Re: virus: necessary reason

Wade T.Smith (
Fri, 7 Nov 97 07:57:11 -0500

>we can accurately report our experience {Oh yeah? We can?} by saying that we
dreamed about
>object of a certain kind, and that the object was, in some sense, a monster,
>otherwise why did we wake up screaming in the middle of the night? We can
>therefore explain our experience of fear if there is some mode of
>predication, some way of having a property, and some sense of `is' by which
>the dream object `is' a monster. Encoding is this mode of predication.
>English sentences of the form `x is F ' are therefore ambiguous. They can be
>formally represented as either `Fx' (x exemplifies F) or as `xF' (x
>encodes F)."

Yes, this is a symbolic analysis-mode approach. Where has it led?

I am attempting to find a way to _eliminate_ the report of an experience
by the experiencer, _because_ all this encoding is taking place. We need
a (biological, neurological, experimental) cryptology of dreams to find
the meme in my quickly sewn tapestry of an inkling of an approach. Saying
good riddance to the dreamer's own report seems a start.

It is precisely because of the last sentences in the quote above that
such an approach is necessary. Otherwise we are happily thumb-twiddling.

Wade T. Smith | "There ain't nothin' you | shouldn't do to a god." |
******* *******