Comments for thoughts on thoughts http://charbonniers.org A blog on consciousness by Janet Kwasniak Wed, 10 Mar 2010 13:25:43 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.2.1 Comment on Definitions of consciousness by Kikipotamus http://charbonniers.org/2010/02/11/definitions-of-consciousness/#comment-4990 Kikipotamus Wed, 24 Feb 2010 03:38:00 +0000 http://charbonniers.org/2010/02/11/definitions-of-consciousness/#comment-4990 <p>Thank you for this. I use the term differently depending on where I am and which sense of the word I need for the conversation. I use it one way when talking about Jungian concepts, and an entirely different way when in the company of my Buddhist meditation group. It gets confusing at times. Other words that shape shift are "ego," "mind" and "self."</p> JanetK: How true! Maybe I should do the same type of post on 'mind' and 'self'. Thank you for this. I use the term differently depending on where I am and which sense of the word I need for the conversation. I use it one way when talking about Jungian concepts, and an entirely different way when in the company of my Buddhist meditation group. It gets confusing at times. Other words that shape shift are “ego,” “mind” and “self.”

JanetK: How true! Maybe I should do the same type of post on ‘mind’ and ’self’.

]]> Comment on Definitions of consciousness by mariana http://charbonniers.org/2010/02/11/definitions-of-consciousness/#comment-4709 mariana Sat, 13 Feb 2010 09:43:47 +0000 http://charbonniers.org/2010/02/11/definitions-of-consciousness/#comment-4709 <p>Interesting collection of information about it, I alo liked your definition, It feels like a function that creates the ilusion of coherence among things by coordinating different brain areas, and serve also as a translator among those areas.</p> <p>I alo wrote something about consciousness, I do not know if you have seen it, although I know is not along your lines of thoughts, you might find some of it interesting<br /> http://singyourownlullaby.blogspot.com/2010/01/world-as-idea.html<br /> Take care</p> JK- thanks for the comment. I did read your post on consciousness, but late, after everyone had commented and so I didn't add anything. Interesting collection of information about it, I alo liked your definition, It feels like a function that creates the ilusion of coherence among things by coordinating different brain areas, and serve also as a translator among those areas.

I alo wrote something about consciousness, I do not know if you have seen it, although I know is not along your lines of thoughts, you might find some of it interesting
http://singyourownlullaby.blogspot.com/2010/01/world-as-idea.html
Take care

JK- thanks for the comment. I did read your post on consciousness, but late, after everyone had commented and so I didn’t add anything.

]]> Comment on Attention 1 by Brian Rogers http://charbonniers.org/2009/04/14/attention-1/#comment-3834 Brian Rogers Mon, 04 Jan 2010 21:02:46 +0000 http://charbonniers.org/2009/04/14/attention-1/#comment-3834 <p>Discovered your blog today following a Google Alert and was most intrigued. I have added a link to your site on mine which has a similar overall theme. Don't feel compelled to but a reciprocal arrangement would certainly be appreciated.</p> JK: I appreciate your link. I had not known about your blog and I will be reading it for a few weeks. If I enjoy and continue following it, I will put up a link to you. Discovered your blog today following a Google Alert and was most intrigued. I have added a link to your site on mine which has a similar overall theme. Don’t feel compelled to but a reciprocal arrangement would certainly be appreciated.

JK: I appreciate your link. I had not known about your blog and I will be reading it for a few weeks. If I enjoy and continue following it, I will put up a link to you.

]]> Comment on The missing hierarchical level by Mariana http://charbonniers.org/2009/12/19/the-missing-hierarchical-level/#comment-3539 Mariana Sun, 20 Dec 2009 09:17:02 +0000 http://charbonniers.org/2009/12/19/the-missing-hierarchical-level/#comment-3539 <p>Very interesting post Janet, actually it took me a long time to dare commeting about your ideas about hierarchies and stuff. I always thought that somehow we needed to link the different disciplines, like math, chemistry, biology, genetics, evolution and much more stuff. I think that is one of the things you are proposing here with a hierarchical kind of structure in mind, which I think it can be very productive and greatly enlightening for scientist, probably more than mine, which was about linking the different disciplines by somehow describing and picturing the interacting among them, but not just the hierarchical ones. It is as if you do an analogy with the representation of the language and meaning of stuff, one way you can represent them is by hierarchical categories that subdivide or just go deeper down, and another one is by developing an ontologie that relate the concepts and also might have inference rules and absolute truth that work inside this model of what things are.<br /> Hope you are doing well dear JK</p> JK: I certainly do not think there are right ways and wrong ways of drawing analogies - the more the better. Some people though have difficulty in thinking about the brain and mind because the connection between psychology and biology is not clear. Very interesting post Janet, actually it took me a long time to dare commeting about your ideas about hierarchies and stuff. I always thought that somehow we needed to link the different disciplines, like math, chemistry, biology, genetics, evolution and much more stuff. I think that is one of the things you are proposing here with a hierarchical kind of structure in mind, which I think it can be very productive and greatly enlightening for scientist, probably more than mine, which was about linking the different disciplines by somehow describing and picturing the interacting among them, but not just the hierarchical ones. It is as if you do an analogy with the representation of the language and meaning of stuff, one way you can represent them is by hierarchical categories that subdivide or just go deeper down, and another one is by developing an ontologie that relate the concepts and also might have inference rules and absolute truth that work inside this model of what things are.
Hope you are doing well dear JK

