TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- Consciousness
Pages (4): [1] 2 3 4 »

Consciousness

A first pass at examining Consciousness.

What if the computing value of your conscious mind is ZERO?

Let's imagine a turtle (cause Akridot likes turtles! Not be confused with "Blip" Zimmerman the teleporturtle). And anything I write with 'sub' as a prefix is what its subconscious is thinking, and anything with 'con' as a prefix is what its consciousness is thinking.



Thoughts are going to be extremely simplified, but in this first scenario, the turtle hasn't developed a consciousness yet.

Sub - evaluation of blood sugar level indicates food required
Sub - ocular data suggest that plant located 20 feet to the right is an ideal food source
Sub - moving towards food source
Sub - Now within range of mouth, begin eating leaves



Second scenario (with a consciousness)

Sub - evaluation of blood sugar level indicates food required
Sub - ocular data suggest that plant located 20 feet to the right is an ideal food source
Sub - moving towards food source
Sub - Now within range of mouth, begin eating leaves
Sub - What am I thinking?
Con - I am hungry, so I am eating food

What I'm getting at here, is that the subconscious before having a consciousness never looked its thoughts in a mirror, because it never occurred to it to do so. Like when you are walking down the street you are busy analyzing the data around you, not thinking, 'is my fly undone?' you generally need an external source to say, 'hey your fly is undone'.

So the Sub built a mirror to see its thoughts, and that mirror is the conscious mind, it doesn't actually process any data at all, it is merely a reflection or output.

So an equivalent is, my words on the screen are not obviously thinking, they are merely the output of thought located elsewhere.

Re: Consciousness

quote:

Originally posted by Subey A first pass at examining Consciousness. What if the computing value of your conscious mind is ZERO? Let's imagine a turtle (cause Akridot likes turtles! Not be confused with "Blip" Zimmerman the teleporturtle). And anything I write with 'sub' as a prefix is what its subconscious is thinking, and anything with 'con' as a prefix is what its consciousness is thinking. Thoughts are going to be extremely simplified, but in this first scenario, the turtle hasn't developed a consciousness yet. Sub - evaluation of blood sugar level indicates food required Sub - ocular data suggest that plant located 20 feet to the right is an ideal food source Sub - moving towards food source Sub - Now within range of mouth, begin eating leaves Second scenario (with a consciousness) Sub - evaluation of blood sugar level indicates food required Sub - ocular data suggest that plant located 20 feet to the right is an ideal food source Sub - moving towards food source Sub - Now within range of mouth, begin eating leaves Sub - What am I thinking? Con - I am hungry, so I am eating food What I'm getting at here, is that the subconscious before having a consciousness never looked its thoughts in a mirror, because it never occurred to it to do so. Like when you are walking down the street you are busy analyzing the data around you, not thinking, 'is my fly undone?' you generally need an external source to say, 'hey your fly is undone'. So the Sub built a mirror to see its thoughts, and that mirror is the conscious mind, it doesn't actually process any data at all, it is merely a reflection or output. So an equivalent is, my words on the screen are not obviously thinking, they are merely the output of thought located elsewhere.

I would suggest that metacognition, which is what you are suggesting, does process data. Conscious processing is just slower and has a different use than subconscious processing. When things are new, or have not been overlearned conscious processes are usually the way they are dealt with. Say you encounter a utensil you have never seen. You're subconscious processes will quickly scan to see if there is any record of it in memory and will automatically relate it to the closest utensils on record. All this information is fed to your conscious processes. You digest it and relate it to other information available from the object or environment. This last part is what will give you an idea of what this new object is, but it is all done consciously. So I would argue that conscious processes do process data, just more slowly and in a more cumbersome manner than subconscious processes.

Re: Re: Consciousness

quote:

Originally posted by venomX So I would argue that conscious processes do process data, just more slowly and in a more cumbersome manner than subconscious processes.

I think some of the best evidence to support my theory lies in languages other than English. But I'll start with English to illustrate.

When I start typing you a sentence, I am not conscious of how it will end.

Let's look at the previous sentence, It is complete. In the sense that every part fits together with every other part. My conscious awareness of it is a little bit hard to describe, but as I type, I hold the word that I am typing in my head, and a tiny bit of what came before and what comes next.

If you look at Russian as a comparison, Russian is not a sequential language (Lira must know the terms for this ). It does not build directly from the first word to the next. The other thing about Russian is that the general format of Russian sentences is that they are designed so that you put the most important information at the very end of the sentence.

