Definition of Consciousness

[dlorde]

If one communicates with the subconscious, then it isn't subconscious.

Strictly true; but for the sake of argument, let's allow it as 'that part of the mind of which we are not normally consciously aware', or something along those lines, otherwise it'll get even messier and hand-wavier than it is already.

 

[Belz...]

Well it _does_ allow me to handwave his claim away.

 

[JoeMorgue]

So to sum up:

All the parts of the working of the brain that actually exists can be explained by science.

All the made up parts of the working of the brain that either outright don't exist, are so vague as to be meaningless, or are nothing more then silly word games, or otherwise exist beyond the event horizon of the formless need Woo to explain them.

 

[tsig]

So to sum up:

All the parts of the working of the brain that actually exists can be explained by science.

All the made up parts of the working of the brain that either outright don't exist, are so vague as to be meaningless, or are nothing more then silly word games, or otherwise exist beyond the event horizon of the formless need Woo to explain them.

Can you be 100% sure of that?

 

[PixyMisa]

I have had things happen to me subjectively which compelled me to rerun the memory of the event(s) almost on a daily basis, and some of those things happened 30 years and more ago.

As dlorde noted, that does not improve the reliability of the memory.

So it is incorrect to argue that "There's a part you're refusing to accept: human memory is notoriously unreliable." in such cases.

Nope.

 

[MuDPhuD]

MuDPhuD, Yes I am absolutely sure I was told I would win the lottery before the draw as I looked at the clock one hour before the live lottery draw on TV. It was then that a voice said "you won". I have done the lottery every week since it started and I still do, but the only time I heard that voice telling me I won, was when I did actually win.

This is exactly what you would expect based on confirmation bias. You "heard the voice" and won, and you remember it forever. If you ever "had a feeling" or "heard a voice" and didn't win, you will forget it immediately. It's the same as with the full moon; when things happen under the full moon people remember, but if the moon is not full they don't, and everyone is convinced that the full moon causes it, even though more crazy sh&@ happens the other 27 days of the month.

It drives me crazy!

 

[MuDPhuD]

PS Have we defined consciousness yet?

 

[JoeMorgue]

PS Have we defined consciousness yet?

A bunch of made up stuff that gets invoked as "something science can't explain" in order to prove Woo.

 

[tsig]

PS Have we defined consciousness yet?

An emergent property of a sufficiently complicated neural system.

or

a mysterious property of the human mind, the last hideout of woo.

 

[Scorpion]

This is exactly what you would expect based on confirmation bias. You "heard the voice" and won, and you remember it forever. If you ever "had a feeling" or "heard a voice" and didn't win, you will forget it immediately. It's the same as with the full moon; when things happen under the full moon people remember, but if the moon is not full they don't, and everyone is convinced that the full moon causes it, even though more crazy sh&@ happens the other 27 days of the month.

It drives me crazy!

Oh yea! well the incident about winning the lottery is not the only experience I have had of the existence of telepathy. In the 1970s I had a friend who knew when I was having a panic attack, and he ran all the way up the road from his flat to mine. I did not answer the door because I was too freaked out, so he got my landlady to let him in, and he came rushing in and asked me if I was alright. If he had not helped me I might have ended up in hospital that night, but he talked me down. He knew I was in trouble from down the road. This tells me that thought can travel outside the body. So what does that imply about the nature of consciousness?

 

[MuDPhuD]

Oh yea! well the incident about winning the lottery is not the only experience I have had of the existence of telepathy. In the 1970s I had a friend who knew when I was having a panic attack, and he ran all the way up the road from his flat to mine. I did not answer the door because I was too freaked out, so he got my landlady to let him in, and he came rushing in and asked me if I was alright. If he had not helped me I might have ended up in hospital that night, but he talked me down. He knew I was in trouble from down the road. This tells me that thought can travel outside the body. So what does that imply about the nature of consciousness?

So you accept confirmation bias as an explanation; that's minus one example of telepathy then.

Next, your panic attack.
How often did/do you have them, and how well did this friend know you?

I can offer a similar example from my own past. On a summer afternoon, my 17 yr old older sister drove away from our house to see a friend in a nearby neighborhood. About five minutes later we all heard screeching tires and a loud crash through our open windows from the busy intersection just outside our street. My mother immediately said, "oh my God, my daughter!", hopped in her car and drove to the intersection where her fears were confirmed. My sister had been involved in a serious collision (fortunately no one was seriously injured). My mother is convinced to this day that this represents a example of clairvoyance.
My mundane explanation is simply that given the circumstances of a young driver, a busy intersection, and the timing if the event, my mother's subconscious leapt to a likely conclusion. Because her intuition proved correct, it has been remembered forever and told and retold, but in actuality no clairvoyance is required to explain it.

I dare say everyone has similar stories. If you don't very carefully consider alternate mundane explanations, AT THE TIME, then you may be left with supernatural explanations to which your memory will adjust with each retelling, until, after a few weeks, months, or years, the circumstances you remember become inexplicable by any conventional means.

