Subconsciousness and Humanity.

[Navigator]

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

noun [nown]
(plural nouns)
n
naming word: a word or group of words used as the name of a class of people, places, or things, or of a specific person, place, or thing

verb [vurb]
(plural verbs)
n
1. word indicating action or state: a word used to show that an action is taking place or to indicate the existence of a state or condition, or the part of speech to which such a word belongs

Hokulele, I do not distinguish the aspects of Consciousness and Subconsciousness from the individual. I also consider both aspects to be a state. The personal identification.
Therefore I am treating both aspects (Consciousness and Subconsciousness)as noun and verb.

 

[Navigator]

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

I... (Conscious aspect of self identification)
...Prefer... (bias signifier)
...to use terms like 'preconscious', 'emotional patterns' and 'association', there would also be 'habits'

Emotional patterns, association and habits are all largely constructs of the Consciousness.

Preconscious is something the Subconscious aspect IS (as a state) in regard to the Conscious aspect.
Subconsciousness is in itself Conscious (which is why it has the word ‘Conscious’ in it.)

 

[dlorde]

Subconsciousness is in itself Conscious (which is why it has the word ‘Conscious’ in it.)

No. From the Latin: 'sub' = under/below. The knowledge you need is out there, Google is your guide.

 

[Hokulele]

noun [nown]
(plural nouns)
n
naming word: a word or group of words used as the name of a class of people, places, or things, or of a specific person, place, or thing

verb [vurb]
(plural verbs)
n
1. word indicating action or state: a word used to show that an action is taking place or to indicate the existence of a state or condition, or the part of speech to which such a word belongs

Hokulele, I do not distinguish the aspects of Consciousness and Subconsciousness from the individual. I also consider both aspects to be a state. The personal identification.
Therefore I am treating both aspects (Consciousness and Subconsciousness)as noun and verb.

How can you have a state separate from a thing? Earlier, you claimed that the subconscious could interact with the brain. In order for there to be interaction, you need two separate things.

And no, they aren't nouns, which was exactly my point, and I believe Jayson's as well.

 

[JaysonR]

I'm going to quote all related posts back-to-back and then address the content together.

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'.

Yes, but is that Navigator's definition?

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



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.

I... (Conscious aspect of self identification)
...Prefer... (bias signifier)
...to use terms like 'preconscious', 'emotional patterns' and 'association', there would also be 'habits'

Emotional patterns, association and habits are all largely constructs of the Consciousness.

Preconscious is something the Subconscious aspect IS (as a state) in regard to the Conscious aspect.
Subconsciousness is in itself Conscious (which is why it has the word ‘Conscious’ in it.)

No. From the Latin: 'sub' = under/below. The knowledge you need is out there, Google is your guide.

David; you are quite right in pointing out that neuroscience publication tends to stay away from the term, "subconscious", due to the baggage.
On the other hand, it's a well known vernacular that (currently) doesn't tend to refer to much more than 'things that the brain does below the level of conscious awareness'.

Some small groups of folks still hold that Freudian "Unterbewusstsein" concept when stating, "subconsciousness", but not very many.

I don't think "preconsciousness" averts the issue, as that term was also a deeply Freudian term with different concepts attached to it than the idea of things happening below the consciousness.

Either way (and dlorde); Nav's more referring to the neurological concept of the state of the brain as considered not conscious.

Now, very much of what happens in our brain below the layer of consciousness is very much a part of our self identity, but I'm not certain that I can confirm that idea you have Nav that subconsciousness is self aware.

In the sense that it is self regulated as a routing network of neural networks, that much I can confirm it as "aware", but in the sense of conceptually being aware of itself; I do not know of any study that has achieved the accomplishment of showing this.

It may be possible, but there's a few obstacles in the way of determining this.
Firstly, subconsciousness is a catch-all phrase to a general state; or more specifically, a non-state. It is sort of like saying underground; the term more refers to a collection of things that are not above ground, but does not specify a specific form or singular unified state inherently.

As such, subconsciousness is a vernacular that refers to a wide range of networks such as (but not limited to) the default-mode network, the sympathetic nervous system and autonomic nervous system.

Basically; it's anything that's not consciousness, and some might include the property that it's anything that's not consciousness and capable of being retained as any form of either implicit or explicit memory.


