bluegargantua (![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
bluegargantua) wrote2007-04-16 09:36 pm
bluegargantua) wrote2007-04-16 09:36 pm
Entry tags:
Seeing Reviews
Hi,
The other day I finished off Seeing Red: A Study in Consciousness by Nicholas Humphrey. It's a slim volume in which the author (a psychologist and philosopher) attempts to explain what consciousness is and how it may have evolved in humans and what it's good for.
Y'know, nothing major.
His basic thrust is that when you see a red screen, two things happen:
1.) You perceive the existence of the red screen.
2.) You experience the red screen (you are "redding" as he puts it).
These two things happen instantaneously and independently of each other. And it's in the experiencing of the red that consciousness arises.
Like any good scientist, he's happy to point out where his model has been attacked (and his counter-arguments). He doesn't fully present a range of competing viewpoints, but I think he can be forgiven that. Certainly he builds a compelling case.
This has been a nice non-fiction supplement to Blindsight and Permanence and despite being a quick read, there's a lot to think about. I don't know if this resolves or exacerbates my existential crisis, but it was a good read nonetheless.
later
Tom
The other day I finished off Seeing Red: A Study in Consciousness by Nicholas Humphrey. It's a slim volume in which the author (a psychologist and philosopher) attempts to explain what consciousness is and how it may have evolved in humans and what it's good for.
Y'know, nothing major.
His basic thrust is that when you see a red screen, two things happen:
1.) You perceive the existence of the red screen.
2.) You experience the red screen (you are "redding" as he puts it).
These two things happen instantaneously and independently of each other. And it's in the experiencing of the red that consciousness arises.
Like any good scientist, he's happy to point out where his model has been attacked (and his counter-arguments). He doesn't fully present a range of competing viewpoints, but I think he can be forgiven that. Certainly he builds a compelling case.
This has been a nice non-fiction supplement to Blindsight and Permanence and despite being a quick read, there's a lot to think about. I don't know if this resolves or exacerbates my existential crisis, but it was a good read nonetheless.
later
Tom
no subject
no subject
And that's kinda what the guy in the book points towards. These sensations kind of "echo" and in the process it makes the present not just moment to moment, but a thicker "blob" of time that let's you reflect on past, present, and future all at once, thus giving rise to Self.
Further, by making the Self seem special and important, you think of yourself and special and important and you use consciousness to do impressive, long-term things like build cities, grow crops and the like.
later
Tom
no subject
no subject
eg... suppose you completely understand the neurochemistry/psychology etc of love and sex... this does not, at least for the majority of researchers who have an incomplete understanding in that direction, destroy one's capability to experience love and sex. Also see Feynman's appreciation of the flower (1 min, 30 sec):