Subconsciousness and Humanity.

[Navigator]

So you're really talking about what most people call a soul.

I am not sure tsig. There is so much variation in the meanings individuals give to words.

In relation to 'the soul' in its most common use, is that:

1: It is the real you
2: It (you) lives on after the body dies

In that light in relation to Subconsciousness, since we don't know anything about 2: I am not talking about the soul, but in relation to 1: I am talking about the soul.

 

[Navigator]

You only seem to be adding that you feel this is 'propelled' by the 'Subconscious', which, translated to everyday parlance, says our basic drives originate below conscious awareness, which is not news to anyone.

The basic drive itself is linked to Subconsciousness but that link can be distorted by the Consciousness – we all know that.
It is somewhat like meeting a person for the first time and without that person telling you anything about themselves, you decide for yourself everything about that person.

Did you listen to that link JasonR gave?
http://fora.tv/2011/11/02/David_Eagleman_Will_We_Ever_Understand_the_Brain

The closer we get to knowing everything, the more we can say we know much.

What does the above diagram tell you?

 

[dlorde]

Did you listen to that link JasonR gave?

Yes, nicely presented, but all familiar stuff.

The closer we get to knowing everything, the more we can say we know much.

The more we learn, the more we find how much more there is to learn.

[qimg]http://img541.imageshack.us/img541/7411/gzhp.jpg[/qimg]
What does the above diagram tell you?

How some unspecified group answered a question about a red dot?

If you have a point to make, just make it.

 

[Navigator]

How some unspecified group answered a question about a red dot?

If you have a point to make, just make it.

The above diagram tells you that an unspecified group answered a question about a red dot.
Is that all the diagram tells you dlorde?

 

[Manopolus]

Conditional solipsism?

Sounds about right, actually. I'm not sure what it has to do with this thread, since I've had a bit of trouble following the odd leaps of logic and overcooked vocabulary, but the O.P. pushed my thoughts back in that direction for some reason.

Anyway, I suppose I'll desist from the distractions until I actually make more of an effort to understand the conversation.

 

[dlorde]

Is that all the diagram tells you dlorde?

It could be saying any number of things. You have provided no context.

If you have a point to make, make it.

 

[Navigator]

It could be saying any number of things. You have provided no context.

If you have a point to make, make it.

The diagram itself is the context. That is why I asked.

1: The diagram tells you that an unspecified group answered a question about a red dot.
2: The diagram could be saying any number of things.

Anything else?

 

[tsig]

The diagram itself is the context. That is why I asked.

1: The diagram tells you that an unspecified group answered a question about a red dot.
2: The diagram could be saying any number of things.

Anything else?

Ambiguous questions get ambiguous answers.

 

[dlorde]

1: The diagram tells you that an unspecified group answered a question about a red dot.

You misrepresent my response - I questioned whether it showed how an unspecified group answered a question about a red dot.

 

[Dancing David]

We know that when the brain dies, it starts to seriously decay and through that process become part of the Earth.

Not that it ever wasn’t.

What we don’t know is whether Consciousness/Subconsicousness continues to exist independently of the brain which birthed it.

Burden of proof on the claimant. Null is what appears, that consciousness is associated with organic neural structures.

Burden of proof to you.
Have you defined Subconsciousness or shown the data and evidence for it yet?

In this regard, while it is obvious the human imagination can and does branch off into all sorts off explanations for what such a thing might be like, for the most part this distraction accounts for nothing in particular.

We don’t know, so no point is speculating about those things.

Yup, let me guess what you are going to do?

However, we also don’t know with any certainty that as a natural part of the evolution of biological life forms with accompanying brains and Consciousness/Subconsciousness that these cannot continue on without brains.

Um, nope the burden is on you or any other to show that is does, so far all the evidence is that there is NO consciousness after the brain has fully died.

We don’t and cannot know.

The closer we become to knowing and understanding everything the more we can say that we know.

We know there is no evidence of consciousness after the brain has died and suffered terminal anoxia.

Until such a time, we don’t know – especially when there is no way to measure.

