Consciousness and the Paranormal

[Soupie]

Yes, excellent!

I loved his description of the self-conscious as a child in a wagon being pulled behind the unconscious as a raging elephant when the shit hits the fan.

From the perspective of the evolutionary mythos, the unconscious formed over billions of years (starting with the first living organism) and the self-conscious is relatively new on the scene.

[I realize now one reason why my explanations of my ideas/thoughts have been so confusing to some as I was using "conscious" to mean "self-conscious." Oops. My apologies.]

There seem to be three camps - but probably more - when it comes to the unconscious and archetypes/instincts:

Rationalists - The unconscious "mind" is messy and fallible, ignore it completely and rely on the rational self-conscious intellect only.

Jungians - The unconscious "mind" evolved over billions of years: it knows what it's doing. Don't fuck with it. Rather respect it and listen to it. At the same time, recognize that God is indeed dead - which isn't a good thing per se - and what the unconscious "tells" us about reality ain't necessarily true (but that doesn't mean it's not good advice!).

Mystics - The unconscious and the knowledge it has isn't physical, material or wrong; God and the soul aren't dead at all, everyone else just has their "self-conscious" heads in the sand. There's more - way more - to reality than the "circle of life."

@smcder Hegel vs. Eliminative Materialism in Neuroscience | The Partially Examined Life Philosophy Podcast | A Philosophy Podcast and Blog

... There is a meaningful distinction to be made between consciousness and self-consciousness. By consciousness I refer to sense-perception and the understanding that natural organisms develop about their environment. By self-consciousness I refer to the normative concept of agency and responsibility that we have acquired through communicative practices, such as asking each other for and giving normative reasons for our actions and our beliefs. The strong claim here is that we only acquire this sense of our own agency by it being recognized. After we acquire this sense its origin tends to elude us because it is disguised in our having learning to adopt the position of another toward ourselves in thought (i.e., after one has learned to recognize and take oneself to be an agent).

Conclusion

Thus we may infer that current research programs in neuroscience and philosophy of mind and consciousness will not be able to answer the questions about human selfhood and agency that they claim they will be able to answer, since they are looking only at natural consciousness (i.e., sense-perception and environmental understanding) but not self-consciousness and how it originates outside the natural organism in normative relations between human beings. ...

I completely agree with this. For example, Tonini's ITT - while I still haven't finished reading it - doesn't seem to address self-consciousness.

However, that's not to say that I think self-consciousness has a non-material origin. From what I can gather, self-consciousness seems to be related to the frontal lobes and executive functioning.

 

[Soupie]

My point is that possibly it may be a matter of energy requirements wherein our physical expense of energy robs the mind of it's ability to fully potentiate conscious experience.

Hm, I'm not really sure what you're saying here or from what perspective you understand the nature of reality and mind.

However, I would say that some individuals - we call them geniuses - seem able to harness more of their brain/mind - we could say the unconscious mind - than others. A simple cognitive psychology perspective might be that the individual has a much greater working memory capacity - they can manipulate more "bits" of information in their conscious mind than others. So while these bits would remain in our unconscious, because a genius has a greater capacity, they have greater access - if you will - to their unconscious mind.

Some people also seem to live more fully in their unconscious mind than others. Jung would be a great example of this - but many (crazy) artists as well. Many people today have (tried to) tightly close and seal the door to the unconscious mind. We literally ignore and repress our instincts.

Now, because our society is so complex, specialized, and "civilized" these days, inhibiting these unconscious impulses is often a "good" thing, but it comes at a cost. But we even inhibit these urges when it's unnecessary: kids sit inside all day playing visual videos games that require the use of the self-conscious, rational mind. This is a problem because for billions of years organisms were outside, active, using all their senses, and relying on the unconscious mind to survive.

 

[smcder]

smcder,
It's almost a matter of philosophy. How can we know that we are not assembling knowledge to fit patterns that we ourselves create? For instance, when someone constructs a mathematical model in support of their views, how do we know that we are merely not describing a false principle via the logic and linearity of mathematics? Shouldn't such absolutes produce absolutely verifiable conclusions in demonstration?

I was reading yesterday about the subconscious and conscious states of mind and how one cannot know the other. How is it that people are instructed in hypnosis to retrieve factually verifiable information from their subconscious minds that they do not readily remember in a waking state? If it is true that each maintains it's own and distinctive set of cognitive undertakings, apart from one another, how can the hypnotized conscious mind be instructed to retrieve information across such a barrier?