Both of these facts about Russian suggest that the entire sentence has to exist as a complete thing before your conscious mind has access to it.

***

Also to emphasize this idea of the conscious mind being a 'mirror' When I have an idea, I start typing it out, and the idea has form in terms of a individual sentences... and in terms of related paragraphs etc.

Imagine the idea existing in the subconscious (i'll use a visual analogy for ease of communication) as say a building. Then when I am consciously typing it out here, what I am doing is describing the building, and my conscious mind then, must like a computer scanner has a way of scanning that image of the building so that it is translated into 'thought text' so that at the end it is a complete thing, just as my scanner scans individual lines of an image, but at the end the entire form is visible

Re: Consciousness

quote:

So the Sub built a mirror to see its thoughts, and that mirror is the conscious mind, it doesn't actually process any data at all, it is merely a reflection or output. So an equivalent is, my words on the screen are not obviously thinking, they are merely the output of thought located elsewhere.

pssh..I've been saying that for years.

Re: Re: Consciousness

quote:

Originally posted by Capitalizt pssh..I've been saying that for years.

Then I'm tagging you into the ring... while I return to my seat and enjoy a nice cold beverage!

Re: Re: Re: Consciousness

quote:

Originally posted by Subey If you look at Russian as a comparison, Russian is not a sequential language (Lira must know the terms for this ). It does not build directly from the first word to the next. The other thing about Russian is that the general format of Russian sentences is that they are designed so that you put the most important information at the very end of the sentence. Both of these facts about Russian suggest that the entire sentence has to exist as a complete thing before your conscious mind has access to it.

Russian language is not much different from english in the way we put thoughts together. Its actually even more flexible, i.e.:

Good Person sounds fine, but Person Good is not.

In Russian, both will sound good.

i.e. Horoshiy Chelovek or Chelovek Horoshiy.

its how you use it. Give me a Russian sentence that cant put important information at its beginning.

However, I do find the discussion very intriguing, carry on ;-) I enjoy reading mind-challenging information, and certainly turtles do have subconsciousness, though their smaller brain size doesnt give room for comprehension of it all.

quote:

Originally posted by Magnetonium [COLOR=FF7F50] Its actually even more flexible, i.e.: Good Person sounds fine, but Person Good is not. In Russian, both will sound good.

Hate to say it...but I always thought languages like this were stupid. It sounds like caveman language

When I started learning spanish, I thought damn...no wonder Mexico is still a third world country! The language is so imprecise and clumsy.. They lack basic conjuctions like like "won't" or "didn't".

In order to say something like "We didn't go to the mall", you have to say the positive sentence "We went to the mall" and add a "no" at end..

"We went to the mall no".

And instead of saying "The hotel is over there.", it would be something like.. "It is over there, the hotel."

I know it's wrong...but after learning some of the language, I think less of the people who speak it. For God's sake...why can't they use words in the proper order...a natural train of thought instead of this ass backwards junk?

quote:

Originally posted by Capitalizt Hate to say it...but I always thought languages like this were stupid. It sounds like caveman language When I started learning spanish, I thought damn...no wonder Mexico is still a third world country! The language is so imprecise and clumsy.. They lack basic conjuctions like like "won't" or "didn't". In order to say something like "We didn't go to the mall", you have to say the positive sentence "We went to the mall" and add a "no" at end.. "We went to the mall no". And instead of saying "The hotel is over there.", it would be something like.. "It is over there, the hotel." I know it's wrong...but after learning some of the language, I think less of the people who speak it. For God's sake...why can't they use words in the proper order...a natural train of thought instead of this ass backwards junk?

That would be inaccurate. Spanish is more flexible than English. That's all there is to it. The fact that words can have more than one place point to you needing more skill to master the language. English is a more rigid language. It is good for conveying simple, serial ideas. Once you get into more abstract territory though, it is hard to convey ideas properly due to the rigidity of English. And FYI, words have proper orders in their particular language. Trying to apply English grammar to Spanish is a nonsensical endeavour.

Secondly, there is no link between development and language. So please, let's keep the bigotry at a minimum here.

Yeah, what the hell?

