Well, perhaps I can add even more nonconstructive text to the thread. I
frequently "delight in how alike we are", and on top of that, I even delight
in how alike we are to all other mammals. Note that I snipped text here and
there, and it's not my intention to attack people on trivialities that seem
important after snipping. Anyway, my replies are stuffed in the text below.
> >Subject: Consciousness through the integration of disparate brain
structures
> From: Damian
>> Sometime in the past two years I read an article discussing a theory as to
how
> the brain integrates the senses, memory and thought processes into what we
> describe as consciousness.<
Try Daniel C. Dennett if you haven't already.
> For me the consciousnesses are the I s, so not all the senses nor the long
term
> memory systems, etc.
>> But as this is a room full of atrocious crimes against persons of related
> kinds, I do not wish to discuss the position of I systems in my brain
neither
> here nor anywhere in the net.
Well, I've read similar statements by you on earlier occasions, and I'm
still amazed by your patience with us criminals. This is not the first time
you tried to engage in a discussion saying we criminals are not to be
reasoned with. But tell me of your own I's. To me it seems that you push the
problem of consciousness backwards. I may of course be wrong. I (like you,
as you told us) am not a very good reader, and that is especially true for
those long posts you like to write. Could you (in less than 10 sentences)
explain to me what your theory is and what hypotheses it spawns?
> > The mechanism described was a section of the brain that emits, what was
> described as, a pulse at a consistent interval.<
>> Which section
> & what pulse?
>> >That pulse essentially polls the various structures and somehow combines
the
> information.<
>> So far I cannot say that I follow you.
I certainly don't hope that I will find myself agreeing with you, but I'm
not really following him either. It seems like a computer analogy so far,
and I'm not really in favor of comparing the mind with the newest invention
man has made (steam-engine, telephone switchboard and now computer).
> My own I gets informations or requests informations, but I did not notice
any
> pulse in that.
Please, don't tell me that your own-I theory is based upon introspection?
That would be most disappointing.
> More to do with different systems.
>> I might be off daydreaming or something, and if the sequencer, that is the
> intelligence that supervises the motoric sequences, and because I am MBD
we can
> be rather segregated at times, gets stuck, then I might be sort of like
linked,
> but it can take me a while to get external informations and find out where
we
> are and what is up there, and what is it this time that the sequencer got
stuck
> with (usually modern actions, that seem to much for it's rather limited
> intelligence / guess the biopograms there are just not adapted for that)
...
> and how to solve that problem, whatever it was that the sequencer got
stuck
> with. (Keys, for example. I still find it amazing how long I could live in
a
> place and still find it poking with the wrong key in the door. Seems to
discern
> keys there better is not in it's natural capacities much ... not that I
tracked
> it much, but I believe partially it got better.)
>> Anyway, not following internally what pulse you mean there.
This seems rather vague. I understand there you suffer from some minimal
brain damage syndrome. In what way do you use that term? Do you mean ADHD or
is there really some tissue damage you are aware of? Anyway, this brain
damage affected something you call a sequencer? The intelligence that
supervises motor control? Something like the premotor cortex? How does it
get stuck? Is this a computer analogy? And then you are discussing some kind
of dissociation. How does that relate to your motor control?
> Source sector?
>> >I have been unable to chase down the article and I am not sure as to
whether
> it was an article in a science journal, newspaper science section or a
book
> review.
>> Any help?<
>> Sorry, no.
>> (Was answering while reading.Bad habit maybe, but I am a slow reader and
it saves me reading it again to
> answer.)
>> Acid
I'm looking forward to your answer, and I hope you can keep it brief.
Filip