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.

___________________
Светопресавление
your pearl casting hero

Last edited by Subey on Oct-03-2007 at 18:26

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.

___________________
Poetry>Byron//Blog>TheMean

quote:

Orbax At that point you kind of crossed the rubicon and you might as well lay siege to Rome

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

___________________
Светопресавление
your pearl casting hero

Last edited by Subey on Sep-20-2007 at 16:45

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.

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!

___________________
Светопресавление
your pearl casting hero

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.

___________________
Whenever you go and buy something, you are affecting someone somewhere, be it environment, a person, or a community - you're making a statement with what you buy. So make it a smart choice ... Its a big picture

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.

___________________
Whenever you go and buy something, you are affecting someone somewhere, be it environment, a person, or a community - you're making a statement with what you buy. So make it a smart choice ... Its a big picture

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.

___________________
Poetry>Byron//Blog>TheMean

quote:

Orbax At that point you kind of crossed the rubicon and you might as well lay siege to Rome

Last edited by venomX on Sep-21-2007 at 05:02

Yeah, what the hell?

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.

___________________
Poetry>Byron//Blog>TheMean

quote:

Orbax At that point you kind of crossed the rubicon and you might as well lay siege to Rome

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.

___________________
Whenever you go and buy something, you are affecting someone somewhere, be it environment, a person, or a community - you're making a statement with what you buy. So make it a smart choice ... Its a big picture