JK: I certainly do not think there are right ways and wrong ways of drawing analogies - the more the better. Some people though have difficulty in thinking about the brain and mind because the connection between psychology and biology is not clear.

]]> Comment on Metaphor 2 by mariana http://charbonniers.org/2009/12/10/metaphor-2/#comment-3319 mariana Thu, 10 Dec 2009 10:51:29 +0000 http://charbonniers.org/2009/12/10/metaphor-2/#comment-3319 There are all attempts to build a model where to make the notion of meaning fit. Of course no models is perfect, so probably a combination of them would be the best. By the way interesting choice of models yours. This is a really interesting paragraph to reflect upon. I agree that there is a need to have the support of a set of basic meanings in order to be able to crate new ones, but if we follow the dictionary example there seems to be that .the complete assignation of meanings needs an arbitrary point to start from. But once we have our hole meaning network there are all created based on a combination of other meanings, which can lead to the existence of aberrations such as the explanation of one word based on a second word and that that second word is explained based on the first word, The problem of the origin of the foundation of the most primitive meaning is analogous to the problem with the foundations of any science or discipline, for example in math we need to start from some assertions, such as 1 equals one, which we accept is true, but this assertion can perfectly be put in doubt, and has no solid way of demonstrating that is correct. So indeed everything departs from imposed “truths”, This is related to the theorem of Gödel where he talks about incomplete systems, and how is impossible for science such as math to be sustained or validated by themselves. I am not sure that we need metaphors due to our limited resources in our head, I think that we need metaphors because we always need something to base on our new meaning, some kind of base/support, and this process of creation of new meanings is probably done departing from the most basic concepts and then the gradual increase in complexity of the new meanings which also tend to become more and more abstract. Thanks fr listening tto me and thanks a lot for your fantastic blog There are all attempts to build a model where to make the notion of meaning fit. Of course no models is perfect, so probably a combination of them would be the best.
By the way interesting choice of models yours.

This is a really interesting paragraph to reflect upon. I agree that there is a need to have the support of a set of basic meanings in order to be able to crate new ones, but if we follow the dictionary example there seems to be that .the complete assignation of meanings needs an arbitrary point to start from. But once we have our hole meaning network there are all created based on a combination of other meanings, which can lead to the existence of aberrations such as the explanation of one word based on a second word and that that second word is explained based on the first word,

The problem of the origin of the foundation of the most primitive meaning is analogous to the problem with the foundations of any science or discipline, for example in math we need to start from some assertions, such as 1 equals one, which we accept is true, but this assertion can perfectly be put in doubt, and has no solid way of demonstrating that is correct. So indeed everything departs from imposed “truths”, This is related to the theorem of Gödel where he talks about incomplete systems, and how is impossible for science such as math to be sustained or validated by themselves.

I am not sure that we need metaphors due to our limited resources in our head, I think that we need metaphors because we always need something to base on our new meaning, some kind of base/support, and this process of creation of new meanings is probably done departing from the most basic concepts and then the gradual increase in complexity of the new meanings which also tend to become more and more abstract.

Thanks fr listening tto me and thanks a lot for your fantastic blog

]]> Comment on Working memory by Mariana http://charbonniers.org/2009/12/04/working-memory/#comment-3283 Mariana Sun, 06 Dec 2009 08:52:20 +0000 http://charbonniers.org/2009/12/04/working-memory/#comment-3283 <p>Very interesting post!<br /> Maybe working memory stores the information as a hole block, in which the different parts are completelly entangled among them, therefore either you remember the hole, or the hole structure falls apart.</p> JK- Yes that certainly seems a reasonable explanation. Very interesting post!
Maybe working memory stores the information as a hole block, in which the different parts are completelly entangled among them, therefore either you remember the hole, or the hole structure falls apart.

JK- Yes that certainly seems a reasonable explanation.

