Talk:Max Velmans

Comment from Max Velmans (2017) on Earl's summary of the conclusions of this 1991 paper
Earl's summary of the conclusions of this 1991 paper is incorrect as the actual aim of this paper was to establish that first- and third-person accounts of the mind are complementary and mutually irreducible. A complete understanding of mind requires both. The actual conclusions were as follows:
 * 1)  Human information processing may be "conscious" in so far as some of its aspects are available to introspection.  It may also be accompanied by consciousness of its results.
 * 2)  Introspective access, or consciousness of the results of cerebral processing must not be confused with the operation of that processing. What enters awareness follows the processing to which that awareness relates and cannot therefore enter into it. This applies to all stages of information processing, whether the information is simple or complex, familiar or novel, whether the processing is involuntary or voluntary, and whether the processing is data driven, cognitively driven or a combination of the two.
 * 3)  Processes that are accompanied by consciousness are at the focus of attention. It appears that consciousness is closely linked to that aspect of focal-attentive processing which makes information generally available throughout the processing system.
 * 4)  Processes at the focus of attention function differently from those which are not. For example, focal- attentive analysis of input appears to activate relevant information and to inhibit irrelevant information; stimuli given focal-attentive processing appear to be potentially available  for  subsequent recognition and recall; information given focal-attentive processing may also be generally available to other parts of the system. Consequently, focal-attentive processing may be required in various situations—for the identification of novel stimuli, for learning and memory, for the control of complex, novel responses involving planning and creativity, and so on.
 * 5)  When consciousness is absent, focal-attentive processing is usually absent—which explains why consciousness seems necessary for the completion of such tasks.
 * 6) If consciousness does not enter into cerebral functioning then human information processing models which restrict themselves to an account of that functioning remain seriously incomplete, in so far as they do not contain consciousness within their workings.
 * 7)  Consciousness is, nevertheless, amenable to scientific investigation. Accounts of  functioning therefore need to be supplemented by accounts of sentience within the human brain. A complete  psychology requires both.
 * 8)  The dissociation of consciousness from cerebral functioning also poses problems for philosophy of mind. Consciousness neither interacts with the brain, nor can it be reduced to a state or function of the brain.
 * 9) At the same time, the existence of consciousness—of a "first-person" perspective, cannot be dismissed.  Nor can one dismiss the everyday usefulness of "first-person" psychological accounts.
 * 10) Information processing models view the brain from an external observer's "third-person" perspective, which cannot encompass the subject's "first-person" perspective. These two perspectives appear to  be complementary, and mutually irreducible.

The above comment was initially added in the article here by User:Max Velmans, 11:40, February 14, 2017

Quotability of Earl's summary of Velmans's paper
I am not sure why the article includes a lengthy quote from this paper by an "Independent Researcher" in an online journal from a pay-for-play organization of questionable repute. Quite apart from issues of veracity raised above, the quote (added in this edit by User:Mdd) does not appear to meet any of the principal criteria for Quotability, such as being particularly well said, by an notable author, being well known, or being original (since it purports to be mere recapitulation or paraphrase). If a case is not made for why it should be included in the article then I will remove it. ~ Ningauble (talk) 16:06, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
 * The article and author are indeed not very notable, so I removed the quote for you. -- Mdd (talk) 17:52, 16 February 2017 (UTC)