It is my guess, but this (to my knowledge) hasn't been confirmed, that their may be a possibility for the DMN to be self aware, but that is about the only part (so far) of subconsciousness that I can think of which may be capable of being self aware.
I make this guess based on what we do know about the DMN; that it is regulative of routing processing prior to overt actions or overt thoughts, that it is involved in creating and accessing memories, and that it uses areas of the brain which are rather much required for conscious self awareness (such as the medial prefrontal cortex, medial temporal lobes, and posterior cingulate and retrosplenial cortexes).

But I cannot claim this as fact yet.

Also, I can't claim that if the DMN is self aware that all subconscious processes are self aware.

I don't even know that it makes lexical sense to state subconsciousness in terms of self awareness, as how we are formed as a consciousness is by a multitude of opposing functions in our brain which are then regulated to the output of a single decision by being self aware of our many different conceptual needs and wants.

Meaning; the term "I" is actually a misnomer as there's really a bunch of "I"'s in our brain, but they don't think of themselves as "I".
They just "want" and the part of our collective internal constituent identities that claims "I" determines the winner of all competing aspects of our self vying for their wants for the outcome.

This has even been proposed as a possible means to investigate for measuring consciousness in all species; to give a condition which causes immediate contradictory impulses and see how well the species sample subjects resolve the conflict.
If they essentially become stuck in a loop, then such would not be considered very consciously self aware (if any). If, however, they resolved the conflict for one option over the other, or (especially) created a third possibility (requires imagination), then conscious self awareness could be claimed to varying degrees.

So far, I don't think this method has been officially accepted, but it's a pretty good proposal I think.



...I think I covered everything; if I missed something, just let me know.

 

[Dancing David]

Jayson, thanks for your post and I agree with much of what you say. Being at work, I will read it later.

I do disagree, Navigator is using Subconsciousness in it full archetypal woo woo glory.

 

[Navigator]

No. From the Latin: 'sub' = under/below.

Understanding that the term itself was created through Consciousness perspective on ‘what is this other thing that exists’ and giving it a name related to how Consciousness observes ‘this other thing’ and the propensity toward bias, it isn’t hard to understand why Consciousness would place ‘this other thing’ beneath it and label it so.

That said, ‘this other thing’ has the ability to speak for itself and interact with Consciousness, most notably through ideomotor effect.

It can explain itself. It is therefore Conscious.

I would say another more appropriate term which better exemplifies Subconsciousness an it abilities would be “Super Consciousness”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Higher_consciousness

But as can be seen, the woo have laid claim to this term.

Example:
http://www.abundance-and-happiness.com/super-conscious-mind.html

Nevertheless, this fits well with my speculation. People confuse ‘this other thing’ with god, spirits, and ascendance master etc concepts and subjugate Subconsciousness to beneath their own dignity even...in some expressions it certainly sounds so anyway.

One example I read yesterday on a ‘Spiritual’ Forum regarding using Ouija Boards as opposed to trance or automatic writing said that trance and automatic writing were better because “if you keep your eyes open then you might just be looking at the letters and letting your subconscious speak.”

What else do people think they are really speaking with!?

 

[dlorde]

Understanding that the term itself was created through Consciousness perspective on ‘what is this other thing that exists’ and giving it a name related to how Consciousness observes ‘this other thing’ and the propensity toward bias, it isn’t hard to understand why Consciousness would place ‘this other thing’ beneath it and label it so.

That said, ‘this other thing’ has the ability to speak for itself and interact with Consciousness, most notably through ideomotor effect.

It can explain itself. It is therefore Conscious.

I would say another more appropriate term which better exemplifies Subconsciousness an it abilities would be “Super Consciousness”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Higher_consciousness

So whacky it's, as the saying goes, 'not even wrong'...

I give up - again.

 

[Navigator]

Now, very much of what happens in our brain below the layer of consciousness is very much a part of our self identity, but I'm not certain that I can confirm that idea you have Nav that subconsciousness is self aware.

In the sense that it is self regulated as a routing network of neural networks, that much I can confirm it as "aware", but in the sense of conceptually being aware of itself; I do not know of any study that has achieved the accomplishment of showing this.

Thanks Jas for you explanation.
I have to get ready for a gig today so will just quickly reply to what you have said in above quote.

