[okc]

Why would it follow that less filters would infer less brain activity? - even partially. Surley any cleansing/removing of the filters would excite all the brain, as it reacts to new stimuli.

To quote Huxley "If the doors of perception were cleansed every thing would appear to man as it is, infinite. For man has closed himself up, till he sees all things thro' narrow chinks of his cavern."

[dasil003]

> Surley any cleansing/removing of the filters would excite all the brain, as it reacts to new stimuli.

"Filter" in this case is just an analogy, and not necessarily a good one. We don't know the nature of consciousness and how it maps to brain activity, so it's not appropriate to assume that what is perceived as removing a "filter" is increasing stimuli, it's just processing it differently in some way.

[okc]

I was replying to the someone, who it seems has misunderstood what Huxley meant by filters - I wasn't defending or affirming them, let alone discussing in what context they are 'appropriate'. I used the quote to give the 'filters' being discussed a context. Are you saying Huxley really meant: If the doors of perception were cleansed everything would not appear infinite but just 'processed differently'?