My point is that possibly it may be a matter of energy requirements wherein our physical expense of energy robs the mind of it's ability to fully potentiate conscious experience.

re: horses of another color and your concerns about mathematical sophistry, this an old chestnut by George Polya - I was force fed Polya (and Lima beans - shudder ) growing up .,,

All horses are the same color - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



Sent from my Subconscious using Bahfahnics

 

[smcder]

@Soupie

re: child wagon elephant metaphor and relationship of the minds

The Archdruid Report: A Preparation for Philosophy

Platos metaphor is two unruly horses pulling a chariot

...

also

The Archdruid Report: Clarke's Fallacy


Sent from my Subconscious using Bahfahnics

 

[smcder]

@Soupie

the RJM classification scheme - there have to be more b/c I don't see your view? or is it a combination ... pick one from column A two from column B


Sent from my Subconscious using Bahfahnics

 

[Constance]

Yes, excellent!

I loved his [the Peterson lecture on Jung] description of the self-conscious as a child in a wagon being pulled behind the unconscious as a raging elephant when the shit hits the fan.

From the perspective of the evolutionary mythos, the unconscious formed over billions of years (starting with the first living organism) and the self-conscious is relatively new on the scene.

I haven't listened to the Peterson lecture yet (I much prefer reading papers to listening to lectures) but I will listen to this one tonight. Does Peterson use the phrase 'evolutionary mythos'? It seems strange to me because the evolution of species seems undeniable as a reality that we must take into account in attempting to understand the evolution of consciousness. And I want to add a reference to Maturana and Varela's work concerning the recognition of protoconsciousness even in the first single-celled organisms, continued in Thompson and Varela's book Mind in Nature and thereafter. I think we need this perspective on the 'self-other' sense characterized as protoconscious to avoid thinking that the unconscious mind is disjunct (an entirely separate region) from the conscious mind. Jungian depth psychology itself demonstrates that this is not the case. In my view, consciousness includes both regions and the regions have porous borders; information can move upward or downward between them. Nevertheless it's reasonable to say that most of what the unconscious and subconscious regions of consciousness contain as information and even thought interacts in liminal and subliminal awareness. You later refer to the discussion of Hegel and eliminative materialism, and I think we should pursue that page and the linked pages along the right side of the page. I hope others here are interested in doing so too.

[I realize now one reason why my explanations of my ideas/thoughts have been so confusing to some as I was using "conscious" to mean "self-conscious." Oops. My apologies.]

No need to apologize. That's an inevitable impression produced by the uncritical way in which the term 'conscious' is generally taken to mean 'awake', responsive to physical stimuli, whereas consciousness as we are looking at it here extends below, around, and even above the condition of waking consciousness (as demonstrated in dreams, deep meditation, mystical experiences, and capabilities demonstrated in remote viewing and mediumship). One of the greatest current challenges to reductive materialist accounts of consciousness is the demonstration by neuroscientists that deep meditation undertaken by skilled practitioners in laboratory settings effects (brings about) changes in the physical brain.

. . . Tonini's ITT - while I still haven't finished reading it - doesn't seem to address self-consciousness.

However, that's not to say that I think self-consciousness has a non-material origin. From what I can gather, self-consciousness seems to be related to the frontal lobes and executive functioning.

My impression is that Tononi's approach to consciousness is limited by his presupposition that it can ultimately be accounted for by purely physical exchanges of information (such as those that take place in the interaction of physical fields) and that the brain works on this 'information' just the way a highly developed computer would. What's not clear in Tononi's two papers is why he refers at times to phenomenology and phenomenological experience without addressing its phenomenological basis, which requires direct and felt contact with the environment, with others, and with the self. No doubt the reflective mind works upon and through our phenomenological experience in the local world. Indeed, it can't not, at least to some extent. But the comprehension of how minds experience subjective and intersubjective reality -- and on that basis propound a variety of philosophical theories, positions, and even systems hoping to account for consciousness, mind, and the nature of reality -- is the enormous task before us as a species.

 

[Constance]

The weird problem about talking about "emergent consciousness" is that you must make such a derivation from the very thing you attempting to derive.

I'd like to get a clearer sense of what you're saying there. Do you mean that, in attempting to understand itself, consciousness must work from within it's own conscious experiences as reflected upon? My sense of what you've written in this thread and in the essay at Gather, and the subsequent very interesting interchange at that page, is that this is not what you mean.

