Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!das-news2.harvard.edu!news2.near.net!howland.reston.ans.net!math.ohio-state.edu!jussieu.fr!univ-lyon1.fr!swidir.switch.ch!news.unige.ch!usenet
From: sylvere@divsun.unige.ch (Silvere Martin-Michiellot)
Subject: Re: What makes up consciousness?
Message-ID: <1995Feb21.121835.6992@news.unige.ch>
Sender: usenet@news.unige.ch
Reply-To: sylvere@divsun.unige.ch
Organization: University of Geneva, Switzerland
References: <3h3efr$4nl@tdc.dircon.co.uk>
Date: Tue, 21 Feb 1995 12:18:35 GMT
Lines: 67


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:
>>In article H5x@netcom.com, kovsky@netcom.com (Bob Kovsky) writes:
>[my stuff deleted ...]
>>>
>>>	The experience is not easily described and any attempt sounds 
>>>rather gooey:  "be here now" etc.  There is consciousness, but there is 
>>>detachment from objects of consciousness.   I am aware and am aware that 
>>>I could attach my consciousness to objects, but it is much nicer not to.  
>>>Percepts are there floating around, I just don't attach to them.  
>>>Eventually, however, the detachment disappears and I do attach.  (I 
>>>usually attach to "plans," such as things to be done that day.)
>>>
>>
>>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.
>>The idea is in fact near from you surely do (I think...).
>>I think he has found a way to explain that.
>>The idea is to leave all your personal feelings (like the "plans" of the 
>>day) and speech you always carry on. You finally become aware and peacefull 
>>but totally unable to demonstrate theorems (or any other strong cognitive 
>>activity) while doing so.
>>
>>Of course his books are not what we would call scientific. but who cares.
>>
>>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.
>
>This points out that different states of awareness are keyed by the
>activity of your attention -- the _manner_ in which your attention hops
>around defines a _space_ of awareness.
>
>-- 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.

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

-----------------

"Is anyone alive down there ?"


Silvere MARTIN-MICHIELLOT