Re: Re: Re: Consciousness

quote:

Originally posted by Subey I think some of the best evidence to support my theory lies in languages other than English. But I'll start with English to illustrate. When I start typing you a sentence, I am not conscious of how it will end. Let's look at the previous sentence, It is complete. In the sense that every part fits together with every other part. My conscious awareness of it is a little bit hard to describe, but as I type, I hold the word that I am typing in my head, and a tiny bit of what came before and what comes next. If you look at Russian as a comparison, Russian is not a sequential language (Lira must know the terms for this ). It does not build directly from the first word to the next. The other thing about Russian is that the general format of Russian sentences is that they are designed so that you put the most important information at the very end of the sentence. Both of these facts about Russian suggest that the entire sentence has to exist as a complete thing before your conscious mind has access to it. *** Also to emphasize this idea of the conscious mind being a 'mirror' When I have an idea, I start typing it out, and the idea has form in terms of a individual sentences... and in terms of related paragraphs etc. Imagine the idea existing in the subconscious (i'll use a visual analogy for ease of communication) as say a building. Then when I am consciously typing it out here, what I am doing is describing the building, and my conscious mind then, must like a computer scanner has a way of scanning that image of the building so that it is translated into 'thought text' so that at the end it is a complete thing, just as my scanner scans individual lines of an image, but at the end the entire form is visible

There are many automatic processes in the brain, that is undebatable. I don't agree however that ALL processes are unconscious. It is accepted in cognitive sciences that automatic processes usually develop for activities that have been over learned and become routine. This does not mean that they are never 'conscious'. Say you are learning to play the drum. You start out by consciously banging your hands in particular patterns. You have to consciously monitor your performance to make sure you are hitting the right spots at the right time. You do this over and over again until you over learn the behaviour and hitting particular spots becomes 'automatic'. This is when you can really play the drum. At this point cognitive resources are freed and instead of having to focus your conscious attention on where your hands are hitting on the drum, you can focus on what particular rythm patterns you want to create.

Another more common behaviour is typing on a keyboard. At first, you have to look at the keyboard for every stroke to make sure you are hitting the right key in order to convey the correct message. As you practice more and more, you over learn 'typing', i.e. you know where every key is and you no longer have to consciously decide where to press. At this point you can focus your energy on other endeavours such as what to type, or what particular ideas you want to convey and in what manner. The list goes on and on. Conscious thinking is usually more of a 'correction' mechanism. It is used to change automatic behaviours using feedback from other parts of the brain.

Lastly, I believe there is plenty of 'conscious thinking' because conscious processes can always override automatic ones. If your running, your consciousness can always override any part of the running program. It can slow it down, speed it up, make you turn, etc... The same with many other 'automatic' processes. I think it's a false dichotomy having to decide between which one is the actual 'thinking'. They are both necessary in my opinion. Obviously the workhorse here is the unconscious processes but there is plenty of modification and oversight done by the conscious part.

quote:

Originally posted by Capitalizt Hate to say it...but I always thought languages like this were stupid. It sounds like caveman language When I started learning spanish, I thought damn...no wonder Mexico is still a third world country! The language is so imprecise and clumsy.. They lack basic conjuctions like like "won't" or "didn't". In order to say something like "We didn't go to the mall", you have to say the positive sentence "We went to the mall" and add a "no" at end.. "We went to the mall no". And instead of saying "The hotel is over there.", it would be something like.. "It is over there, the hotel." I know it's wrong...but after learning some of the language, I think less of the people who speak it. For God's sake...why can't they use words in the proper order...a natural train of thought instead of this ass backwards junk?

No, we dont have that problem in Russian. In fact, there's no need for such words as "a" "an" "the" "are" "aren't" ... in Russian language we have something called "padezhi" (emphasis on "i"), where the verbs and adjectives have their endings adjusted to show if its female, or to show the direction of the flow, tense. It really saves up a lot of space and time. And thus incomplete sentences in Russian sound like complete ones.

Sort of like "I finished" "ed" is added to emphasize the past tense. Russian is like that. We dont change words like English does (go, went), we just change the endings, and padezhi have 6 types (who, where, why, whom, etc). you can even say only the adjective with the proper padezh and just looking at that word you can tell a lot ... in the english language you won't for most part without supporting words.

quote:

Originally posted by Capitalizt Hate to say it...but I always thought languages like this were stupid. It sounds like caveman language

That's odd, I had the exact opposite experience when I started taking Spanish a few semester ago (and linguistics a few semester later). English is an absolute mess, not just phonetically. No wonder non-native speakers have such a hard time learning it. If it weren't for it's protogermanic roots, English would probably be a lot more akin to a "caveman's language" and not terribly useful.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Consciousness

quote:

Originally posted by venomX Another more common behaviour is typing on a keyboard. At first, you have to look at the keyboard for every stroke to make sure you are hitting the right key in order to convey the correct message. As you practice more and more, you over learn 'typing', i.e. you know where every key is and you no longer have to consciously decide where to press. At this point you can focus your energy on other endeavours such as what to type, or what particular ideas you want to convey and in what manner. The list goes on and on. Conscious thinking is usually more of a 'correction' mechanism. It is used to change automatic behaviours using feedback from other parts of the brain.