For you {addressed to boomerang} "emergence" is of a world unfolding within which you more and more learn how to interact and dwell in.

If I understand your meaning, your claim is that the 'world unfolding within' is one constructed of 'information' of the type Tononi thinks of -- a language the brain or advanced computer {IPS} receives and can interpret and integrate, providing a basis for thought -- and that this 'world within' does not coincide with the world we inhabit and experience phenomenologically. I might have completely misunderstood your meaning, so please clarify. Thanks.

 

[smcder]

@Constance - I don't think Evolutionary Mythos is Peterson's. Peterson leaves some tantalizing glimpses at a deeper world view than he gives in his lectures - I've posted other lectures where he reveals a bit more and maybe in his books?

the lectures are well worth the listen - I plan to finish the whole series, that was #6. he is very passionate to convey wisdom to his students.

@Soupie - what is the Evolutionary Mythos? I think you've used the term before. Does it have teleology? I'm still trying to find the link to the project to generate inspiring new myths based on science - Cosmic Dramas may be the term.

 

[Soupie]

@smcder

The RJM classification scheme - there have to be more b/c I don't see your view? or is it a combination ... pick one from column A two from column B

Well, I would classify myself as a card carrying agnostic: I am open to anything and don't know anything. However, I clearly have my own intuitions and beliefs about what-is and how best we can know what-is.

But at the end of the day, I don't know. I am seeking.

Of the three I listed, I would say my views line up best with what I called the "Jungians."

@smcder

What is the Evolutionary Mythos? I think you've used the term before. Does it have teleology? I'm still trying to find the link to the project to generate inspiring new myths based on science - Cosmic Dramas may be the term.

I use that term simply to indicate that, while I agree that humans and all other organisms have evolved over a long, deep period of time - we really don't know all the details. Did the first cells come from another planet? Were the first cells or a few simple organisms created by intelligent entities? Was the evolution of certain organisms augmented by intelligent entities? Is the history of life billions of years old or is it actually much younger, say millions of years? Are humans actually much older than we know? Etc.

As I say, I do believe humans and other organisms have a common ancestor and terrestrial life has been evolving for a very long time, but I remain open to other possibilities and variables.

It's definitely my term, but I actually first encountered the concept years ago in the book "The Two Million-Year-Old Self." It's about how Jung's ideas of the archetype interface with evolution.

@Constance I'm curious how your views on evolution interface with your views of a non-material mind.

 

[Soupie]

@smcder Peterson leaves some tantalizing glimpses at a deeper world view than he gives in his lectures

Where can I read about it!

 

[smcder]

Timely to the discussion on Free Will and Galen Strawson:

Precognition of Ep. 93: Free Will (via Strawsons) | The Partially Examined Life Philosophy Podcast | A Philosophy Podcast and Blog

Guest Tamler Sommers (from the Very Bad Wizards podcast) summarizes Galen Strawson’s “The Impossibility of Moral Responsibility” (1994) and his father P.F. Strawson’s “Freedom and Resentment” (1960).

 

[smcder]

Where can I read about it!

The impression comes to me from listening to these lectures repeatedly:

Jordan Peterson on Redemption and Psychology in Christianity | Big Ideas

Jordan Peterson on Reality and the Sacred | Big Ideas

... next time I listen I'll try to remember and give you a time-stamp, also in the Personality lectures on YouTube he makes a couple of asides -

 

[smcder]

""

 

[smcder]

Well to start with the last question first, I probably made the last statement more "ethical" sounding than I wouldn't liked--the tone almost sounds condescending now that I re-read my own writing. What I meant to say (and this will probably help to answer another question in this thread on the same notion) was that our own ability to be ignorant (in the most clinical sense--not meant to be an insult against our species) is somehow essential for our own consciousness to be what it is. I think sometime afterward I noticed some posting observations regarding an apparent pre-cognitive "cognition" involved in our anticipatory response to future stimuli (to be blunt). So some may have already discussed the roots of this phenomenon.

Which gets me to the "theoretical omniscience" point: this is merely a device I used to contrast extreme limits of consciousness. I should have said something like the ability to be fully aware of every single aspect of reality in the universe of total existence. I wrote something on this in a gather post which may either further confuse or help you understand where I was going with this line of thought.

Grounds for Awareness and Consciousness | Gather

An excerpt


In essence, the act of thinking requires an environment of novelty to spring sudden knowledge from a state of ignorance.

