John Page

Sure. We think we know what we're doing. Blindsight experiments show we don't have complete conscious awareness/control. Do we have any conscious control, or is that an illusion? Maybe we're just a Cartesian audience.
I think the same process of "delegating" a learned task could be posited for blindsight and the examples you mention. This would explain how non-reflexive, non-instinctive, behavior patterns are acquired.

Thanks for the link, going there now..

Cheers, John

John Page

Hi Sammi!

I think the vector analogy is flawed, although it provides an analogy to discuss what is going on. The reason I think its flawed is that something would have to control the vectoring. An alternative analogy is interrupt selection where the "non-conscious subsystems" raise alerts when anomalous situations are encountered (its hot, there's a car coming toward me etc.). To filter these interrupts it would seem that a prioritization mechanism would select what is exposed for conscious attention.

Cheers, John

Vesica

Not to completely muddle the discussion but wouldn't discussions of split-brain experiments be relevant here as well??

In my understanding they are exploring the same prociple but take it further with 'knowing' being limited by the means of communication....

John Page

Yes, I get the impression that odd behavior resulting from split-brain patients first highlighted the phenomena/concept of blindsight.

Subsequent experiments, such as the one in the link I gave at the beginning of this thread have shown that blindsight behavior is not peculiar to split-brains.

Cheers, John

Vesica

It seems I muddled myself!

I took a look at your link and see that the site is defining 'blindsight' much more broadly than I was thinking....

I was taking a cognitive psyhcological approach where blindsight is a phenomena found only in indivuals who are perceptually blind, or who 'see' with the eyes, relay that info to the brain where it becomes muddled and they can't see...

But it is the same underlying idea....

In fully sensed(?) people, perception of approximate speed and distance is a great example!

We do complex math unconciously and measure angles to make the pronouncement that 'There is a large object moving quickly towards me' yet many of us CAN NOT do the actual math, even when coached what do.

Excellent question...Are we only our conciousness?...Are we all of it?...Do we get to claim credit/ownership/rulership of those things we are never aware of??

I feel like: If there is one of me in here, two of me, or none of me and ME is a pathetic illusion.....We all seem to like this debate!

John Page

Isn't this "anthropomorphism of the mind", i.e. assuming that our unconscious is like a separate human being. I agree with your point though; I think we're smarter than we think we are. (But as you say - who are we....)

Should we invent idomorphism to illustrate situations where we presume there is a conscious self in another (sentient?) being. So, for example, the subconsious by definition would not have an id. Maybe it does, though, and there's a phsycic life of savages going on within in us that we have no access to. I'm in two minds about this.

Cheers, John

Vesica

I had gotten the impression from Frued's work that the subconcious was the id...that it occassionally broke through into awareness...

I wasn't trying to illustrate an "anthropomorphism of the mind" per se....I was trying to raise that issue....Do we get to count things we can not do consciously as 'us'...I identify 4 kinds of 'stuff' our minds do:

1) Stuff we are aware of and control
2) Stuff we are usually unaware of but can control
3) Stuff we are usually unaware of and can't control
4) And stuff we are completly unaware of (though some of this like blindsight has been brought to awareness by science)

Are we allowed to claim all of that as 'us'? Of course this turns it into yet another mind/body debate AAHHH!

tronvillain

Vesuca:
Ah, but we don't do complex math unconsciously and measure angles to make such pronouncements. Oh, the complex parallel network that is our brain has a process that approximates the products of such activities, but the actual math has nothing to do with it.

John Page

Thanks, yes, how about egomorphism?

As to your other point, I think the extent of "self" would come down to a battle of definitions. Perhaps its what you naturally controls (as opposed to via a machine, but hwat about a prosthetic device AAAHHHHH)

Cheers, John

phaedrus

John

Sure. We think we know what we're doing. Blindsight experiments show we don't have complete conscious awareness/control. Do we have any conscious control, or is that an illusion? Maybe we're just a Cartesian audience.

While it is all upto how we define things, apart from the patients, i would say we dont have "complete awareness/control". While delegating certain tasks in my mind, i would still be able to come up with a sufficient response to any out-of-the-routine stimuli while performing these tasks without fully concentraing on these tasks. Because eventhough these are back-of-the mind tasks i am still tracking them with or without full awareness.

It is like a player in any team sport having a perceputal map of the ground and players, sometimes it results in some astounding passes or shots (depending upon the type of game). Now if you ask me - do we have conscious control, as far as my knowledge goes, yes, we do have consious control, if you are planning to call it an illusion, then obviously the term "magic" or "supernatural" gets into the picture.

Cartesian audience?? Subject/object distinction serves well to simplify things, but phenomenology or hermeneutics is a better approach to study our lives and the world. May descartes RIP.