I don't disagree in principle with any of your examples. The problem is that none of them shed light on where the conscious thought might be originating.

Where the letter 'o' is on a keyboard isn't a factor when I think. But starting a paragraph with an 'introduction sentence' does shape my thought without me being conscious that I am writing an 'introduction sentence'

I think the best thing is for me to start over.

***

The most important question in this field of inquiry that I can think of is, "What does my conscious mind see when it interacts with the subconscious?"

I've queried my brain many times about this question, and it has come up with the following analogy, which can be summed up as, "Thought Architecture" which I will now explain.

***

We start with the following analogy. A Castle = A complex idea/concept and in terms of the example that follows it will represent specifically 'Capitalism'.
And the lens that I perceive this castle with we will call the 'third eye'. This will be explained in a moment.

Now let's say I want to talk to you about the castle. My third eye can view the castle from any angle, and from any level of magnification.

So my conscious mind thinks, 'capitalism is stupid', and I say to you, 'capitalism is stupid'. All my conscious mind contains when I thought that was really is just a word. Simultaneously to this thought my third eye is looking at the castle from a high vantage point so that the entire structure can be seen, and the entire structure has a definite form that conveys specific meaning (i.e. I can see towers, a courtyard, a moat, a portcullis etc.)

If you ask me what is stupid about it. I then respond, 'it results in an unequal distribution of wealth and I think that is evil'. What happened simultaneously was my third eye zoomed in on a tower of the castle, and that tower conveyed the that specific information. My third eye knows that tower, and where it is located relative to all the other parts of the castle. In other words it doesn't get lost exploring the castle.

***

To flip this analogy. Let's say I am sharing with you a concept you are unfamiliar with. I speak a sentence to you, and your conscious mind again can only hold a few sentences at a time in its mental context, but it takes each sentence and uses them as bricks to build a castle that your third eye sees. As you ask me questions your third eye is seeing that the castle you are building is missing a tower, so you want clarification to know what kind of tower to build there.

In effect you don't have to consciously 'hold' what I said in the first paragraph of this post in your consciousness, because your 'third eye' is 'holding' it, because it is overseeing the construction of the castle.

***

This "Thought Architecture" model seems accurate because it models how through the exchange of only a few words in the conscious mind and in speech that we can manage to manipulate and use complex ideas without much difficulty.


The question for me then what does this model tell us about the nature of conscious thought? And to me the crux of that question is, what's is my conscious mind's relationship with the 'third eye' that sees in this "thought architecture" environment?

It seems to me that the "thought architecture" realm is where the real thought is occurring because that is the only place where 'capitalism' has enough form as a cohesive entity to be thought about. And that my conscious mind is the reflection of the 'third eye' that thinks there.

That's my argument... though I would not be surprised if I didn't communicate it well

You guys are starting to hurt my head. Its much simpler - there's not really a plan in this world. Because if there was, if you were aware of things that has happened before they actually did, then life will be pointless. You will also become confused. So its like a game. You start a move, and then the whole sequence of events is in action, and some other factor might have an effect along the way.


When you start writing your sentence, you dont really have it already finished in your subconsciousness already. Your subconsciousness is merely the storage place for all your experience. Like a live recording motion picture of sorts. Its like you start typing a sentence (that you thought of beforehand), and then halfway through you type a wrong letter, and have to come back to adjust it, and then everything else is thrown off the original plan. Things happen in sequence, with no plan.

EDIT: Fukkkk ... long day at my chemical labs at college. I will elaborate more on the subconsciousness later.

I think in this thread there's a mixup between the conscious and subconscious. The brain and its ability to digest information and give quick methods of response is one thing, on a conscious level. Subconsciousness has more to do with your gut feeling, your supernatural assistance as one might say, your driving force. If it was just the brain, we'd be acting like machines. There's definitely more to us than science. It can be related to the concept of soul.

