From: Ben Goertzel (ben@goertzel.org)
Date: Wed Mar 09 2005 - 18:48:54 MST
Well, "unconscious" is not really a well-defined term, since "conscious"
isn't, which was one of the points in my post.
In his paper, Block decomposed the term "conscious" in a useful way, and
that implies a parallel decomposition of the term "unconscious."
So, "unconscious" according to your understanding, in Block's language,
would be reformulated as "in the mind/brain but not globally accessible and
not able to be subjected to reflective thought." Whether things in this
category have *phenomenality* is then treated as a separate issue...
-- Ben G
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-sl4@sl4.org [mailto:owner-sl4@sl4.org]On Behalf Of brannen
> Sent: Wednesday, March 09, 2005 12:00 PM
> To: sl4@sl4.org
> Subject: Re: Cognitive neuroscience of consciousness
>
>
> Before commenting I need to ensure I've grasped a definition correctly.
>
> I understand "unconsciousness" to the "Stimuli that are too weak to
> enter consciousness [but] nevertheless influence behavior ..."
>
> Correct?
>
> Andy
>
> Ben Goertzel wrote:
>
> >I've just read a quite interesting paper by Ned Block on the cognitive
> >neuroscience of consciousness; some brief comments on the paper
> may be found
> >at this link
> >
> >http://www.goertzel.org/blog/blog.htm
> >
> >-- Ben G
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue Feb 21 2006 - 04:22:54 MST