I don’t know of any studies in this area are happing. In order to even try to achieve the accomplishment of showing this, some kind of study would have to focus on it in the first place.
This is why I am thinking that Conscious Subjective agreement on “what is being seen” and “What can we interpret from that” and “Can we all agree on the interpretations” is so pitifully inadequate and why I recently posted that diagram
http://img541.imageshack.us/img541/7411/gzhp.jpg

and also why I stated in the OP:

“No ones personal reality is a fair representation of what is actually real.
The only way to get a good overview of our shared reality is to examine Human systems as the Whole System.”

And why I said yesterday:

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

(Underline the word “Everything” – in relation to all that is)

And even why I posted that picture:
http://img694.imageshack.us/img694/885/ejtp.jpg

How can you have a state separate from a thing? Earlier, you claimed that the subconscious could interact with the brain. In order for there to be interaction, you need two separate things.

And no, they aren't nouns, which was exactly my point, and I believe Jayson's as well.

Hokulele, I will get back to this in a couple of days.

 

[Navigator]

So whacky it's, as the saying goes, 'not even wrong'...

I give up - again.

I give up - again.

 

[Dancing David]

I'm going to quote all related posts back-to-back and then address the content together.











David; you are quite right in pointing out that neuroscience publication tends to stay away from the term, "subconscious", due to the baggage.
On the other hand, it's a well known vernacular that (currently) doesn't tend to refer to much more than 'things that the brain does below the level of conscious awareness'.

Well the common vernacular is part of what we tend to get away from here at the JREF, alot of the discussion is about terminology.

Some small groups of folks still hold that Freudian "Unterbewusstsein" concept when stating, "subconsciousness", but not very many.

I don't think "preconsciousness" averts the issue, as that term was also a deeply Freudian term with different concepts attached to it than the idea of things happening below the consciousness.

Either way (and dlorde); Nav's more referring to the neurological concept of the state of the brain as considered not conscious.

Now, very much of what happens in our brain below the layer of consciousness is very much a part of our self identity,

Now I have to quibble here, it is alongside consciousness, as consciousness is often loosely defined. That is part of why I like the other terms like 'preconscious' (I am not aware of its Freudian baggage, but always open to learning).

There are multiple areas of sensory integration and multiple channels of perception and processing. So for me the term 'below' is part of the problem. Along with the vague nature of the term consciousness.

There is no unitary entity called consciousness, as I think you state further down, there are multiple processes that are lumped together as consciousness.

but I'm not certain that I can confirm that idea you have Nav that subconsciousness is self aware.

Well that is the rub in general, 'you can be aware of something' and yet not meet some of the standard definitions of 'conscious awareness' of it. Part of many areas of practice is learning to bring those things to 'conscious attention' such as small facial gestures, rates of breathing and conversational pauses and inflections. We may be 'conscious to another person's anxiety', and then need to learn why we think they are anxious for example

In the sense that it is self regulated as a routing network of neural networks, that much I can confirm it as "aware", but in the sense of conceptually being aware of itself; I do not know of any study that has achieved the accomplishment of showing this.

It may be possible, but there's a few obstacles in the way of determining this.
Firstly, subconsciousness is a catch-all phrase to a general state; or more specifically, a non-state. It is sort of like saying underground; the term more refers to a collection of things that are not above ground, but does not specify a specific form or singular unified state inherently.

And that is exactly the same problem with the term 'consciousness'.

As such, subconsciousness is a vernacular that refers to a wide range of networks such as (but not limited to) the default-mode network, the sympathetic nervous system and autonomic nervous system.

I am sorry but the whole brain CNS and PNS would be the DMN, and you forgot parasympathetic system.

Basically; it's anything that's not consciousness, and some might include the property that it's anything that's not consciousness and capable of being retained as any form of either implicit or explicit memory.

And that is the problem I have it is too broad a term and so it is inherntly incoherent and lacking in definitive quality.

especially when you get into things that we are 'conscious' of without training to understand why we have that 'impression'

It is my guess, but this (to my knowledge) hasn't been confirmed, that their may be a possibility for the DMN to be self aware, but that is about the only part (so far) of subconsciousness that I can think of which may be capable of being self aware.

So what utility does the term have, why use it, would it not be better to use teh actual terms that defines the process subsumed under 'subconsciousness'.

I make this guess based on what we do know about the DMN; that it is regulative of routing processing prior to overt actions or overt thoughts, that it is involved in creating and accessing memories, and that it uses areas of the brain which are rather much required for conscious self awareness (such as the medial prefrontal cortex, medial temporal lobes, and posterior cingulate and retrosplenial cortexes).