Anyhow, I am going to get some sleep ...

quote:

Originally posted by Capitalizt Hate to say it...but I always thought languages like this were stupid. It sounds like caveman language When I started learning spanish, I thought damn...no wonder Mexico is still a third world country! The language is so imprecise and clumsy.. They lack basic conjuctions like like "won't" or "didn't". In order to say something like "We didn't go to the mall", you have to say the positive sentence "We went to the mall" and add a "no" at end.. "We went to the mall no". And instead of saying "The hotel is over there.", it would be something like.. "It is over there, the hotel." I know it's wrong...but after learning some of the language, I think less of the people who speak it. For God's sake...why can't they use words in the proper order...a natural train of thought instead of this ass backwards junk?

Language itself and its construction is the basis of our consciousness, and our perception of time.

Here is a circumstantial experiment to illustrate my point. I assumes you have a basic idea of how a combustion engine works.


Close your eyes, and picture a see through car. Now picture the pistons of the engine working, and because it is a rear wheel car, picture the rear axle spinning.

Now picture those two processes simultaneously. I can't do it. I can move my center of focus back and forth between the two, but I can't actually keep both in focus at the same time.

And think about how simple that really is since both movements are fixed and repetitives (i.e. the moving axle doesn't really change). It would seem an easier task than the manipulation and weaving of complex concepts.



Special thanks to Franz Harary c/o Ideacity and the sega racer Vanishing Point!

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Consciousness

quote:

Originally posted by Subey I don't disagree in principle with any of your examples. The problem is that none of them shed light on where the conscious thought might be originating. Where the letter 'o' is on a keyboard isn't a factor when I think. But starting a paragraph with an 'introduction sentence' does shape my thought without me being conscious that I am writing an 'introduction sentence' I think the best thing is for me to start over. *** The most important question in this field of inquiry that I can think of is, "What does my conscious mind see when it interacts with the subconscious?" I've queried my brain many times about this question, and it has come up with the following analogy, which can be summed up as, "Thought Architecture" which I will now explain. *** We start with the following analogy. A Castle = A complex idea/concept and in terms of the example that follows it will represent specifically 'Capitalism'. And the lens that I perceive this castle with we will call the 'third eye'. This will be explained in a moment. Now let's say I want to talk to you about the castle. My third eye can view the castle from any angle, and from any level of magnification. So my conscious mind thinks, 'capitalism is stupid', and I say to you, 'capitalism is stupid'. All my conscious mind contains when I thought that was really is just a word. Simultaneously to this thought my third eye is looking at the castle from a high vantage point so that the entire structure can be seen, and the entire structure has a definite form that conveys specific meaning (i.e. I can see towers, a courtyard, a moat, a portcullis etc.) If you ask me what is stupid about it. I then respond, 'it results in an unequal distribution of wealth and I think that is evil'. What happened simultaneously was my third eye zoomed in on a tower of the castle, and that tower conveyed the that specific information. My third eye knows that tower, and where it is located relative to all the other parts of the castle. In other words it doesn't get lost exploring the castle. *** To flip this analogy. Let's say I am sharing with you a concept you are unfamiliar with. I speak a sentence to you, and your conscious mind again can only hold a few sentences at a time in its mental context, but it takes each sentence and uses them as bricks to build a castle that your third eye sees. As you ask me questions your third eye is seeing that the castle you are building is missing a tower, so you want clarification to know what kind of tower to build there. In effect you don't have to consciously 'hold' what I said in the first paragraph of this post in your consciousness, because your 'third eye' is 'holding' it, because it is overseeing the construction of the castle. *** This "Thought Architecture" model seems accurate because it models how through the exchange of only a few words in the conscious mind and in speech that we can manage to manipulate and use complex ideas without much difficulty. The question for me then what does this model tell us about the nature of conscious thought? And to me the crux of that question is, what's is my conscious mind's relationship with the 'third eye' that sees in this "thought architecture" environment? It seems to me that the "thought architecture" realm is where the real thought is occurring because that is the only place where 'capitalism' has enough form as a cohesive entity to be thought about. And that my conscious mind is the reflection of the 'third eye' that thinks there. That's my argument... though I would not be surprised if I didn't communicate it well

I agree mostly with your arguments. I think it is a pretty accurate description of how subconscious processes work. Also, for me, the relationship between the conscious mind and that 'third eye' is mostly as you stated. I would tend to agree that most processing is done by that third eye.

