Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!rochester!cornell!travelers.mail.cornell.edu!news.kei.com!news.mathworks.com!newshost.marcam.com!charnel.ecst.csuchico.edu!csusac!csus.edu!netcom.com!departed
From: departed@netcom.com (just passing through)
Subject: Re: What makes up consciousness?
Message-ID: <departedD4F691.EI8@netcom.com>
Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest)
References: <3h3efr$4nl@tdc.dircon.co.uk> <1995Feb21.121835.6992@news.unige.ch>
Date: Wed, 22 Feb 1995 20:58:13 GMT
Lines: 59
Sender: departed@netcom15.netcom.com

In article <1995Feb21.121835.6992@news.unige.ch>,
Silvere Martin-Michiellot <sylvere@divsun.unige.ch> wrote:
>
>In article HML@netcom.com, departed@netcom.com (just passing through) writes:
>>In article <1995Feb15.135900.20008@news.unige.ch>,
>>Silvere Martin-Michiellot <sylvere@divsun.unige.ch> wrote:
[..deletia..]
>>>Have You read the book on Sorcery by Carlos Castaneda (sorry I don't know 
>>the english titles) ? 
>>>One of the things he proposes is to stop thinking, and to look at things 
>>>with only short glances.
[...deletia...]
>>>
>>>Silvere MARTIN-MICHIELLOT
>>
>>This is not so terribly unscientific, if it's an experiment you can
>>replicate.
>>
>>Anyhow, I find this interesting, because what you're doing there (with
>>the short glances etc) is essentially remodulating your attention.  Your
>>attention is going to follow the activity of your eyes to some extent
>>(as sort of conditioning around the fact that your attention drives the
>>activity of your eyes), so what you're doing there is asking your attention
>>to modulate in short bursts without focussing.
[...deletia...]
>>
>>-- Richard Wesson (departed@netcom.com)
>
>Whao..
>"remodulating your attention" is a so pure definition of what I painfully tried
>to describe that I should better shut my mouth off.
>
>It seems that the books I talked about would be even more interesting for you
>than I thought.
>READ THEM.

Heh ... I DID ... Castaneda is evidently quite experienced at playing with
his consciousness, although, like you, I'm rather doubtful of the reality of
many of the events he describes.  Still, his writings can hook into you at
some level -- you feel as if they _ought_ to be true -- I think this is an
intuitive recognition of a description of mind states you don't usually
enter when awake.

>By the way, are your reflexions motivated by personal or professional concern ?

I'm heading off to grad school pretty soon, so this is personal _and_
professional, I suppose ... I wonder if anyone will accept a thesis titled
'Machine Consciousness', or if I'll have to be sneaky;  seems as if most
places are working on more practical AI and most researchers are very leery
of 'thinking machines.'  Perhaps I should angle towards cognitive psychology
instead.

>"Is anyone alive down there ?"
>
>
>Silvere MARTIN-MICHIELLOT

-- Richard Wesson (departed@netcom.com)