But I cannot claim this as fact yet.

Also, I can't claim that if the DMN is self aware that all subconscious processes are self aware.

Sorry the prefontal cortex and all would be part of the DMN, unless you have some functional criteria that will explain the definition to me.

I don't even know that it makes lexical sense to state subconsciousness in terms of self awareness, as how we are formed as a consciousness is by a multitude of opposing functions in our brain which are then regulated to the output of a single decision by being self aware of our many different conceptual needs and wants.

Meaning; the term "I" is actually a misnomer as there's really a bunch of "I"'s in our brain, but they don't think of themselves as "I".
They just "want" and the part of our collective internal constituent identities that claims "I" determines the winner of all competing aspects of our self vying for their wants for the outcome.

Which is why the term as commonly used is incoherent, 'consciousness' is a partly integrated series of parallel and associated and integrated processes.
I tend to prefer the functional medical definition for that reason, it focuses on the behaviors as opposed to abstracted and idiomatic terminology.

This has even been proposed as a possible means to investigate for measuring consciousness in all species; to give a condition which causes immediate contradictory impulses and see how well the species sample subjects resolve the conflict.

That would be one functional criteria, there are plenty subsumed under the term.

If they essentially become stuck in a loop, then such would not be considered very consciously self aware (if any).

Yes and no, you can be living with OCD, be stuck in some sort of perseveration or ambivalence and quite unable to resolve it, the whole time being quite 'conscious' of it.
What you are describing sounds more like an ability to make attentive focus on certain factors, come to a decision of some sort and make a possible volitional response.

If, however, they resolved the conflict for one option over the other, or (especially) created a third possibility (requires imagination), then conscious self awareness could be claimed to varying degrees.

Sorry, I can think of many non imaginative routes to the same conclusion. So again you could try to describe it behaviorally without assuming internal states.

So far, I don't think this method has been officially accepted, but it's a pretty good proposal I think.



...I think I covered everything; if I missed something, just let me know.

Many a big to all that, if I am snarky let me know I will apologize.

 

[dlorde]

Nav's more referring to the neurological concept of the state of the brain as considered not conscious.

Really? I think not:

That said, ‘this other thing’ [referring to subconscious] has the ability to speak for itself and interact with Consciousness, most notably through ideomotor effect.

It can explain itself. It is therefore Conscious.

I would say another more appropriate term which better exemplifies Subconsciousness an it abilities would be “Super Consciousness”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Higher_consciousness

It's totally barking (my Elven sword is glowing...)

 

[JaysonR]

I'll respond probably tomorrow folks.
I'm a bit worn out atm, as I've just finished writing up and submitting an abstract proposition to a given neurologist whom I have opened a dialogue with.

 

[Manopolus]

Ultimately though, this does not mean that 7 Billion people (and counting) are going to altogether suddenly change the way they work and play together, and that wars will cease and Utopia built.

Building Utopia is within the realm of Human Possibility and like everything else, the Subconsciousness is quiet able to provide the overall insight on how this can be achieved – at present though the Human condition is still rather fragmented although this too is changing as more and more individuals, groups and corporations learn how to connect their ideas with preservation and the need to nurture the planet (nest) at the fore of their agenda – in the fore of their minds.

Sometimes this is not so obvious to the Individual – because their personal reality does not leave much - if any – room in which to observe the Big Picture, due to their own chosen belief systems and accompanying bias, their urge to cling to notions based on conspiracies and saviours, their commitment to patriotism, gender, race, particular politics and sciences, etc.

I am still trying to sort through the various and disconnected themes running through this thread, but I can answer this bit.

The concept of Utopia, if it were possible, would be so excruciatingly boring to the human psyche that we'd all have to be on some sort of drug to avoid depression. We humans need challenges and competition and yes, even enemies in order to satisfy our self worth. Strife is a necessary force in our lives. Complacency has its own set of problems.

Even the champions of peace have an enemy (warmongers, willful ignorance, etc.), although they may choose to fight in a different fashion.

The concept of "utopia" suggests that there is no social progress to be made. If we ever reach it, progress has stopped, and we are likely lying to ourselves. Strife and dissent in some form is necessary to growth, which appears to be a primary motivation of human endeavor. Our politics and social structure must always be partially in a state of flux in order to satisfy our need for progress. While we can certainly try to organize it so that no one dies in the change process, trying to eliminate change or the need for it is not advisable.