And yes, I am in great debt to Alan Watts, who's lucid examples on the ideas of a consciousness as "the head of a pin attempting to stick itself" gave me the necessary tools to at least unravel the "mystery" of consciousness.

Michael Allen:
"We have to keep continually reminding ourselves that the whole "mental/physical" division of reality is a set of labels we apply to the world to distinguish our own awareness of ourselves from our awareness of other things that are not ourselves. But this border is seemingly enforced by something we cannot control -- for instance, breathing: is it voluntary or involuntary? When its involuntary, is it a happening or are you doing it? Other divisive terms like "conscious" and "unconscious" accomplish the same feat of confusion. We seem to think that we know what we're talking about when we talk about "mind," "consciousness" or "awareness," when the reality is that regardless of the label, all of these formations of reality are seemingly dependent on something we can never be mentally connected to. There's an interesting inverse relationship between two polarized states of existence:

(1) Complete theoretical omniscience destroying consciousness
(2) Complete omniscience and awareness in a limited finite domain requires a domain of not knowing.
I've probably stated this in other ways in earlier posts and discussion. The very fact that we can live in a world and be comfortable with "knowing" and "doing" things and yet stand outside this framework as if it were utterly incomprehensible and alien means that some how, in some manner, our existence somehow thrives on mystery. Weird that it may be, mystery, incomprehensibility, and confusion may lie as the fundamental bedrock for all sensual experience. The wavering line between breathing as voluntary and as involuntary is a division forced on us.

Conscious experience wouldn't exist without the curious human ability to think we know what we are talking about without actually knowing anything at all.
-----
smcder
OK, here's my re-write/summation to see if I understand:

We apply various labels like "mental" and "physical" to the world in order to distinguish our selves, our self-awareness from the awareness of not-self. But the border between self and not-self (is variable) and seems to be enforced by something we can't control.

Example: breathing

Is breathing voluntary or involuntary? When it is involuntary, is it something that happens or are you doing it?

"conscious" and "unconscious" are other confusing labels. We seem to know what we're talking about when we say "mind" "consciousness" or "awareness". (because we take for granted we know what these labels mean?) But regardless of the label, these are really formations of reality that are dependent on something we can never be mentally connected to.

??(what does it mean to be "mentally connected" to something? To have a direct understanding of it? An experience of it?)

There is an inverse relationship between two polarized states of existence

??(doesn't "polarized states" indicate a relationship . . . ? So the states are polarized and stand in an inverse relationship?)

(1) Complete theoretical omniscience destroying consciousness
(2) Complete omniscience and awareness in a limited finite domain requires a domain of not knowing.

I'll try to have a look at the link you posted - but the relationship between 1 and 2 above isn't clear to me . . . but you seem to be saying something similar to Alan Watts idea (a Hindu idea I think?) about God/omniscience being split into "I"s in order to become self-aware?Otherwise there is an undifferentiated kind of consciousness or sentience?

I've probably stated this in other ways in earlier posts and discussion. The very fact that we can live in a world and be comfortable with "knowing" and "doing" things and yet stand outside this framework as if it were utterly incomprehensible and alien means that some how, in some manner, our existence somehow thrives on mystery. Weird that it may be, mystery, incomprehensibility, and confusion may lie as the fundamental bedrock for all sensual experience. The wavering line between breathing as voluntary and as involuntary is a division forced on us.

Conscious experience wouldn't exist without the curious human ability to think we know what we are talking about without actually knowing anything at all.

-----

 

[Jeff Davis]

1) Hm, I'm not really sure what you're saying here or from what perspective you understand the nature of reality and mind.

2) However, I would say that some individuals - we call them geniuses - seem able to harness more of their brain/mind - we could say the unconscious mind - than others. A simple cognitive psychology perspective might be that the individual has a much greater working memory capacity - they can manipulate more "bits" of information in their conscious mind than others. So while these bits would remain in our unconscious, because a genius has a greater capacity, they have greater access - if you will - to their unconscious mind.

Some people also seem to live more fully in their unconscious mind than others. Jung would be a great example of this - but many (crazy) artists as well. Many people today have (tried to) tightly close and seal the door to the unconscious mind. We literally ignore and repress our instincts.