 

[Scorpion]

MuDPhuD, My friend knew me well, but I rarely had a crisis like the one I was having that night. It was triggered by certain events of the day.My friend had never run up the road like that, to see me before, and he KNEW I was in trouble. I am certain he had some kind of esp.

 

[Belz...]

This tells me that thought can travel outside the body.

Why are you only considering that explanation and not others ? Have you not figured out by now that your desire for these things to be true may be severely hampering your ability to analyse these events clearly and dispassionately ?

 

[Belz...]

My mundane explanation is simply that given the circumstances of a young driver, a busy intersection, and the timing if the event, my mother's subconscious leapt to a likely conclusion. Because her intuition proved correct, it has been remembered forever and told and retold, but in actuality no clairvoyance is required to explain it.

Given how many times my mother thought that something had happened to my dad because he was about a minute late from work, if she had been right even once, it wouldn't have been surprising, but I'm sure she'd think she had a moment of supernatural prescience.

 

[Navigator]

So, to summarize, your firm knowledge that your subconscious mind, with which you communicate, is an entity apart from your brain is based on communications from your subconscious mind which tells you this is so. You believe this without any way to confirm whether it might be true or not. If you have some way to confirm this please be forthcoming as I would love to hear it. Otherwise I respectfully submit that you are fooling yourself.

My claim is that it can speak for itself. I only use the word subconscious because of the words very general meaning.
But I also use the words 'larger aspect of the self' and 'soul'.
But why would you think this aspect would want to 'fool' you?

We all communicate with our subconscious. Your supposition that no one who disagrees with you has spent time introspecting and "getting in contact with their inner selves" is presumptuous.

MuDPhuD What is presumptuous is that you have decided this is what I am saying which only goes to show that you have not taken care to read my posts. As I mentioned in those posts, this is not about having some inner self reflective dialog.

[A] I recognize my "inner self", the source of motivations, inspirations, and creative urges as my subconscious mind which arises from the activity of neural networks which comprise my cerebrum. This is what it tells me. I, however, recognize a large body of independent research which confirms what my subconscious says.

[A] How did it tell you this?
Are you sure that this is not in fact the only thing that has told you about your 'inner self' and you conflate that data?

Listening to your inner voices, and getting to know your inner selves is a tricky business.

There you go using that word again. Your inner self will 'trick' you.

Every religion in human history is based on spiritual communication with the subconscious realms, usually by select and trained individuals,. This type communication has resulted in myriad internally inconsistent, and mutually exclusive religious systems resulting in very little good, but certainly in widespread bloodshed between groups who's spirit worlds gave conflicting information.

You really think this is what goes on? People connect with their larger aspect and from this they are told to murder one another?

I submit to you that subconscious, spiritual, or divine revelation is not a source of reliable information.

My data of experience tells me otherwise. I submit to you that rejecting that connection for the purpose of communication and presuming things upon the nature of this thing isn't science.

 

[dlorde]

Oh yea! well the incident about winning the lottery is not the only experience I have had of the existence of telepathy. In the 1970s I had a friend who knew when I was having a panic attack...

Unfortunately, memories of events 40+ years ago can not be taken as specific evidence of anything without supporting contemporary records. All kinds of details can be added or lost, quite unconsciously, to reinforce an interesting narrative.

A friend who knew you had panic attacks might well come round when you were having one. They may even have said they sensed something was wrong. Odd coincidences such as this (and, for example, friends phoning just when you're thinking of them), do happen, and should be expected purely by chance. They will be remembered as unusual, and all the instances where you had a panic attack and your friend didn't come round, wondering if you were OK, will be forgotten. See my sig.

Over the years, the unusual aspects of such a story will be emphasised & exaggerated and elements that don't fit the story so well will be forgotten. This is a perfectly normal course of events, quite unconscious, and has been demonstrated many times. Human memory is notoriously unreliable.

See:
How Much of Your Memory Is True?
False Autobiographical Menories
How Memories are Distorted and Invented

About memory in general: How Memory Works

 

[Navigator]

It may be hard to accept, but available evidence suggests that the more often an episodic memory is recalled and recounted, the more distorted it becomes. Distortion often favours a preferred narrative (which may develop over time), and may involve temporal changes, merging with other memories, introduction of false memories, loss of significant information, etc.

This is something common to almost everyone (there are a few rare individuals with 'superior autobiographical memory' who recall accurate detail of their daily activities), so it happens to all of us. Human memory is notoriously unreliable.

In my case, no it is not.
It may be true that distortion (elaboration, leaving out significant details etc) can happen in order to 'explain' what occurred, but that is selective memory based upon personal perceptions and bias due to belief systems.
Memory of exceptional incidence, while open to distortion from external and internal interpretation, does not have to happen. It is for the most part, and individual choice to distort.

What good did it do to know you'd win?

