> The issue is simply this: Who is it that perceives what we see? The
> classical resolution is that there is a small "demon" in our heads whose
> "office windows" are our eyes and it is that demon who perceives what we
> see. But then one has to explain who it is that perceives what that demon
> sees, thus leading to what Dennett calls the problem of infinite regress.
It seems like the "observer" is the one that we call "me" or "I". For
example, it seems cold to me. I don't think that I could climb that
The other day, I remembered the phrase "put everthing else out of your
mind". The resulting thought was that of the "hearer" who has mental
things that he or she can arrange, for example mental books in the mind.
The hearer can put those books away and listen to what is being said right
now. The hearer may also be thought to not actually consist of everything
they've ever heard or learned. Some of that information is just a "mental
book" that can be put "out of mind".
In one way, that's a relief. Having heard something that we would rather
not have heard, maybe because it's hurtful to someone or seems to "take
over" our own thinking, we can put it out of mind. Also, whatever I have
once been due to what understanding I had then, should not have decisive
power over what I can hear and be now. The data and attitude parts can be
The opportunity of the learning organization is presented through such a
venue. When I increase in understanding and learned expertise and the
preparedness of learning, my value to the company and my options increase,
and the company's capability to add value, to perceive opportunity, and to
produce more and better increases.
The above is not intended as out-and-out advocacy, more like a scenario.
-- Have a nice day John Paul Fullerton firstname.lastname@example.org