I disagree however with your interpretation of the conscious mind as being merely a reflection of the 'third eye'. The conscious mind for me has 2 types of functioning. One is the learning process, which I already argued before. The second one is to filter, adjust and decide. Let's take your writing example:

quote:

Let's look at the previous sentence, It is complete. In the sense that every part fits together with every other part. My conscious awareness of it is a little bit hard to describe, but as I type, I hold the word that I am typing in my head, and a tiny bit of what came before and what comes next.

Even though you may hold in your conscious the words or structures that that your 'third eye' has fed it, you don't just type it out right away. You take the words and then you consciously evaluate the validity of them in the broader context. Say your 'third eye' feeds you a particular word that it has determined that on average will follow in the particular grammar and semantic structure you have already typed. Now say that you consider yourself to be a stylish, colorful writer. You may want to signal back to your 'third eye' that that particular word won't do. So it will feed your conscious mind another word that might be used less frequently, but that you have learned and is part of your lexicon and it has determined might be appropriate. Now this time your conscious mind has determined that this particular word adds the stylistic element you were looking for. The word is then 'approved' and your conscious mind proceeds to signal your motor system that it should engage in typing it.

Now this is the second function I believe the conscious mind has. So basically I don't agree with the conscious mind merely being a reflection of the 'third eye' because it is able to discriminate, organize, acquire and process information. Discrimination and organization are evident in the filtering and adjustment processes it can engage in, such as in the writing example. The acquirement and processing of information I believe is evident in the learning to play the drums example.

quote:

Originally posted by Magnetonium You guys are starting to hurt my head. Its much simpler - there's not really a plan in this world. Because if there was, if you were aware of things that has happened before they actually did, then life will be pointless. You will also become confused. So its like a game. You start a move, and then the whole sequence of events is in action, and some other factor might have an effect along the way. When you start writing your sentence, you dont really have it already finished in your subconsciousness already. Your subconsciousness is merely the storage place for all your experience. Like a live recording motion picture of sorts. Its like you start typing a sentence (that you thought of beforehand), and then halfway through you type a wrong letter, and have to come back to adjust it, and then everything else is thrown off the original plan. Things happen in sequence, with no plan. EDIT: Fukkkk ... long day at my chemical labs at college. I will elaborate more on the subconsciousness later. I think in this thread there's a mixup between the conscious and subconscious. The brain and its ability to digest information and give quick methods of response is one thing, on a conscious level. Subconsciousness has more to do with your gut feeling, your supernatural assistance as one might say, your driving force. If it was just the brain, we'd be acting like machines. There's definitely more to us than science. It can be related to the concept of soul. Anyhow, I am going to get some sleep ...

I think you might be confused between subconscious and conscious processes. Subconscious processes are merely things that your brain does that you are not aware of, such as coordinating your walking, processing light waves in order for you to see and evaluating and retrieving different semantic structures according to their appropriateness to what you are attempting to say. There is no 'driving fore' or 'supernatural assistance' in your brain. Your 'gut feeling' comes from information processing in particular brain structures that happen in a speedy, parallel, subconscious manner. There usually called heuristic processes. Next time your walking ask yourself this, who is coordinating all the proper muscles contractions? Who is evaluating your movements and the properties of the surface in order to maintain your equilibrium? Who is triggering proper ab/lower back muscle contractions and relaxations in order for you to be moving while upright? This what subconscious processes are.

quote:

Originally posted by venomX I think you might be confused between subconscious and conscious processes. Subconscious processes are merely things that your brain does that you are not aware of, such as coordinating your walking, processing light waves in order for you to see and evaluating and retrieving different semantic structures according to their appropriateness to what you are attempting to say. There is no 'driving fore' or 'supernatural assistance' in your brain. Your 'gut feeling' comes from information processing in particular brain structures that happen in a speedy, parallel, subconscious manner. There usually called heuristic processes. Next time your walking ask yourself this, who is coordinating all the proper muscles contractions? Who is evaluating your movements and the properties of the surface in order to maintain your equilibrium? Who is triggering proper ab/lower back muscle contractions and relaxations in order for you to be moving while upright? This what subconscious processes are.