Now, because our society is so complex, specialized, and "civilized" these days, inhibiting these unconscious impulses is often a "good" thing, but it comes at a cost. But we even inhibit these urges when it's unnecessary: kids sit inside all day playing visual videos games that require the use of the self-conscious, rational mind. This is a problem because for billions of years organisms were outside, active, using all their senses, and relying on the unconscious mind to survive.

Hi Soupie,
Thanks for responding. 1) My post reflected a quickly developed curiosity, based on the matter of the conscious/subconscious relationship. Steve is good at throwing out relative "food for thought" so I knew I could aquire a little perspective just basically rambling my askew curiosities spontaneously as they are somewhat consciousness relevant. So incidentally I am learning of inductive horses of more than one color. @Constance's reply was also very helpful. I am looking into and learning about the fascinating developments of the SPR as a result.

2) I'm just an imaginative, intuitive, and above all, speculative thinker at heart. I analysis and explore everything that I possibly can with respect for what I develop a sincere interest in. I have been interested in consciousness since I was about 6 years old due to a puzzling sensation that was routinely accompanying by what I call cognitive emergence. This CE consisted of relatively identical and pronounced thoughts that I would get associatively with this sensation. I would be in the act of playing as children do, or caught up in some other activity that I was invested in at the time, when all of sudden out of the blue I would get this feeling, this sensation of profound gratitude accompanied by the realization, "I'm really here, I made it" as if I had arrived at sentience's very front door or something. Strange, but in those moments as I was caught up in bewilderment I knew within myself that there existed a completed oneness of me, almost as if two became one. In reflection I see the "me" as a sentient signature within consciousness resulting in an awakening ID due to my budding cognitive abilities recognizing as much. I was experiencing a completed circuit of signified consciousness. I believe that this signature is actually acquired at physical birth when child is separated from mother.

Now what I am about to share with you is just personal speculative conjecture like most of what I have already shared, so I would ask you to bear with me, in an entertained sense. Certainly not in the sense that I think I am right and anyone who does not agree with me is wrong. By nature I am an extremely expressive personality. Type A to the max. So subsequently, I tend to come off sounding a little too convicted, and indeed convinced to the point of utter delusion at times.

These are my feelings on what you have written up top. In my estimation real revolutionary prodigious genius, like the attribute of synesthesia, savant prodigies, etc, is a mutation process in the brain's synaptic formation in most cases. Mostly unique wiring upstairs. The results are that one or more cognitively responsible areas of the brain are typically far and away more so active than what is typically the case. Likewise, for all the excessive areas of activity that produce excelled and productive activities that are found, there are found to be deficiencies in oft time cases that are profoundly more debilitating than what their upward mental strides will in offsetting fashion allow for. In almost all genius, there is inherent weakness just as great as is their gifted aspects. Often times geniuses would die very quickly if left to fend for themselves.


Your last paragraph is too heavy/deep for me to touch right now. I completely agree with what you are stating however. Technology has become an environmental pollutant and I am not talking about my buddy Walle here either. Despite him being the cute and cool little guy he is.

 

[Michael Allen]

I'd like to get a clearer sense of what you're saying there. Do you mean that, in attempting to understand itself, consciousness must work from within it's own conscious experiences as reflected upon? My sense of what you've written in this thread and in the essay at Gather, and the subsequent very interesting interchange at that page, is that this is not what you mean.



If I understand your meaning, your claim is that the 'world unfolding within' is one constructed of 'information' of the type Tononi thinks of -- a language the brain or advanced computer {IPS} receives and can interpret and integrate, providing a basis for thought -- and that this 'world within' does not coincide with the world we inhabit and experience phenomenologically. I might have completely misunderstood your meaning, so please clarify. Thanks.

Think about what it would mean to formulate a definition of the very thing (formal indication) which allows you to find definitions and structures and to overlay that with a relayed message to yourself explaining how you articulate reality to yourself and others. "Reflection" in this context is a too passive metaphor for what is actually happening. When you dwell in a world, you aren't working with a world inside yourself...but are active involved in changing the structures and relations of the very world that others dwell. Your idea of consciousness, of being, of thought wouldn't exist without these "externals." In that sense there is no external or internal "world"--since your own being is part of the very existence you wish to apprehend. If by "living" you work out the relations of yourself to tools, practices and the tools and practices of others, you simultaneously work out what it means to be yourself. This meaning is not an entity abstracted from a not-you--it is the very condition of the possibility of your own awareness.