We can measure Conscious interaction with the Physical Universe.

We can measure Subconscious interaction with the physical brain.

Evidence lacking.

We can even measure Subconscious/Conscious interaction.

[qimg]http://img694.imageshack.us/img694/885/ejtp.jpg[/qimg]

It is a touchy subject because there are many beliefs involved with this speculation and some think it is vitally important and others think it is not even an issue to discuss because there are far more important things to think about and agree upon.

data and evidence and coherent definition of Subconsciousness still lacking.

To some it matters and to others it does not.

It is simply that it is unknown, and should be treated as such.

Yup, meaning it is about the same as Game of Thrones, fiction.

 

[Dancing David]

I am not sure tsig. There is so much variation in the meanings individuals give to words.

In relation to 'the soul' in its most common use, is that:

1: It is the real you

Show me any evidence that the real you is not your body.

2: It (you) lives on after the body dies

Evidence notably lacking.

In that light in relation to Subconsciousness, since we don't know anything about 2: I am not talking about the soul, but in relation to 1: I am talking about the soul.

More fiction, less coherent definition. < 0

 

[Dancing David]

The basic drive itself is linked to Subconsciousness but that link can be distorted by the Consciousness – we all know that.
It is somewhat like meeting a person for the first time and without that person telling you anything about themselves, you decide for yourself everything about that person.

Did you listen to that link JasonR gave?
http://fora.tv/2011/11/02/David_Eagleman_Will_We_Ever_Understand_the_Brain

The closer we get to knowing everything, the more we can say we know much.

[qimg]http://img541.imageshack.us/img541/7411/gzhp.jpg[/qimg]
What does the above diagram tell you?

Still no definition or evidence for the Subconsciousness.

 

[JaysonR]

"Subconsciousness" is a term for brain processing activity which takes place without conscious process activity stimulant or direct awareness.

The DMN (default-mode network) is one rather very large subconscious network.

The connections are topographically explored in "Resting-state functional connectivity reflects structural connectivity in the default-mode network".
http://findlab.stanford.edu/Publications/greicius_DMN_DTI.pdf

 

[dlorde]

"Subconsciousness" is a term for brain processing activity which takes place without conscious process activity stimulant or direct awareness.

Yes, but is that Navigator's definition?

 

[Hokulele]

Navigator, you are treating "conscious" and "subconscious" as nouns. From what we know, they are more like verbs.

 

[Dancing David]

"Subconsciousness" is a term for brain processing activity which takes place without conscious process activity stimulant or direct awareness.

The DMN (default-mode network) is one rather very large subconscious network.

The connections are topographically explored in "Resting-state functional connectivity reflects structural connectivity in the default-mode network".
http://findlab.stanford.edu/Publications/greicius_DMN_DTI.pdf

Hi Jayson!


We were asking Navigator, and actually many of us just prefer to avoid the whole term, it is loaded with baggage from Jung, Freud and years of pop psychology ********. And in Navigator's case a bunch of unsubstantiated stuff.

I prefer to use terms like 'preconscious', 'emotional patterns' and 'association', there would also be 'habits'.

 

[Navigator]

You misrepresent my response - I questioned whether it showed how an unspecified group answered a question about a red dot.

My bad – Yes it does show what you say, so:

1: The diagram tells you that perhaps it is how an unspecified group answered a question about a red dot.
2: The diagram could be saying any number of things.

Anything else?

 

[Navigator]

Quote: We know that when the brain dies, it starts to seriously decay and through that process become part of the Earth.

Not that it ever wasn’t.

What we don’t know is whether Consciousness/Subconsicousness continues to exist independently of the brain which birthed it.

Burden of proof on the claimant. Null is what appears, that consciousness is associated with organic neural structures.

Thank you DancingDavid.

I understand a little more about Null now.
“consciousness is associated with organic neural structures.”

This statement therefore claims that because this is so, Consciousness continuing to exist after the brain which birthed it dies is not provable.

Is that what null means? I don’t think it does from what I have read, but admit that I don’t fully understand the concept.

Burden of proof to you.

