Posted: Sep 08, 2018 6:11 pm
by GrahamH
Cito di Pense wrote:
GrahamH wrote:
Cito di Pense wrote:
GrahamH wrote:Then you could reasonably say that some processes are "conscious processing" where they implement C or "unconscious processing" where it falls outside the attention schema.

No, you couldn't, without bullshitting. I mean, how much do you have to have on the ball to say that some processes are "conscious processing" when you're saying that consciousness is processing?

You might have a point if I had written that "consciousness is processing", but I didn't, did I?

GrahamH wrote:Wrong headed? How about not a thing or a process?

OK, then. In keeping with OOP, you're saying not that consciousness is processing but that consciousness has processing.

So you really just want to say that there are some processes, and that some of them have something to do with consciousnessness, which is neither a thing nor a process, whatever else it is. You should be embarrassed, but you're not.

I wouldn't say "has processing". What would that mean?

The subtopic here is Graziano's Attention schema theory. He's written papers and books about it if you wanted to explore why I'm not embarrassed. It's rather good and better explained than I can manage in a few short forum posts.

I can hope that SoS has read and retained anough of it that my posts ,make sense to him even if they mean nothing to you.