I believe that subconsciousness goes beyond that, but I am very tight on the words today, after having 2 massive labs at college today that exhausted me. I would easily add walking, processing light waves and such to the conscious mind, because those are the functions of the brain that have been easily detected by scientists. Because I believe that brain is a multi tasker. Things on the subconscious go deeper, and mostly cannot be detected precisely by our instruments. I believe that the subconsciousness guides such things as our feelings and genetic characteristics that get passed on to the character. I wont indulge in details, its just my personal belief and there's no evidence to prove it. Other than some books that will be passed as heresy by scientists. I believe also in the concept of a soul ...

Oh, you consciously decipher light waves?

edit: Or even better, you consciously breathe and beat your heart during sleep?

quote:

Originally posted by Sunsnail Oh, you consciously decipher light waves?

Definitely. The brain is the world's most powerful computer. Actually, things dont look exactly as we see them, other creatures and other human-like beings will see them differently perhaps, since our eyes are tuned in a special way to adjust to our sun, the environment, the gravity and other forces. Under different magnifications and colours the world looks different. Just like the microscope and different lenses. How would the world look like to a fish?


Remember a famous saying that only about 2% of our brain is used up in our lifetime ;-) imagine what the rest is used for, and how we havent unlocked our brain which holds many more amazing powers and abilities. Ok, you can laugh at me if you want, but its not only my belief.

quote:

Originally posted by Sunsnail edit: Or even better, you consciously breathe and beat your heart during sleep?

If you think about breathing, do the roles change as to what controls the breathing? Its been proven that you can change your breathing patterns. Your brain or body or whatever then assumes this pattern if its done a certain number of times so that the brain remembers it. If it was subconscious, then the breathing would be the same for everyone, but every person has it differently and can change it.

Think yourself into breathing. Then it will not be the same. Your brain performs so many calculations every second, ranging from thinking, to breathing, to contact with skin, to whatever else. Most of these are not comprehended by your thinking, unless you choose to think or concentrate on a specific process(es). So in a way you can label your entire brain process as subconscious ...

I think the debate here is to determine what the conscious and subconscious characteristics of some of the body functions are.

As for your normal body functions while sleeping - evolution can explain that. You dont just breathe while you're sleeping - you're digestive systems are at work, too. Your body never stop working until you're dead. Do you suggest that subconscious processes also do such things as breaking down your food in the stomache because you dont think about it?

EDIT: You can apply the same logic to such repetitive tasks as walking and running ...

quote:

Originally posted by Magnetonium If you think about breathing, do the roles change as to what controls the breathing? Its been proven that you can change your breathing patterns. Your brain or body or whatever then assumes this pattern if its done a certain number of times so that the brain remembers it. If it was subconscious, then the breathing would be the same for everyone, but every person has it differently and can change it. Think yourself into breathing. Then it will not be the same. Your brain performs so many calculations every second, ranging from thinking, to breathing, to contact with skin, to whatever else. Most of these are not comprehended by your thinking, unless you choose to think or concentrate on a specific process(es). So in a way you can label your entire brain process as subconscious ... I think the debate here is to determine what the conscious and subconscious characteristics of some of the body functions are. As for your normal body functions while sleeping - evolution can explain that. You dont just breathe while you're sleeping - you're digestive systems are at work, too. Your body never stop working until you're dead. Do you suggest that subconscious processes also do such things as breaking down your food in the stomache because you dont think about it? EDIT: You can apply the same logic to such repetitive tasks as walking and running ...

If you read my arguments on learning you would have noticed that I accounted for those changes. After all you LEARN how to walk, run, type, ride a bike, etc... No one here said that subconscious processes are immutable. Also, it is already quite clear which processes are conscious and subconscious. I really don't understand where the waters are muddied for you. What is currently under debate in most circles is how consciousness works, not which processes are conscious or subconscious. In any case I won't argue against your points if they are impossible to back up (with evidence of course). I entertain all other arguments if they are feasible, i.e. Subey's argument, even with his re branding, is quite accurate by current cognitive science findings (except for the consciousness merely reflecting the subconscious processes that feed into it).

quote:

Originally posted by Magnetonium Think yourself into breathing. Then it will not be the same. Your brain performs so many calculations every second, ranging from thinking, to breathing, to contact with skin, to whatever else. Most of these are not comprehended by your thinking, unless you choose to think or concentrate on a specific process(es). So in a way you can label your entire brain process as subconscious ...

Seriously Mag, this is exactly what Subey has being arguing for all along. Well more or less in any case. And no, some processes are definitely subconscious. There is no way in hell you can reassign colors to wave frequencies for example. You will never 'see' red when getting the frequency that is currently assigned for green.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.