Yes, I'm aware that it's a side issue... but I'm not quit sure I understand what the main point is supposed to be. Some sort of pantheism, perhaps? An argument for hive consciousness in humans? I just don't get the point yet, and am probably speculating too much in an attempt to find one. Is there a point, or is this merely a lot of mysterious rambling in an attempt to sound intelligent?

 

[Navigator]

Earlier, you claimed that the subconscious could interact with the brain. In order for there to be interaction, you need two separate things.

This has to do with what is seen through observing the brain in relationship to Consciousness, and Subconsciousness.
The observations see something happening and determines that the brain is involved, which it is.
It also determines that Consciousness and Subconsciousness are involved, which they are.

The consensus is that the brain is really the only thing involved, which may or may not be the case.

Much of it has to do with how ‘what is seen’ is interpreted.

 

[Navigator]

The concept of Utopia, if it were possible, would be so excruciatingly boring to the human psyche that we'd all have to be on some sort of drug to avoid depression.

I think when it comes to drugs and boredom Manopolus, the present systems of the world are very into drugs to combat many things and in regards to boredom, recreational drugs are abundant, so I am not sure your argument is accurate.

We humans need challenges and competition and yes, even enemies in order to satisfy our self worth. Strife is a necessary force in our lives. Complacency has its own set of problems.

Perhaps the word ‘Utopia’ is not the best one to use.
It is related to a world which has sorted its crap out and gotten on the same page of realisation and combined their separate systems together, leaving behind the irrelevant.
In using the word I am not suggesting a state of complacency.
I am saying that human beings have the capacity to visualise together a better world and get about building that better world.
Certainly there is enough evidence that human beings are extremely capable of building.

Even the champions of peace have an enemy (warmongers, willful ignorance, etc.), although they may choose to fight in a different fashion.

This is true. They climb tall buildings and display signs of protest, and many others things. They do things that reflect a lack of complacency.
They are small in number and they tend to think that the majority of the world is being complacent within the distractions of consumerism.

The concept of "utopia" suggests that there is no social progress to be made. If we ever reach it, progress has stopped, and we are likely lying to ourselves. Strife and dissent in some form is necessary to growth, which appears to be a primary motivation of human endeavor. Our politics and social structure must always be partially in a state of flux in order to satisfy our need for progress. While we can certainly try to organize it so that no one dies in the change process, trying to eliminate change or the need for it is not advisable.

Great Apes!

So Utopia is not the word to use if the suggestion is that we get to a point where we cannot make social progress.

Still, all the fighting is about disagreement.

Which policies will best get us to where we want to go so that our species is no longer displaying signs of confusion, immaturity, complacency and compliancy to that complacency through consuming and pooping in the nest?

Not eliminating change but encouraging change in a direction which ensures species survival.

That is the connection and why I mentioned it in the OP.

It is also why I mentioned that there is an aspect of this Human reality which understands the need to not be complacent about the fact of Human Consciousness – that one thing which determines “Being” and “Purpose” – and the necessity of – above all else – not allowing that to be extinguished just because the majority seem to be out of touch with that line of thought, as appears in their behaviour.

That is why I said in the OP:

Sometimes this is not so obvious to the Individual – because their personal reality does not leave much - if any – room in which to observe the Big Picture, due to their own chosen belief systems and accompanying bias, their urge to cling to notions based on conspiracies and saviours, their commitment to patriotism, gender, race, particular politics and sciences, etc.​

And:

Consciousness and thus Subconsciousness rides upon the wave of Human life, and in this manner, survives Individual Human death.

One estimate suggests that there about 250,000 - 300,000 people die per day.

Another estimate suggests that there are approximately 370,000 babies born every day worldwide.

This is the truest way to understand what is occurring on this planet in relation to Human Beings and the ideas which flow through their individual lives as they congregate into groups/corporations according to their self identity/bias and how those ideas live on through the prowess of Subconsciousness in utilizing Human Consciousness.​

Throughout this thread I have mentioned in speculation that there are very powerful individuals and groups investing their lives in making sure Human Consciousness gets a chance to survive what could be described as mass Human ignorance and complacency.