I'd be more impressed if the voice had given you the winning numbers.

I doubt that tsig.

If one communicates with the subconscious, then it isn't subconscious.

Then what would it be and how would you go about asking it and getting an answer from it?

Strictly true; but for the sake of argument, let's allow it as 'that part of the mind of which we are not normally consciously aware', or something along those lines, otherwise it'll get even messier and hand-wavier than it is already.

That's a start, but talking about it (let alone talking for it) does not make it any more accessible, or the rumor (about it) any more valid.

Well it _does_ allow me to handwave his claim away.

No. That is the little you poo-poohing the idea in an off-handed manner. That is not science.

So to sum up:

All the parts of the working of the brain that actually exists can be explained by science.

No. Science as a method can set it up so the process of examination can be done. Science of itself cannot 'explain' on behalf of that aspect of consciousness which actually exists. but is for the most part, not so noticed by the human senses... but is nonetheless present.

All the made up parts of the working of the brain that either outright don't exist, are so vague as to be meaningless, or are nothing more then silly word games, or otherwise exist beyond the event horizon of the formless need Woo to explain them.

More the story would have to go 'what is unknown has no language attached to it by that which does not know it, and presumes to know it.' To call that 'woo' is not science.

Can you be 100% sure of that?

JoeBentley is not 100% sure of that. Even if JoeBentley claims that JoeBentley is 100% sure of that.

This is exactly what you would expect based on confirmation bias. You "heard the voice" and won, and you remember it forever. If you ever "had a feeling" or "heard a voice" and didn't win, you will forget it immediately. It's the same as with the full moon; when things happen under the full moon people remember, but if the moon is not full they don't, and everyone is convinced that the full moon causes it, even though more crazy sh&@ happens the other 27 days of the month.

It drives me crazy!

That's funny.

PS Have we defined consciousness yet?

No. There is simply an aspect of consciousness which given the opportunity can define itself. You will have to learn its language too.

A bunch of made up stuff that gets invoked as "something science can't explain" in order to prove Woo.

Claiming that people are making up stuff just because it suits your bias to do so, is not science. I am 100% sure of that.

An emergent property of a sufficiently complicated neural system.

or

a mysterious property of the human mind, the last hideout of woo.

Who is hiding from who? You think an aspect of your self which you are not aware of is 'hiding' and 'woo'? You know this how?
What you are doing is making it woo in your mind already. Speaking on its behalf and proclaiming it is 'woo'.
In doing so it is you who are hiding from it.

Oh yea! well the incident about winning the lottery is not the only experience I have had of the existence of telepathy. In the 1970s I had a friend who knew when I was having a panic attack, and he ran all the way up the road from his flat to mine. I did not answer the door because I was too freaked out, so he got my landlady to let him in, and he came rushing in and asked me if I was alright. If he had not helped me I might have ended up in hospital that night, but he talked me down. He knew I was in trouble from down the road. This tells me that thought can travel outside the body. So what does that imply about the nature of consciousness?

It implies a great deal. More so not because it happened to you, but because it happens to so many individuals.
It infers that at some level of consciousness we are all connected. That in turn implies that we are not as individuate as we might like to believe.

MuDPhuD, My friend knew me well, but I rarely had a crisis like the one I was having that night. It was triggered by certain events of the day.My friend had never run up the road like that, to see me before, and he KNEW I was in trouble. I am certain he had some kind of esp.

What we think of as 'esp' may be no more or less than at some level we are all connected.
A level that we are not ordinarily conscious of.

 

[Scorpion]

Yea! I don't buy the theory that human memory is so faulty we cannot be sure what has happened to us. I think that is just the skeptics way of dismissing things they don't want to accept. After all we are the sum of our memories arn't we?
Then they tell us that it is just what we want to believe, but I don't buy that either, as I have not had so much fun that I want to live beyond death. If death is the end that is OK with me.
But it is the sum of my experience that there is more going on.

 

[Navigator]

Yea! I don't buy the theory that human memory is so faulty we cannot be sure what has happened to us. I think that is just the skeptics way of dismissing things they don't want to accept. After all we are the sum of our memories arn't we?

Are we?
From what I have been told, we are more than that even.

Then they tell us that it is just what we want to believe, but I don't buy that either, as I have not had so much fun that I want to live beyond death. If death is the end that is OK with me.
But it is the sum of my experience that there is more going on.

Yep. We don't know so needn't assume.
It is a spice to life to remember moments/experiences when life wasn't just so-so in the mundane.
Dismissing things out of hand and encouraging others to follow suit, isn't the most appropriate way in which to approach the whole experience.

Each to their own of course.

 

[calebprime]

...
Memory of exceptional incidence, while open to distortion from external and internal interpretation, does not have to happen. It is for the most part, and individual choice to distort.

...

I've been trying to understand this sentence.

I think it's this:

The distortion of memory -- especially exceptional incidents -- does not have to happen. It is an individual choice.