From: murphyg@Software.Mitel.COM (Gary Murphy)
Newsgroups: alt.consciousness
Subject: Re: The Mind: A Model (Part 1)
Date: 24 Jul 92 12:07:35 GMT
	<MURPHYG.92Jul15114358@murphyg.Software.Mitel.COM> <5438@m1.cs.man.ac.uk>
Organization: Applications Software II, MITEL Corporation, Kanata, Ontario,
	Canada
In-reply-to: mshute@cs.man.ac.uk's message of 22 Jul 92 10:56:18 GMT

In article <5438@m1.cs.man.ac.uk> mshute@cs.man.ac.uk (Malcolm Shute) writes:

   Yes, previous posters have suggested some correspondence between
	   consciousness <==> ability to pay attention

   Surely, there is a much much closer correspondence between
	   consciousness <==> ability to model

This does not seem to be the case in the clinical settings, as much of
the work focusses on changing a model the client inadvertently arrived
at, yet is completely unaware of this model, its incompleteness or even
to base their perception of trouble on the model and not their spouse,
their parents, their boss ...

   Because you and I might be facing each other in the O.K.Corral one day,
   nature has given us both the ability to model each other's likely behaviours.
   Because I am constantly tuning my model of you, as I receive more and more
   input from observation, my model is getting more and more accurate.  I am
   getting inside you more and more.

Whoa thar, pardner!  Who is this 'I' that does the tuning?  It would
seem closer to what I observe to say this creature has a
modelling-function somehow autonomous to consciousness, and poor
consciousness is stuck with the life-long task of discovering the
differences between the map and the territory.  Certainly, I _can_ tune
my model, but if you look into cult-deprogramming (or trying to get your
spouse back after therapy :-( ) I think it is safe to say there is a
certain mechanism being exploited by the cult/therapy methods which puts
such a feeling of certainty around the map, the consciousness dare not
question it.  I think it is unfair and inaccurate to say the victims do
it to themselves, even if their own perception is they have come to
these conclusions on their own.

   To me, consciousness is tied up with appreciation of others
   (others' feelings, others' wishes, others' likely next actions, others' properties).

Then we can never be conscious and this newsgroup dies ;-)  We can never
know other's feelings, wishes &c, yet we have a feeling of separateness
from them precisely because we cannot know them.  We can only know what
others _do_, their behaviour can be _observed_ and observed to be
different from the expectations of our model.  This is what Fuller meant
by the human-interpretation of his geometric rule "Unity is plural, at
minimum two" --- we are aware of 'I' by the discrepancies with other
'I's.

   This appreciation comes as a by-product of my model of them... tuning a small
   part of my mind to think like them.

But you need to know what they think and how do you verify your new
model is any better?  NLP may have the closest approximation by their
seeking to make some part of your mind think in their way, to use their
methods and modes.

   What do others think?

"You never can tell 'bout bees" -- Winnie "There" Pooh (Edward Bear)

--
Gary Lawrence Murphy - Gary.Murphy@software.mitel.COM - (613) 592-2122 x3709
                    The reality of me is just me.
Newsgroups: alt.consciousness