From: (Robert Oveson) + my reply
In article <48h9vh$666@kryten.awinc.com>
roveson@mlc.awinc.com “Robert Oveson” writes:
Just a general reply to the aspect of consciousness in the global brain.
Could we get some discussion on dividing this into the subconscious and
conscious parts. Now I know the John Locke position is that the idea of
the subconscious is absurd but hypnosis, subliminal perception and
multiple personalities hint towards it’s existense. If individual
neurons talking to the entirety may seem farfetched, what about
coalitions of neurons that are known to themselves but not necessarily to
other coalitions; by analogy, how would the subconscious communicate with
the conscious? or, how does one small group on the internet communicate
with the culture at large?
This is also an aspect of the analogy between the brain and the world of
individuals which interests me.
I would tend to avoid the issue of
consciousness since it seems to me that all we can know about this is that
we ourselves are conscious. I know of no test to prove whether another
creature, whether that be another human, an animal, or a computer is
conscious or not. All we can test is intelligence, where intelligence is
defined in some agreed way.
However, I would say that, if the analogy holds, that we are led directly
to the theory of sub-personalities which would correspond to nations, or
cultures, in the World. These sub-personalities may be the Freudian
id/ego/super ego, or the parent/adult/child or the less hierarchical
sub-personalities put forward by the psychosynthesis model.
Just as people are more or less “integrated”, “centred” or “at peace”
within themselves ( or the contrary), so the relation between the different
cohesive groups within humanity may be in harmony, dischord or open warfare.
To the question which was posed:
by analogy, how would the subconscious communicate with
the conscious? or, how does one small group on the internet communicate
with the culture at large?
Applying the analogy, how does one small cultural group communicate with the
World at large? I am not a historian, but there do seem to be a variety of
very different mechanisms possible. For instance two, very small, groups
which have had a remarkable influence on the world at large are the
geographical neighbours Israel and Saudi Arabia. In particular the
religions of these two peoples have spread world-wide and are now by no
means restricted to those whose origins are in these two ethnic groups.
However, the spread of Islam, at least in the early days, was achieved
largely through aggression and conquest, while the spread of Judaism
resulted more from the victims of aggression. The spread of
Christianity seems to have been a mixture of the two.
Rather than saying that individual neurons or coalitions of neurons talk
to the entirity, I think it might be more accurate to talk of indirect
influence, or maybe the propagation or diffusion of ideas from one
coalition to another.
—
Chris