    Cockpit Display Design and Earospace Safety This paper resulted in an invitation of the US naval airforce to participate on a conference on (dis)orientation and spatial awareness (I could not go because of obligations at the university).

    I published a piece for the European Space Agency (a usability test for the ISS project) that is classified, so can't give more details.

    here is one in an international journal:
    Acta Psychologica Vol. 106 (2001) pp. 121-145. (auth. Los, S.A., Knol, D.L. & Boers, R.M.)
    I can send you a reprint if you like

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    On the more philosophical side of psychology:
    Here is a unfinished paper on a subject related to Blackmore's work: On the Necessity of Representations in Perception-Action

    I never got the chance to properly finish this paper because the government thought philosophy is not important enough for funding.

    Now change your name to : whatsthelookonherface

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  13. c1earwater Registered Member

    Messages:
    25
    I agree with my dear cousin Merlijn that your (whatsherface's) comments don't seem to refer to the central gist of the article (but rather just to some of the sidelines), but his second post was uncalled for. Clearly you did read the article.

    I don't see though what him having published anything has to do with it. He never claimed that the ideas in the article were wrong.

    As for that article....

    It's very interesting indeed, and it makes a lot of sense to me. There is one thing though: Dr. Blackmore mentions "putting in a probe" and I can see what this does, but... How does it work? Who puts in the probe? Is it a "conscious effort"? Or is it triggered by some thing or event?

    Oh! The wonders of recursion.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  14. c1earwater Registered Member

    Messages:
    25
    Damn! You beat me to it

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    Have a nice holiday! Now it's time for Ally McBeal.
     
  15. Merlijn curious cat Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,014
    Hee hoi C1earwater, dear cousin, etc.
    The reason why I posted my "did you even care to read it" was because I was angry. I know it's unfair. But when it concearnes psychology (nearly) everybody thinks to be an expert, I think my thoughts were "oh ...here we go again". It just pisses me off.
    In fact some time ago, I nearly left the forums bacause of just that. SEE ATTACHEMENT

    BTW I think blackmore's article is fun, but not at all an eye-opener. nothing new there.

    BUT you're right C1earwater, I should apologize to whatsthelookonherface. I was out of line with my remark.

    edit: apologies.
     
    Last edited: Jul 30, 2002
  16. Merlijn curious cat Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,014
    thanks,
    I leave tomorrow. Will be walking in Scotland for a week. Be back the 7th/8th of august.
     
  17. Chagur .Seeker. Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,235
    Merlijn ...

    Read your paper, "Cockpit Display Design and Earospace Safety" with interest. Particualarly the segment dealing with "Spatialized Auditory Displays"

    A paper you might find interesting: Nelson, W. T., Hettinger, L. J., Cunningham, J. A., Brickman, B. J., Haas, M. W., McKinley, R. M. (1998). "The Effects of Localized Auditory Information on Visual Target Detection Performance Using a Helmet‑Mounted Display."

    Take care

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  18. Merlijn curious cat Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,014
    Thanks, I believe I read that paper. Mine was written in 1997, otherwise i would have used it.
     
  19. m0rl0ck Consume! Conform! Obey! Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    415
    I have no credientials

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    So my post will probably offer the more learned of you lots of clay pigeons so get your shotguns ready

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    I dont think there is one stream of conciousness, its a multilayer kind of thing with mundane ruductionist ego concoiusness at one end and a conciousness that includes everything at the other. The author seems to be primarily concerned with ego conciousness (actually she seems to me to be pointing at other level of conciousness without actually saying so or naming them

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    )
    The differences between levels of conciousness are the boundaries each level accepts.
    Ego conciousness works from the frame of the "little man in the head driving the body around like it was a vehicle" and is a story you tell yourself about yourself. The stream of self-referiential thought-feelings that is ego conciousness is about splitting the world into discrete bits to make it managable and to give the illusion of immortality.
    When its realised the body can die, the recourse is fleeing to the ego and splitting the world up into ego time, the smaller the time increments the better because that allows one to put death at a further distance. This might be the first fundamental split. After this one the others are easy. You can even split the ego further if theres something you need to deny (shadow, multiple personalitys). Not that im especially impugning the ego, there really nice to have, prevent one from stepping in fron of a bus

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    etc.
    Having made this split, the world becomes a series of fragmented bits instead of a whole and we realize weve lost something so, the intution of something lost leads us to measure, test and examine hoping to find it somehow in the shards.

    " How is it that we seem to be designed to want to test anything? If we knew that our senses were adequate measures we would never have developed anything like a scientific method to check? Why do we bother if we aren't going to want to know what we find out? "

    That the reason for the looking and the denial.


    My thinking has been heavily influnced by Ken Wilber and traditional buddhist psychology, in case you want to know where Im coming from.
     
    Last edited: Aug 12, 2002

Share This Page