From: Robert J. Bradbury (bradbury@www.aeiveos.com)
Date: Fri Sep 03 1999 - 15:17:51 MDT
On Fri, 3 Sep 1999, Clint O'Dell wrote:
> Robert Bradbury wrote:
> >It would seem to require an isolated part of the mind that can produce
> >random interrupts.
>
> I wrote:
> >You're right it would
>
> I take that back! I had only 2 hours sleep that night and wasn't thinking
> as straight as I should have been when replying to your post.
>
> It would not require interrupts. Especially an "isolated" one. I don't
> know where the Hell you came up with that conclusion.
I was thinking of the "stop" exercise and the paradox of stoping
oneself. In the standard exercise, an external interrupt, namely
another person notices you are doing something "automatically"
without any self-awareness. They then execute the instruction to
"stop" and "notice" the thought state that you are in.
Why I qualified my statement, was particularly, as you say that one
thought leads to another and another -- the continual selection of the
"focus of attention" for the conscious mind. If the conscious
mind executes the "stop" instruction, which I suppose in theory
it must, then it doesn't have the same quality that a random
external interrupt has. However, since the mind is a multiplicity
of co-processors, I can imagine you could train yourself so that
consciousness is primarily occuring in one part of your brain
(say the right or left half) and a "non-active" part (such as
the other side) watches and interrupts you. It is probably similar
to what happens when an alternate personality "takes control" in
individuals with a multiple personality disorder. Some of the
personalities may be more aware of the others and be able to actively
observe them. They might also issue "interrupts" if one of the
personalities threatens to cause self-harm. Most of us have a
much more "integrated" conscious where we "actively" (when
we are self-aware) or "passively" (when we aren't self-aware) select
the focus of attention and so in these individuals the "stop"
instruction would have to be in some way non-randomly "selected".
At one point in time I had a fairly highly developed sense of
self-observation, that I would have considered fairly capable
of a "random" interrupt. I don't exercise it much anymore
so I could believe that now the process would be closer to
what you feel is the more likely process.
If you have any doubt that your brain can have multiple
simultaneous "thoughts", then you *really* need to read Calvin
or perhaps Minsky's Society of Mind.
Robert
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 15:05:01 MST