They are not powerful enough to control 6-7 billions but they are powerful enough to make sure that the ripple effects of belief systems (religion, conspiracies saviours etc,) or of patriotism, gender, race, politics and sciences, etc will not affect their own *agenda.

As I said in the OP:

*Subconsciousness is able to work with and through the almost natural self suppression of Consciousness and still reach its great objective in relation to the Universe.​

Simply put, if the crap hits the fan and the majority of Humanity remain complacent and distracted then that is too bad but ‘the show must go on’ and the *Agenda is well protected from that very possible outcome of preceding events.

AKA Ripple Effects (((o)))

 

[Manopolus]

You seem to be suggesting that a collective consciousness and a collective subconsciousness exist in human beings. In appearance, I suppose a collective consciousness does appear to happen in a way through communication. However, there is no actual being which is conscious of the whole. I suppose it could be merely a way of looking at things, but as of yet I can't comprehend what purpose looking at things in this way can achieve. I suppose you might comfort yourself with thoughts of your own immortality in this way, but it appears to me to be a fairly weak and empty facsimile of immortality.

Call me selfish, but to me, the uniqueness and separateness of my own existence appears to be more meaningful than any implied connection to the whole of humanity. Yes, communication occurs and is important, but much of it is nothing but empty fluff. I cannot see myself as a part of this greater whole when such a large amount of mass communication appears to be a futile attempt to manipulate me in some way (such as to buy things or hold political opinions). I must remain distinctly separate and unaffected in order to separate the BS from the real in a society which functions in this way.

My description of a collective consciousness in modern society, if we must look at things in this way, would be a creature that is obsessed with acts of lying to and cheating itself to create a decidedly inappropriate allocation of resources. I do not find such a "being" as particularly meaningful nor benevolent in its most powerful internal communications. The more meaningful and appropriate bits of communication appear to be person-to-person and do not travel beyond a small group. These memories decay rather quickly on the larger scale, but may have a small and unknown impact on history.

I am not sure it is possible for us to function in a better way within the context of a larger society. We humans function better in terms of our benevolence in small tribal groups than we do in empires. In a national or world sort of context, stability depends mostly upon power structures and self interest.

Yes, I am a bit of a cynic.

 

[JaysonR]

Well the common vernacular is part of what we tend to get away from here at the JREF, alot of the discussion is about terminology.

Sure, but it's still a word that gets used...even in neuroscience lectures.
It's just that at the same time, neuroscientists and neurologists are rather forward with being clear that the phrase is a conceptual term and not a topographical reference.

Now I have to quibble here, it is alongside consciousness, as consciousness is often loosely defined. That is part of why I like the other terms like 'preconscious' (I am not aware of its Freudian baggage, but always open to learning).

Preconscious isn't really any better than subconscious, as neither are really used in publication that much.
Preconcious was mostly used by Freud and psychoanalysis.

Aside from that, even just based on the words themselves, I wouldn't consider them to be equal to each other as preconscious would be something before consciousness and implies consciousness will be coming in at some point, while subconscious can be considered regardless of consciousness as it is lateral to it and not conceptually linear to it like preconsciousness.

There are multiple areas of sensory integration and multiple channels of perception and processing. So for me the term 'below' is part of the problem. Along with the vague nature of the term consciousness.

There is no unitary entity called consciousness, as I think you state further down, there are multiple processes that are lumped together as consciousness.

Yep.
But that doesn't mean that everyone just stops referring to the concepts as best as we can since we can verify that there are associative information processes which run in the brain and are not information processes that are aware to the individual.
Equally, while we lack a finite means of pointing to consciousness topographically, and cannot even tell anyone what defines consciousness as distinct from non-consciousness in other living organisms, the term is still used as a conceptual reference to the idea of being awake and sentient.

Sometimes people mean "self-aware consciousness" when they say consciousness, but the two aren't equal; however, this is a tangent.

Well that is the rub in general, 'you can be aware of something' and yet not meet some of the standard definitions of 'conscious awareness' of it. Part of many areas of practice is learning to bring those things to 'conscious attention' such as small facial gestures, rates of breathing and conversational pauses and inflections. We may be 'conscious to another person's anxiety', and then need to learn why we think they are anxious for example

I don't think there's a solid definition for self-aware consciousness or consciousness yet.
There's some interesting proposals, but it mostly remains the holy grail of figuring out an empirical method of measuring consciousness.