As far as I can tell, I never made the claim that it did actually continue. I mentioned it in the context that we don’t know – my conclusion after the observation was:

Quote: It is simply that it is unknown, and should be treated as such.

Have you defined Subconsciousness or shown the data and evidence for it yet?

I have defined Subconsciousness as something which Consciousness can communicate with.
I have developed a system which can be used to test this using a computer as the ‘device’ for ideomotor effect, based upon what I learned through use of my mirror glass device(s) in relation to ideomotor effect.

I have shown no data gathered from this way of communicating.

What would you consider to be evidence? From what I can gather, I could explain to you my method and share some of the data recorded, but for evidence you would have to use the same method and come up with similar results, and you would also have to be willing to put a bit of time and effort into it as part of the testing process.


Quote:However, we also don’t know with any certainty that as a natural part of the evolution of biological life forms with accompanying brains and Consciousness/Subconsciousness that these cannot continue on without brains.

Um, nope the burden is on you or any other to show that is does, so far all the evidence is that there is NO consciousness after the brain has fully died.

This would be correct if I were actually making a claim. If there is any claim I have made it is simply that it is unknown, and should be treated as such.

I do not think it necessary to provide evidence about that.

Quote:1: Until such a time, we don’t know – especially when there is no way to measure.

2: We can measure Conscious interaction with the Physical Universe.

3: We can measure Subconscious interaction with the physical brain.

Evidence lacking.

I can assume you mean in regard to all three?

I understand 1: needs no evidence to support. Perhaps I am incorrect and there are ways to measure?

I understand 2: can is and will continue to be done.

I understand 3: can is and will continue to be done.

I don’t understand why you are saying there is lack of evidence. Please explain.

Quote:It is simply that it is unknown, and should be treated as such.

Yup, meaning it is about the same as Game of Thrones, fiction.

It is neither fiction or fact. It is simply unknown and should be treated as such.

 

[Navigator]

Originally Posted by Navigator
I am not sure tsig. There is so much variation in the meanings individuals give to words.

In relation to 'the soul' in its most common use, is that:

1: It is the real you

Show me any evidence that the real you is not your body.

That is an interesting conception.
Do you think you are your body David?
I am reminded of those who feel that they are ‘female’ but have ‘male’ bodies and do not consider that their Self is male even be that they are in a male form.

I personally consider the ‘real’ me to be the whole experience I am having in regards to being Human.
Specifically I consider the real me to be that which is able to say so (self identification) and these would be Consciousness and Subconsciousness in aggregate.

I consider the brain to be the machine which allows for Consciousness and Subconsciousness to interface and the body to be the machine which allows for Consciousness and Subconsciousness to explore and utilize the physical environment.

I consider the emotions to being part of the process of exploration and interaction with the physical environment and also with the non physical environment.

I consider that personal identification can mean many things to many individuals, and that no evidence to support personally identification is required.

Example.

A man might say that his self identification is “I am a biker” and no one is going to question that man or ask him for evidence to support his claim’
He may not even have a motor bike or even a patch.

Same goes for the man who feels he is a woman. The evidence shows plainly that he is in a male form, and thus should be sufficient proof that he is a he, but it does not matter in regard to self identification.

Of course it can always be argued that ‘I am a biker’ or ‘I am a woman in a male body’ are not examples of ‘the real you’ and this would be correct.

They are examples of the aspect of a human being called the Consciousness which is known to be somewhat inaccurate about what it is observing and experiencing.

When that Consciousness aspect can connect with the Subconscious aspect, it has the opportunity to redefine its own self identity based upon those interactions through consciously allowing the merging the two aspects into one identity by degrees.

 

[Navigator]

Originally Posted by JaysonR
"Subconsciousness" is a term for brain processing activity which takes place without conscious process activity stimulant or direct awareness.

yes, but is that Navigator's definition?

It is, but there is more to it than that.
Because Consciousness is able to communicate with Subconsciousness, we can by degree get its point of view as to what it is, in relation to Consciousness.

Therefore my definition includes that the Subconsciousness is Conscious and self aware.