 

[Michael Allen]

Michael Allen:
"We have to keep continually reminding ourselves that the whole "mental/physical" division of reality is a set of labels we apply to the world to distinguish our own awareness of ourselves from our awareness of other things that are not ourselves. But this border is seemingly enforced by something we cannot control -- for instance, breathing: is it voluntary or involuntary? When its involuntary, is it a happening or are you doing it? Other divisive terms like "conscious" and "unconscious" accomplish the same feat of confusion. We seem to think that we know what we're talking about when we talk about "mind," "consciousness" or "awareness," when the reality is that regardless of the label, all of these formations of reality are seemingly dependent on something we can never be mentally connected to. There's an interesting inverse relationship between two polarized states of existence:

(1) Complete theoretical omniscience destroying consciousness
(2) Complete omniscience and awareness in a limited finite domain requires a domain of not knowing.
I've probably stated this in other ways in earlier posts and discussion. The very fact that we can live in a world and be comfortable with "knowing" and "doing" things and yet stand outside this framework as if it were utterly incomprehensible and alien means that some how, in some manner, our existence somehow thrives on mystery. Weird that it may be, mystery, incomprehensibility, and confusion may lie as the fundamental bedrock for all sensual experience. The wavering line between breathing as voluntary and as involuntary is a division forced on us.

Conscious experience wouldn't exist without the curious human ability to think we know what we are talking about without actually knowing anything at all.
-----
smcder
OK, here's my re-write/summation to see if I understand:

We apply various labels like "mental" and "physical" to the world in order to distinguish our selves, our self-awareness from the awareness of not-self. But the border between self and not-self (is variable) and seems to be enforced by something we can't control.

Example: breathing

Is breathing voluntary or involuntary? When it is involuntary, is it something that happens or are you doing it?

"conscious" and "unconscious" are other confusing labels. We seem to know what we're talking about when we say "mind" "consciousness" or "awareness". (because we take for granted we know what these labels mean?) But regardless of the label, these are really formations of reality that are dependent on something we can never be mentally connected to.

??(what does it mean to be "mentally connected" to something? To have a direct understanding of it? An experience of it?)

What I meant was apprehension -- again as I stated to Constance, this apprehension is assumed as the basis for the question (of how we apprehend). I've proposed the axiom that we cannot understand the basis of our own understanding--and to completely understand the basis of our being is to be an inanimate rock--strange as it is. To be mentally connected to something is to stand yourself as a relation to yourself relating something else which is also a part of your SELF...

There is an inverse relationship between two polarized states of existence

??(doesn't "polarized states" indicate a relationship . . . ? So the states are polarized and stand in an inverse relationship?)

I think so--the more we comprehend the basis of our own being, the more it merges into the world -- like a rain drop dissolving in an ocean (another Zen metaphor) we are no longer just ourselves in relation to something we do not yet understand--the foundation of consciousness.


(1) Complete theoretical omniscience destroying consciousness
(2) Complete omniscience and awareness in a limited finite domain requires a domain of not knowing.

I'll try to have a look at the link you posted - but the relationship between 1 and 2 above isn't clear to me . . . but you seem to be saying something similar to Alan Watts idea (a Hindu idea I think?) about God/omniscience being split into "I"s in order to become self-aware?Otherwise there is an undifferentiated kind of consciousness or sentience?

Yes I agree...but as Watts would say, "yes but I wish we didn't have to say it..." we seem to lose everything once we've figured everything out.

I've probably stated this in other ways in earlier posts and discussion. The very fact that we can live in a world and be comfortable with "knowing" and "doing" things and yet stand outside this framework as if it were utterly incomprehensible and alien means that some how, in some manner, our existence somehow thrives on mystery. Weird that it may be, mystery, incomprehensibility, and confusion may lie as the fundamental bedrock for all sensual experience. The wavering line between breathing as voluntary and as involuntary is a division forced on us.

Conscious experience wouldn't exist without the curious human ability to think we know what we are talking about without actually knowing anything at all.

Its probably all just a big game.

-----

 

[smcder]

@Michael Allen

What I meant was apprehension -- again as I stated to Constance, this apprehension is assumed as the basis for the question (of how we apprehend). I've proposed the axiom that we cannot understand the basis of our own understanding--and to completely understand the basis of our being is to be an inanimate rock--strange as it is. To be mentally connected to something is to stand yourself as a relation to yourself relating something else which is also a part of your SELF...

As Heidegger might say . . . "doch, doch" . . .

