Considering self analysis, I completelly agree with the concept that every idea is connected
to other concepts.
In fact, the very thing we call mind, is nothing than flow...or time function of brain happenings.
This does not enter or intercourse with the idea of consousness. It is the basic principle only.
It is important fact that in one moment thousands of processes intercourse in the head and all together we call it consiousness.
There are some flows, that consious us are not aware of, some we are, but I would leave that to neuroscience ( even though I consider subconsousness something wich is not directly based with concepts based on line ins...aka...sensoric system) I believe that we are only machines with line ins and line outs. For example, if I ask you to recall red sport coupe, your ears will send that sense to the brain translator, who will cause you enter into the neuro trace wich visually interprets red car. Off course in the same time you will recall sports coupe of that kind because the mental picture of all flaws together form the very happening.
So, in fact, if some happening produce something, it creates mental idea of it self. When you recall that idea, you produce the same effect as that happening wich equals mental picture such as red sport coupe.
The thing I think is important is your thought of basics (if I understand, that is what bothers you).
It is deffinite, that some principles cause you be happy, some other cause you be whatever. So, what is good and what is bad, it is up to concept connection, but what is more important, there should be some hardware, wich says...this happening is good for my future, or this happening is not good for my future.
For an example, I need energy to start acting, but energy is not spontaneus thing, so you do not do it even you should...call it lazyness. In a time, you will make a concept called lazyness, and it will be negative concept, because you link it to negative connotations. When the brains storm traces it as to negative thing, it causes you do the opposite. But not till the moment oposite flaws are stronger.
And what is good and what is bad.... I believe it has to be based on hardware. Maybe not those two basic concepts, and I call it instinct.
>It makes sense that things, or ideas, in both cases (the dream/neuron theory, and semantics)
are only defined by their differences or similarities to other things,
though for me it implies that the bottom could just "fall out" and reality break down completely
(hence postmodernism, I guess).
Please explain it to me. I do not get your meaning.
>Dreaming might not be serving the function of restoring mental capacities.
It's entirely possible that it's an effect of something else going on in the brain.
Or perhaps, it's just our consciousness' interpretation of this reorganizing process that's occuring while we sleep?
Off course this does not define dreaming, it only exlpains the possibility. Things as dream learning say it probably does,but off course it is not that simple from this point of view. There are some bad things that happen during sleep deprivation, wich can not be explained by informatical model. Afterall we are machines based on chemicals.
I am positive that if we look on brain concept such as informatic machine, the effects of dreams, sensation of dreams, than I explain it in a previous manner.
>Another idea I thought up is that perhaps since we have this idea of a "dream" and that we "know" dreams are not a part of "reality", our brains categorize them differently. We've essentially trained our brains to keep dreams at a distance.
Reading your previous quote, I doubt that you get my idea of linear model of hystoric happenings.
So, give me the new chance to explain the idea. In a one minute time you are constantly bombared with sensoric stimuli.
They make traces, actually the net of traces. For example You read the book. You see its color, you hear the sound of radio, you sit comfortably and have a (subconcious) feeling of gravity etc, etc. (there are probably thousands of new connections every minute). Now, they are trace in your memory. So, next time you recall your memory on reading book, the "linear" flow will happen.
The book reminds you on that radio program, in the same time the book reminds you and that sitting position etc. All those sensations actually interact among themselves in the same manner, and the reason we live in linear time, we reproduce those sensation in a linear matter. Pretty simmilar to the rope filamens wich intercourse, making strong rope.
When you dream, there is no exact linar cause, and that idea puts your sensations in an era of dreams.
Have you ever been drunk, so you could not recall the memories. It happened to me once. I did not remember anything.
Next day, I met my friends who told me the story what happened. When they told me that story, they reminded me on what happened. What did happened? This is my explanation. I was so drunk, that all those thousands of stimuli did not occur due to intoxication. In fact it happened only hundreds of stimuli.
They where based linearly too, but they where too lousy to have an exact reacall from them.
Then, my freinds connected those stimuli for me (by tolding me what happened) and from those fragments, I could recall the happening.
It is same with dreams. You do not remember what did you dream. But you see the person you dreamed, and voala, there is the dream. Actually, the person put you in a start of a linear flow of your dreams.
I hope I explained this to you a little bit better. I have a exact idea of memory tracing, but it is somehow hard to explain me in English. I would prefer to use Croatian and my hands for these explanation :)
To resume my blablas, I have to say: Brain does not caregorise them differently. It is only matter of traces (how many, how connected and hystoric cause *broken rope syndrome*) which in a linearity of life, make them be your "memories". Just it.
Dream recalls. What are you poining on with it, Kid?
|