On the other hand, we can measure awareness of something.
It's used in fMRI scans regularly as a means of determining when someone is overtly making a decision compared against when someone is having the decision geared up and routed to make a decision before they are aware of it, or aside from when they are aware of it.

And that is exactly the same problem with the term 'consciousness'.
...
And that is the problem I have it is too broad a term and so it is inherntly incoherent and lacking in definitive quality.
...
Which is why the term as commonly used is incoherent, 'consciousness' is a partly integrated series of parallel and associated and integrated processes.
I tend to prefer the functional medical definition for that reason, it focuses on the behaviors as opposed to abstracted and idiomatic terminology.

OK, but we can't really stop from using the term as we know the concept of the experience of being conscious exists, and we have to pursue searching for a material identification for it so we have to call it something.

I'm not even sure what neuroscience or neurology would do without the conceptual term of consciousness; nor am I sure what anesthesiology would do, as that's a rather big part of their work - determining when someone is or is not consciously sentient to the best of our ability.

Also, consciousness is a pretty important conceptual word for neuroscience.
It may not be extremely vital in all cases for neurology, but it is rather valued in neuroscience.

I am sorry but the whole brain CNS and PNS would be the DMN, and you forgot parasympathetic system.

...
Sorry the prefontal cortex and all would be part of the DMN, unless you have some functional criteria that will explain the definition to me.

What is your understanding of what DMN is exactly?
Your descriptions of its topography do not line up with any publication on the DMN that I am familiar with.

So what utility does the term have, why use it, would it not be better to use teh actual terms that defines the process subsumed under 'subconsciousness'.

When it is stated that something is subconscious, it is stating that it is something that doesn't occur in overt executive processes in the brain.
The utility of the word is that most people probably don't know every nook in the brain by name, but within the field the term is functional to describing concepts.

It's not a word that's used in identification of a region of the brain, anymore than consciousness, but it is a functional term in regards to brain states.

That said, most often the same concept is referred to as unconscious, rather than subconscious.
However, some have a problem with that within the field (and I somewhat side with this group a bit) as "unconscious" can be confusing if your paper is attempting to discuss wakeful states of a conscious brain and non-wakeful states of the same brain, and also wish to discuss the processes not aware to the individual during wakeful consciousness.

You end up referring to two rather different concepts as both "unconscious", rather than one as "unconscious" and the other as "subconscious".

The "under" concept isn't considered by anyone today that I'm aware of.
It just refers to the idea of things running in the brain for analytical processes which are not made readily aware to the executive processes of the same individual.

Most anything involved in unconsciousness, subconsciousness, and consciousness are using the same shared regions of the brain.
The primary difference is in the specific nature of the processes shared together simultaneously and which are taking the attention of the sentient awareness of the individual.

Not within your attention is "sub"; or under.
It doesn't mean it's topographically under or metaphorically inferior to something else.
It just means "not aware".

Yes and no, you can be living with OCD, be stuck in some sort of perseveration or ambivalence and quite unable to resolve it, the whole time being quite 'conscious' of it.
What you are describing sounds more like an ability to make attentive focus on certain factors, come to a decision of some sort and make a possible volitional response.

That's not really how it's proposed.
It's more about testing whether something lacks the articulated imagination to solve a problem by determining how to prioritize competing signals simultaneously.

In many animals, such an event will put them in an unresolved loop from which they won't stop until someone or something interferes.
The concept of OCD doesn't fit in with the measuring system as OCD isn't a species definition, but an abnormality, and even in the case of OCD humans, the humans still do resolve their conflicts; they are just less capable than other humans without the condition.

The proposition was offered as one means to attempt to start a grade for measuring whether various animals have consciousness states or not since, currently, we can't even measurably tell anyone whether they are or are not conscious outside of an empathetic extension that we know we are conscious so we assume those like us are equally conscious in the sense of self-awareness.

I think it's a pretty clever method for a starting point, and at least it's a bit better than the current standard, and contentious and problematic, mirror test.

 

[Navigator]

You seem to be suggesting that a collective consciousness and a collective subconsciousness exist in human beings. In appearance, I suppose a collective consciousness does appear to happen in a way through communication. However, there is no actual being which is conscious of the whole. I suppose it could be merely a way of looking at things, but as of yet I can't comprehend what purpose looking at things in this way can achieve. I suppose you might comfort yourself with thoughts of your own immortality in this way, but it appears to me to be a fairly weak and empty facsimile of immortality.