 

[Michael Allen]

@Michael Allen

What I meant was apprehension -- again as I stated to Constance, this apprehension is assumed as the basis for the question (of how we apprehend). I've proposed the axiom that we cannot understand the basis of our own understanding--and to completely understand the basis of our being is to be an inanimate rock--strange as it is. To be mentally connected to something is to stand yourself as a relation to yourself relating something else which is also a part of your SELF...

As Heidegger might say . . . "doch, doch" . . .

It's painfully obvious I lost my meaning in the mechanics of verbalization. Dissected frogs can't tell jokes very well...or...er...we cannot apprehend or grasp our ability to grasp reality through vivisection.

 

[smcder]

Hi Soupie,
Thanks for responding. 1) My post reflected a quickly developed curiosity, based on the matter of the conscious/subconscious relationship. Steve is good at throwing out relative "food for thought" so I knew I could aquire a little perspective just basically rambling my askew curiosities spontaneously as they are somewhat consciousness relevant. So incidentally I am learning of inductive horses of more than one color. @Constance's reply was also very helpful. I am looking into and learning about the fascinating developments of the SPR as a result.

2) I'm just an imaginative, intuitive, and above all, speculative thinker at heart. I analysis and explore everything that I possibly can with respect for what I develop a sincere interest in. I have been interested in consciousness since I was about 6 years old due to a puzzling sensation that was routinely accompanying by what I call cognitive emergence. This CE consisted of relatively identical and pronounced thoughts that I would get associatively with this sensation. I would be in the act of playing as children do, or caught up in some other activity that I was invested in at the time, when all of sudden out of the blue I would get this feeling, this sensation of profound gratitude accompanied by the realization, "I'm really here, I made it" as if I had arrived at sentience's very front door or something. Strange, but in those moments as I was caught up in bewilderment I knew within myself that there existed a completed oneness of me, almost as if two became one. In reflection I see the "me" as a sentient signature within consciousness resulting in an awakening ID due to my budding cognitive abilities recognizing as much. I was experiencing a completed circuit of signified consciousness. I believe that this signature is actually acquired at physical birth when child is separated from mother.

Now what I am about to share with you is just personal speculative conjecture like most of what I have already shared, so I would ask you to bear with me, in an entertained sense. Certainly not in the sense that I think I am right and anyone who does not agree with me is wrong. By nature I am an extremely expressive personality. Type A to the max. So subsequently, I tend to come off sounding a little too convicted, and indeed convinced to the point of utter delusion at times.

These are my feelings on what you have written up top. In my estimation real revolutionary prodigious genius, like the attribute of synesthesia, savant prodigies, etc, is a mutation process in the brain's synaptic formation in most cases. Mostly unique wiring upstairs. The results are that one or more cognitively responsible areas of the brain are typically far and away more so active than what is typically the case. Likewise, for all the excessive areas of activity that produce excelled and productive activities that are found, there are found to be deficiencies in oft time cases that are profoundly more debilitating than what their upward mental strides will in offsetting fashion allow for. In almost all genius, there is inherent weakness just as great as is their gifted aspects. Often times geniuses would die very quickly if left to fend for themselves.


Your last paragraph is too heavy/deep for me to touch right now. I completely agree with what you are stating however. Technology has become an environmental pollutant and I am not talking about my buddy Walle here either. Despite him being the cute and cool little guy he is.

I have been interested in consciousness since I was about 6 years old due to a puzzling sensation that was routinely accompanying by what I call cognitive emergence. This CE consisted of relatively identical and pronounced thoughts that I would get associatively with this sensation. I would be in the act of playing as children do, or caught up in some other activity that I was invested in at the time, when all of sudden out of the blue I would get this feeling, this sensation of profound gratitude accompanied by the realization, "I'm really here, I made it" as if I had arrived at sentience's very front door or something.

- this is fascinating Jeff - especially the feelings of gratitude and arrival . . . is there any more you can say about the experience? Do you still have this or other experiences?

Strange, but in those moments as I was caught up in bewilderment I knew within myself that there existed a completed oneness of me, almost as if two became one. In reflection I see the "me" as a sentient signature within consciousness resulting in an awakening ID due to my budding cognitive abilities recognizing as much. I was experiencing a completed circuit of signified consciousness. I believe that this signature is actually acquired at physical birth when child is separated from mother.

By "awakening ID" I assume that is short for identification? And I'd like to hear more about the signature acquired at physical birth if you care to expand on this idea?