]]> Comment on Following the rules by mariana http://charbonniers.org/2009/11/25/following-the-rules/#comment-3265 mariana Thu, 26 Nov 2009 03:07:21 +0000 http://charbonniers.org/2009/11/25/following-the-rules/#comment-3265 I agree that the concept of free will is quite confusing given that we carry within ourselvs lots of constraints such us being pre-programmed in a certain way by our past and our basic instincts. So we are not completelly free to choose what we do, maybe people talk so much about free will because they like to think that they can fully decide, which makes them feel less constrained. On the other hand the article talks about personal responsability, and I think it is important to understand how it relates to free will. It is like when one person is a slave it might not be considered responsable or does not have responsabilities thowads society, but when that person is not a slave anymore it starts being responsable because of the freedom it has been given to it. Very intersting point Janet, be well I agree that the concept of free will is quite confusing given that we carry within ourselvs lots of constraints such us being pre-programmed in a certain way by our past and our basic instincts. So we are not completelly free to choose what we do, maybe people talk so much about free will because they like to think that they can fully decide, which makes them feel less constrained.

On the other hand the article talks about personal responsability, and I think it is important to understand how it relates to free will. It is like when one person is a slave it might not be considered responsable or does not have responsabilities thowads society, but when that person is not a slave anymore it starts being responsable because of the freedom it has been given to it.
Very intersting point Janet, be well

]]> Comment on The body loop by mariana http://charbonniers.org/2009/11/07/the-body-loop/#comment-3255 mariana Sat, 21 Nov 2009 13:21:24 +0000 http://charbonniers.org/2009/11/07/the-body-loop/#comment-3255 <p>The blog is more interesting than ever, need time to digest all this information, I find this entry very interesting, great insight the one from james. I think that in the emotions are included the physical reactions (which are many times out of our range of awarenes), by percieving them we are able to understand what is happening with us and also in some cases to modify how we feel, like for example taking deep breaths can help us calm down.<br /> Nice to be back Janet.</p> JK: Nice to have you back! It just doesn't work to divide the mind from the body and only have one-way communication. The blog is more interesting than ever, need time to digest all this information, I find this entry very interesting, great insight the one from james. I think that in the emotions are included the physical reactions (which are many times out of our range of awarenes), by percieving them we are able to understand what is happening with us and also in some cases to modify how we feel, like for example taking deep breaths can help us calm down.
Nice to be back Janet.

JK: Nice to have you back! It just doesn’t work to divide the mind from the body and only have one-way communication.

]]> Comment on Resolving conflicting intentions by Rick Moore http://charbonniers.org/2009/10/08/resolving-conflicting-intentions/#comment-2784 Rick Moore Thu, 08 Oct 2009 23:11:06 +0000 http://charbonniers.org/2009/10/08/resolving-conflicting-intentions/#comment-2784 <p>Hello Janet!</p> <p>I just stumbled upon your blog and find it very interesting to say the least. Hope you don't mind if I drop by again. I'm going to think about the concept of consciousness as a connector between the mind and action. We have a different perspective on this in the martial arts, but I'd like to learn more of youjr thoughts on this issue. It would be nice to find more thoughtful work like yours on the net.</p> JanetK: Rick, I am glad you find the blog interesting. I do a new post every third day, usually quite short and I try to vary the subject, although it is always some aspect of consciousness. Hello Janet!

I just stumbled upon your blog and find it very interesting to say the least. Hope you don’t mind if I drop by again. I’m going to think about the concept of consciousness as a connector between the mind and action. We have a different perspective on this in the martial arts, but I’d like to learn more of youjr thoughts on this issue. It would be nice to find more thoughtful work like yours on the net.

JanetK: Rick, I am glad you find the blog interesting. I do a new post every third day, usually quite short and I try to vary the subject, although it is always some aspect of consciousness.

]]> Comment on Mind maintenance by mariana http://charbonniers.org/2009/09/29/mind-maintenance/#comment-2710 mariana Tue, 29 Sep 2009 14:15:29 +0000 http://charbonniers.org/2009/09/29/mind-maintenance/#comment-2710 Jung (who I do not like) believed that the psyche contained a self-regulatory tendency. He called this function of the psyche \"compensation\". When one becomes too one-sided in their attitude or energy, the psyche in an attempt at establishing balance will induce an opposite or balancing action or attitude. I think that Wisdom consists in preventing what Jung called the compensation stage by maintaining internal health in the brain.. it is preventing instead of treating the illness, which is much worst. Jung (who I do not like) believed that the psyche contained a self-regulatory tendency. He called this function of the psyche \”compensation\”. When one becomes too one-sided in their attitude or energy, the psyche in an attempt at establishing balance will induce an opposite or balancing action or attitude. I think that Wisdom consists in preventing what Jung called the compensation stage by maintaining internal health in the brain.. it is preventing instead of treating the illness, which is much worst.

]]>