Call me selfish, but to me, the uniqueness and separateness of my own existence appears to be more meaningful than any implied connection to the whole of humanity. Yes, communication occurs and is important, but much of it is nothing but empty fluff. I cannot see myself as a part of this greater whole when such a large amount of mass communication appears to be a futile attempt to manipulate me in some way (such as to buy things or hold political opinions). I must remain distinctly separate and unaffected in order to separate the BS from the real in a society which functions in this way.

My description of a collective consciousness in modern society, if we must look at things in this way, would be a creature that is obsessed with acts of lying to and cheating itself to create a decidedly inappropriate allocation of resources. I do not find such a "being" as particularly meaningful nor benevolent in its most powerful internal communications. The more meaningful and appropriate bits of communication appear to be person-to-person and do not travel beyond a small group. These memories decay rather quickly on the larger scale, but may have a small and unknown impact on history.

I am not sure it is possible for us to function in a better way within the context of a larger society. We humans function better in terms of our benevolence in small tribal groups than we do in empires. In a national or world sort of context, stability depends mostly upon power structures and self interest.

Yes, I am a bit of a cynic.

Just to clarify Manopolus, I have said in this thread that I am not speaking about life after death but about this life here as it unfolds through the process of evolution.
I am not interested in personal immortality. I am interested in how human Consciousness survives by riding the wave of Human life and how this insures that Consciousness survives and prospers within the Universe which birthed it.
I recently watched a program on ancient history and the discovery and unearthing of one such ancient site in the Orkney Islands which is even older than Stonehenge and how the architecture reflected the beliefs of those who built it.
Orkney’s Stone Aged Temple
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b01971gm

Is there a continuation of individual conscious awareness after death?
It is simply unknown, and should be treated as such.

In ancient times this question was not so mysterious to Conscious awareness and there is evidence that people accepted the concept of existing after the death of their body as a given.

They may or may not have understood what the brain did, but it is likely due to its position in the body – near the receptacles of the senses which altogether have much to do with why Consciousness understands itself to being ‘Human’ that they would have worked out that the brain had something to do with the sense of self.

They went through a stage where the Subconscious worked with them through symbols and rituals and other forms of interaction and the assigned these things to ‘Spirits’ and ‘Gods’ and ‘all things to do with woo.’
They did this because they were in no position to understand the concept of the Subconsciousness and assigned a lot of internal data as coming from the external reality their senses were experiencing through their bodies and their brains.

It is not known if the brain was more attuned to the concept of interaction with loved ones since passed on, that the brain was more capable of seeing the invisible and thus they built their lifestyles around those realities, or that it was all symbolism and conjecture created to explain their individual and collective parts in something so vast and obviously ongoing, that the logical assumption had to be that even that their bodies died, they continued on.

What is known is that at some point this thinking took on a drastic transformation and quite suddenly hundreds of years of belief systems in afterlife were discarded for the certainty of death.

End of personal experience.

The architecture of their buildings reveals the changes in their thinking. Where the buildings were open ended and symbolically connected, these were abandoned in favour of a huge structure which had one entry into a small chamber.

This represented the individual human experience. A far cry from what had been believed for hundreds of years.

Was this because the inhabitants had worked out that all they were was a product of a small bundle of grey matter situated in their heads and that they had been kidding themselves all this time?

In regards to Collective Consciousness, Humanity and hive-mindedness, as per the OP my speculation is not that Human Consciousness operates this way at all, but that a very small percentage are concerned and involved with nurturing and protecting Consciousness irregardless of how those obsessed with acts of lying and cheating in order to get whatever small piece of the pie from the available resources.

Consciousness uses what is available, in relation to its agenda.

 

[barehl]

Human Consciousness is most influenced and therefore directed by Subconciousness and it is therefore motivated by this unseen thing which decides the direction Humanity will move in kind.

While Subconsciousness has a great influence upon Consciousness, the influence is not absolute because Consciousness effectively has the final say as far as the individual goes.

Suconsciousness is able to work with and through the almost natural self suppression of Consciousness and still reach its great objective in relation to the Universe.

There are preferred paths but Subconsciousness cannot or will not interfere with the personal identity and choice of the Individual Consciousness.

I assume that you cannot imagine how ridiculous this sounds to me. I already know what the subconscious and conscious minds are. Neither of these have anything to do with the Universe.