Reply to comment

I just want to start by saying that I was also a tennis player in college, and I can relate to what kgins mean by trying to shut out the noise. I would recommend the book The Inner Game of Tennis.  Maybe you've already read it...  It's about tennis, but it has a pertinent message for anyone interested in just generally being more mindful.  

Anyway, kgins post reminds me of another thought that has been forming in my mind lately.  In her post above, Sophie suggests that mental illness could be the result of a disconnect between the I-Function and Tacit Knowledge. 

Maybe mental illness could sometimes be the result of the connection between the I-Function and Tacit Knowledge.  We have talked about several examples of the I-Function hindering performance.  Dr. Grobstein offered the in-class example of driving and kgins offers the example of playing tennis.  

Perhaps in some mental illness, the I-Function is overactive or malfunctioning.  That is, perhaps the inner noise has gotten too loud, or is somehow out of control or is somehow not under conscious control of the individual.  Or perhaps there is part of the I-Function that is out of whack.  Should we separate the I-Function into more components?...

I tend to think not..  In fact, this is my problem with the triune brain theory.  I feel that although a third component is added to the model, it does not become more useful.  I realize that I have a severe lack of knowledge about the theory.  So, my comment is only based on what I've heard.  I look forward to discussing it more on Thursday.  But, what is the preconscious?  What makes it unique from "the arrows between the I-Func. and Tacit Knowledge" in the bipartite brain that Katie points out?  

I also wanted to comment on two more ideas that Sophie suggested.  First, this idea of multiple realities.  I agree with Martin that claiming multiple realities can unnecessarily complicates things.  However, I also agree with Sophie that multiple realities add texture to life and are necessary to fully conceptualize the breadth of human experience.

Maybe the problem is in how we are using the word "reality."  It seems that sometimes when we say "reality" when we are talking simply about whether something exists.  Other times when we say "reality" it seems like we're taking it for granted that the things exist, and we are just talking about the meaning that is assigned to those things.  

Finally, Sophie also questions the possibility of a collective consciousness.  This is really interesting and something I look forward to discussing more.  Has anyone ever read the book The Hundredth Monkey?  It's about this phenomenon that was supposedly observed in populations of monkeys that were separated geographically.  The idea is that a new skill, let's say some monkey invented a better way to peel a banana, is learned by other monkeys in the direct community by the usual means such as observation etc..  Then when some critical number of monkeys learn the skill (the hundredth monkey), a tipping point is reached and the idea seems to jump and just become implicit knowledge for the whole population including monkeys that were incapable of ever learning the skill by observation.  

I realize that that was a haphazard explanation, and I am pretty sure that this theory has been shuffled into the "more wrong" category as opposed the the "less wrong."  However, it may be relevant to think about as we search for evidence of a collective consciousness.